Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Tiffany T. Luther , 378 Wis. 2d 330 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                          
    2017 WI 98
    SUPREME COURT             OF   WISCONSIN
    CASE NO.:               2015AP1285
    COMPLETE TITLE:         In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
    Against Tiffany T. Luther, Attorney at Law:
    Office of Lawyer Regulation,
    Complainant,
    v.
    Tiffany T. Luther,
    Respondent.
    DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LUTHER
    OPINION FILED:          November 28, 2017
    SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
    ORAL ARGUMENT:
    SOURCE OF APPEAL:
    COURT:
    COUNTY:
    JUDGE:
    JUSTICES:
    CONCURRED:
    DISSENTED:           ABRAHAMSON, J. dissents.
    NOT PARTICIPATING:   A.W. BRADLEY, J. did not participate.
    ATTORNEYS:
    
    2017 WI 98
                                                                    NOTICE
    This opinion is subject to further
    editing and modification.   The final
    version will appear in the bound
    volume of the official reports.
    No.    2015AP1285-D
    STATE OF WISCONSIN                            :            IN SUPREME COURT
    In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
    Against Tiffany T. Luther, Attorney at Law:
    Office of Lawyer Regulation,                                         FILED
    Complainant,
    NOV 28, 2017
    v.
    Diane M. Fremgen
    Clerk of Supreme Court
    Tiffany T. Luther,
    Respondent.
    ATTORNEY       disciplinary       proceeding.       Attorney         publicly
    reprimanded.
    ¶1    PER CURIAM.         We review the report and recommendation
    of Referee Jonathan V. Goodman, approving a stipulation filed by
    the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Tiffany T.
    Luther     and     concluding    that   Attorney     Luther      committed        the
    professional misconduct alleged by the OLR, as stipulated by the
    parties.         The referee determined that a          public reprimand            of
    Attorney Luther's license to practice law is appropriate.
    No.     2015AP1285-D
    ¶2      Upon    careful        review       of    this      matter,     we    uphold   the
    referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree that
    a   public    reprimand         is    an     appropriate           sanction    for    Attorney
    Luther's misconduct.               We also find it appropriate to impose the
    full costs of this proceeding, which are $7,414.04 as of July
    18,   2017.        The    OLR      has     confirmed        that    Attorney       Luther    paid
    restitution         and       that    no     additional            restitution       order     is
    warranted.
    ¶3      Attorney Luther was admitted to the practice of law
    in Wisconsin on January 19, 2000 as Tiffany T. Stockinger.
    She   practiced          in    Green       Bay,       but   now     lives     in    Las Vegas,
    Nevada.       She     has       not        previously          been     the        subject    of
    professional discipline.
    ¶4      The facts giving rise to this proceeding stem from
    Attorney Luther's involvement with Morgan Drexen, Inc. (MDI), a
    now defunct debt settlement company.
    ¶5      In June 2009, MDI and Attorney Luther agreed that she
    would    serve      as     "engagement        counsel"         for    MDI     in    Wisconsin.
    Attorney Luther was the attorney providing services to Wisconsin
    residents in MDI's program.
    ¶6      In    August         2012,    M.M.       contacted      MDI   for     assistance
    paying     her     debts      so     she    could      avoid       bankruptcy.        She    had
    approximately $14,000 in debts, including amounts owed to GE
    Capital Retail Bank (GE Capital).                       MDI offered to help M.M. pay
    her debts in three years if she paid MDI $100, followed by $185
    per month.         Under this plan, M.M.'s payments would not be used
    to pay off her debts until they covered MDI's engagement fee of
    2
    No.    2015AP1285-D
    $1,295, plus 20 percent of M.M.'s debt.                              Before M.M. enrolled in
    MDI's    plan,       the     company         read       her    disclosures          that    Attorney
    Luther       had    approved.           These       disclosures             did    not    adequately
    inform M.M. that it was unlikely the proposed plan could pay her
    debts.       M.M. completed the MDI forms online, including two fee
    agreements with Attorney Luther.                            Attorney Luther's agreements
    with M.M. also charged her $50 per month for various services
    such    as    review       of    a    document,         a     simple     will,      responding          to
    email,       and    file     maintenance.                M.M.     was       charged       for     these
    services even if she did not use them.                               Attorney Luther had no
    contact with M.M. prior to M.M. signing the fee agreements.
    Attorney      Luther       was       aware    of     MDI's       practices,         and     that       her
    client M.M. was using MDI's system.                              Attorney Luther did not
    give M.M. information reasonably necessary for her to understand
    the    material       advantages         and        disadvantages            of    MDI's    plan        or
    discuss      with     M.M.      options       and       alternatives         to     it.         MDI    and
    Attorney       Luther's         letters       to        M.M.     were       form     letters          that
    provided little substantive information.
    ¶7      In     August         2012,      MDI           started        automated          monthly
    withdrawals         from     M.M.'s      checking             account.        MDI        sent    M.M.'s
    creditors          form    letters      notifying             them     of    Attorney       Luther's
    representation and requested all correspondence should be sent
    to Attorney Luther, via MDI.                        MDI did not send copies of these
    letters to M.M.
