|
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.
Reinstatement granted.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report
filed by Referee David A. Piehler
recommending that the court reinstate the
license of Beth M. Bant to practice law in
Wisconsin. No appeal has been filed from
the
referee's report and recommendation.
Accordingly, our review proceeds pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.33(3). Upon
careful review of the matter, we adopt the
referee's findings and conclusions and agree
that Attorney Bant's petition for
reinstatement should be granted. We also
agree with the referee that the costs of the
reinstatement proceeding, which are
$4,149.29
as of November 24, 2020, should be paid by
Attorney Bant.
¶2 Attorney Bant was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin in 2013. Her
license to practice law in Wisconsin was
suspended for six months, effective January
29, 2020, as a result of two counts of
misconduct arising out of her work as an in-
house lawyer for a Wisconsin insurance
company. Attorney Bant made false
statements
and submitted falsified documents to her
employer to obtain reimbursement for
expenses
she allegedly incurred in attending a
conference that in fact she did not attend.
She provided falsified documents to her
employer when questioned about the request
for expense reimbursements. See In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bant,
2019
WI 107, 389 Wis. 2d 446, 936 N.W.2d 152.
¶3 Attorney Bant filed a petition
seeking the reinstatement of her Wisconsin
law license on June 16, 2020. She filed an
affidavit in support of her petition. The
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a
response on August 20, 2020 stating that its
investigation did not reveal facts that
would
demonstrate Attorney Bant could not meet her
burden of proof for reinstatement.
¶4 A hearing was held before the
referee
on October 6, 2020, in Phillips, Wisconsin.
The only witness at the hearing was Attorney
Bant.
¶5 On November 3, 2020, the referee
issued a report concluding that Attorney
Bant
had satisfied her burden of proof and had
met
the requirements for reinstatement set forth
in SCR 22.31.
¶6 The referee found that Attorney Bant
fully complied with the terms of the order
of
suspension; she has paid the costs of the
prior proceeding; and she has made
restitution of the payments she fraudulent
obtained. The referee notes that during her
suspension, Attorney Bant has done volunteer
work with 4-H and at community-based
residential facilities (CBRF). She has sewn
COVID masks for a CBRF. She was hired to
work on the U.S. census.
¶7 The referee said Attorney Bant
credibly testified at the hearing about the
impact that her suspension and related
proceedings have had on her life and her
resolve not to repeat that. Attorney Bant
stated she underwent a six-month period of
introspection after being fired from her job
during which she examined her career choice.
She ultimately decided to pursue the
practice
of law in a small town, providing needed
legal services to a rural area, which areas
are traditionally underserved. Attorney
Bant
testified at the hearing that her suspension
and its surrounding circumstances have given
her a deeper understanding of the Attorney's
Oath and the standards imposed on members of
the bar, and she has committed to holding
herself to a high standard of practice.
¶8 The referee noted that Attorney Bant
provided written recommendations from eight
individuals who recommend her reinstatement
and who opined that her return to the
practice of law will be beneficial to her
clients and the community. Attorney Bant
indicated that she plans to manage her
practice to avoid pressures that might lead
to ethical lapses by not practicing in a
corporate environment, by carefully
screening
clients, and by declining to represent
clients who would ask her to act in an
unethical fashion. She has undergone
training in managing her trust account, and
has had her staff take such training also.
She reconciles her trust account more
frequently than required by the supreme
court
rules. Her practice includes rendering
detailed closing statements for real estate
transactions to show how funds pass through
her trust account. She limits handling of
funds for elderly clients involved in
Medicaid planning, instead having her
clients
handle transactions themselves. Attorney
Dale Onchuck will be available to Attorney
Bant as a resource if she is allowed to
resume the practice of law.
