|
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.
Reinstatement granted.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report
and recommendation of Referee John B. Murphy
recommending that William J. Spangler's
license to practice law in Wisconsin be
reinstated. After careful review of the
matter, we agree that Attorney Spangler's
license should be reinstated. Consistent
with our general practice, we also find that
Attorney Spangler should be required to pay
the full costs of this reinstatement
proceeding, which are $3,973.88 as of October
27, 2020.
¶2 Attorney Spangler was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin in 2003 and
practiced in Eau Claire. In 2016, Attorney
Spangler's Wisconsin law license was
suspended for a period of six months,
effective August 12, 2016. As we noted in
the opinion suspending Attorney Spangler's
license,
[H]e engaged in an elaborate web of
deception that included creating false
documents and meticulously adding fake file
stamps and other notations to make them
appear to be genuine. He managed to
perpetuate his ruses for years, leading his
clients to believe that they had live
lawsuits pending when, in fact, Attorney
Spangler had voluntarily dismissed [one] suit
and never filed [a second] action.
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Spangler, 2016 WI 61, ¶35, 370 Wis.
2d 369, 881 N.W.2d 35.
¶3 Attorney Spangler filed a petition
for reinstatement of his Wisconsin law
license on April 19, 2019. A hearing on the
reinstatement petition was held, via Zoom, on
July 28, 2020. The referee issued his report
and recommendation on October 8, 2020.
¶4 In his report, the referee noted that
as part of his testimony at the July 28, 2020
hearing, Attorney Spangler stated that he had
become personally mentally involved in the
two cases that formed the basis for the
disciplinary proceeding and that he "felt bad
for his clients." Attorney Spangler said, "I
felt like I needed to personally demonstrate
that I could help them while at the same time
I kept telling myself that I couldn't."
¶5 The referee noted that since his
suspension, Attorney Spangler has been very
involved in community activities including
volunteer service at his church and with a
local boy scout organization. The referee
noted that various letters of reference
submitted by Attorney Spangler speak
positively as to his character since his
suspension. The referee noted Attorney
Spangler states that, "I've made significant
changes to the way I live my life . . . I
believe that I am now at a point in my life
where I can, again, honestly, truthfully,
trustworthily represent myself, the
profession, my family in a completely ethical
and responsibly way." Attorney Spangler
stated that if he should ever be in a
position where he could not handle a legal
matter he would seek help from other
attorneys or refer matters to other counsel.
¶6 The referee recommends that this
court grant Attorney Spangler's reinstatement
petition. The referee said he did not
believe that Attorney Spangler's
reinstatement would be detrimental to the
administration of justice nor would it
subvert the public interest. The referee
commented that Eau Claire is a relatively
small community; many people are probably
aware of Attorney Spangler's situation; and
since Attorney Spangler seems intent on
remaining in the Eau Claire community, his
motivation to never again violate the ethical
rules will be exceedingly strong.
¶7 Neither party has appealed from the
referee's recommendation, so this court
considers this matter pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule (SCR) 22.33(3).
|
|
¶8 In our review, we accept a referee's
findings of fact unless they are clearly
erroneous. We review a referee's legal
conclusions, including whether the attorney
has satisfied the criteria for reinstatement,
on a de novo basis. See In re
Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Jennings, 2011 WI 45,
¶39,
334 Wis. 2d 335, 801 N.W.2d 304; In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gral, 2010
WI
14, ¶22, 323 Wis. 2d 280, 779 N.W.2d 168.
|
|
¶9 Supreme Court Rule 22.29(4) provides
that a petition for reinstatement must show
all of 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.
¶10 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).
¶11 This court agrees with the referee
that Attorney Spangler has met his burden of
proof with respect to all of the elements
needed to justify his reinstatement. As is
our usual practice, we also find it
appropriate it to impose the full costs of
this disciplinary proceeding upon Attorney
Spangler.
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
William J. Spangler to practice law in
Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date
of this order.
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order, William J.
Spangler shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding,
which are $3,973.88 as of October 27, 2020.
|