¶9 The referee found that Attorney
Bant's behavior during the period of her
suspension has been exemplary. He found
that
Attorney Bant has met her burden to show
that
she is of good moral character. The referee
went on to say:
The remaining questions, remedying the
causes
of the misbehavior, protecting the
administration of justice and the public
interest, and the ability of the Petitioner
to be safely recommended to the legal
profession, the courts and the public as fit
to be consulted by and to represent others
in
matters of trust and confidence, and to aid
in the administration of justice, are
interrelated. I don't believe we will ever
be able to understand or explain the
misbehavior that led to the court's
discipline. It was not rational,
particularly
considering the significant financial and
emotional cost for Ms. Bant compared to the
amount involved in the misconduct. While
the
cost to Ms. Bant was only learned after the
fact, she testified credibly that the
process
of discipline and her suspension have
impressed upon her the need to scrupulously
adhere to the rules of professional
responsibility. Ms. Bant became visibly
emotional twice during the hearing while
describing the effect the discipline has had
on her and her family. I find those displays
of emotion were genuine, and demonstrate
remorse, . . .. She also credibly testified
about her commitment to avoid further
misconduct. She testified that she would
hold herself to a high standard in the
future. . . .
Ms. Bant wishes to resume her practice of
law
in Phillips, involving in large measure
dealing with the elderly, a vulnerable
population. She also plans to handle real
estate transactions, which involve handling
large sums of money.
¶10 The referee noted that Attorney Bant
has indicated that Attorney Onchuck will be
available to consult with her. The referee
said that Attorney Onchuck has had an
opportunity to observe how Attorney Bant
interacts with clients after her misconduct
but prior to her suspension, and the referee
found Attorney Onchuck's comments helpful
and
persuasive. The referee noted that the
State
Bar of Wisconsin has publicized the need for
attorneys in rural areas, and transactional
and elder law attorneys are said to be a
particular need. The referee concluded,
With her added ethical education
through her
numerous [continuing legal education]
credits, with her stated commitment to
adhere
to the highest standards of practice, and
with the safeguards and policies she plans
to
institute should her license to practice law
be reinstated, I believe Ms. Bant can safely
be recommended to the courts and the public
as fit to practice law as she intends.
|
|
¶11 When we review a referee's report and
recommendation, we will adopt the referee's
findings of fact unless they are clearly
erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de
novo. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14,
¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.
|
|
¶12 Supreme Court Rule 22.29(4) provides
that a petition for reinstatement must show
all the following:
(a) The petitioner desires to have the
petitioner's license reinstated.
(b) The petitioner has not practiced
law
during the period of suspension or
revocation.
(c) The petitioner has complied fully
with
the terms of the order of suspension or
revocation and will continue to comply with
them until the petitioner's license is
reinstated.
(d) The petitioner has maintained
competence
and learning in the law by attendance at
identified educational activities.
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the
suspension or revocation has been exemplary
and above reproach.
(f) The petitioner has a proper
understanding
of and attitude toward the standards that are
imposed upon members of the bar and will act
in conformity with the standards.
(g) The petitioner can safely be
recommended
to the legal profession, the courts and the
public as a person fit to be consulted by
others and to represent them and otherwise
act in matters of trust and confidence and in
general to aid in the administration of
justice as a member of the bar and as an
officer of the courts.
(h) The petitioner has fully complied
with
the requirements set forth in SCR 22.26.
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of
the
license if reinstated.
(k) A full description of all of the
petitioner's business activities during the
period of suspension or revocation.
¶13 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1)(c)
provides that an attorney seeking
reinstatement has the burden of demonstrating
all of the above requirements by clear,
satisfactory, and convincing evidence.
Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) also provides
that an attorney seeking reinstatement must
show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing
evidence that he or she has the moral
character to practice law; that his or her
resumption of the practice of law will not be
detrimental to the administration of justice
or subversive to the public interest; and
that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26
and the terms of the underlying disciplinary
order. See SCR 22.31(1)(a), (b), and
(d).
¶14 Upon review of the record, we agree
that Attorney Bant has established by clear,
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that
she has satisfied all the criteria necessary
for reinstatement. Accordingly, we adopt the
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of
law and we accept the referee's
recommendation to reinstate Attorney Bant's
license to practice law in Wisconsin. As is
our usual custom, we also find it appropriate
to assess the full costs of the proceeding,
which are $4,149.29 against Attorney Bant.
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Beth M. Bant to practice law in Wisconsin is
reinstated, effective the date of this order.
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order, Beth M. Bant
shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation
the costs of this proceeding, which are
$4,149.29 as of November 24, 2020.
|