    ¶8      In November 2012, GE Capital's attorneys sent Attorney
    Luther, through MDI, a letter informing her that M.M.'s account
    was in default.             The letter offered to cure M.M.'s default for
    3
    No.   2015AP1285-D
    $716 by December 21, 2012.         Neither Attorney Luther nor MDI gave
    a copy of this letter to M.M. or informed her of this offer at
    the time.
    ¶9      On February 14, 2013, GE Capital filed a small claims
    suit against M.M.       In April 2013, M.M. received the summons and
    complaint in the GE Capital lawsuit, and notice of a May 13,
    2013 hearing.     She contacted MDI.      MDI informed her that because
    she had not yet covered the engagement fee, it had taken no
    action to resolve her debts.          As of April 22, 2013, M.M. had
    paid MDI and Attorney Luther $1,665.
    ¶10     MDI showed that M.M.'s account with them had a balance
    of -$115.     MDI directed M.M. to contact Attorney Luther for
    advice    about   the    lawsuit    and   sent   her   a   limited    scope
    representation agreement for that purpose.
    ¶11     Attorney     Luther's     limited     scope     representation
    agreement charged M.M. $550 for her assistance with M.M.'s self-
    representation in the GE Capital case.           It also listed various
    charges M.M. would incur, such as $65 for a "Phone Consult with
    Counsel."    M.M. signed the agreement, and on April 23, 2013,
    spoke with Attorney Luther on the phone.           Attorney Luther told
    M.M. that she would not appear in court for a May 13, 2013
    hearing, or otherwise represent her in the matter.                 Attorney
    Luther advised M.M. to request a 90-day extension by which time
    she would have enough funds in her MDI account to pay Attorney
    Luther's fee and file for bankruptcy.            Attorney Luther charged
    M.M. $35 for this conversation as a "rush job."
    4
    No.       2015AP1285-D
    ¶12    On or about April 30, 2013, M.M. spoke with MDI.                   MDI
    recorded her agreement to file for bankruptcy.                   In May 2013,
    Attorney Luther and MDI sent M.M. two letters informing her that
    they had not received either the necessary paperwork or fee to
    proceed with bankruptcy.
    ¶13    On May 13, 2013, M.M. appeared at the GE Capital small
    claims hearing, pro se.          In May 2013, M.M. consulted another
    attorney   and   also   closed   her       checking   account    to    stop   the
    automated payments to MDI.
    ¶14    On May 31, 2013, M.M.'s new attorney wrote to MDI,
    asking it stop the automated withdrawals and requesting a refund
    from MDI and Attorney Luther.
    ¶15    On June 23, 2013, M.M. filed a grievance against MDI
    and Attorney Luther with DFI.       In July 2013, M.M.'s new attorney
    filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition for M.M., and on August 9,
    2013, GE Capital dismissed its small claims action against M.M.
    ¶16    On October 18, 2013, the bankruptcy court discharged
    M.M.'s debts, including those included in MDI's debt settlement
    program.
    ¶17    In November 2013, DFI forwarded M.M.'s grievance to
    the OLR, which commenced an investigation.                This disciplinary
    proceeding ensued.      In January 2014, Attorney Luther refunded
    $800 to M.M.
    ¶18    The   remaining counts of misconduct involve Attorney
    Luther's representation of J.B. on behalf of MDI.                     In January
    2013, in response to a television advertisement, J.B. sought
    assistance   consolidating   approximately        $22,000   in    debt.       MDI
    5
    No.     2015AP1285-D
    offered J.B. a plan to assist with his debts if he paid MDI $260
    per month.     J.B.'s payments would not be used to pay off his
    debts until they covered MDI's engagement fee of $1,750, plus 20
    percent of J.B.'s debt.
    ¶19   Before J.B. enrolled in MDI's plan, the company read
    him   disclosures        that   Attorney     Luther    had     approved.     These
    disclosures did not adequately inform J.B. that it was unlikely
    that the proposed plan could pay his debts.                  J.B. completed MDI
    forms online, including two fee agreements with Attorney Luther.
    Attorney Luther's agreements with J.B. charged him $50 per month
    for various services such as review of a document, a simple
    will, responding to email, and file maintenance.                      MDI charged
    J.B. for these services, even if he did not use them.
    ¶20   Attorney Luther had no contact with J.B. prior to J.B.
    signing the fee agreements.           Attorney Luther was aware of MDI's
    practices, and that her client J.B. was using MDI's system.
    Attorney    Luther       did    not   give   J.B.     information       reasonably
    necessary    for   him    to    understand   the    material    advantages      and
    disadvantages of MDI's plan, nor did she discuss alternatives to
    it.
    ¶21   On January 28, 2013, Attorney Luther called J.B. to
    welcome him to the MDI program.              This was their only personal
    contact during the representation.            In January 2013, MDI started
    automated    monthly      account     withdrawals     from     J.B.'s     checking
    account.
    ¶22   In March 2013, MDI sent J.B.'s creditors form letters
    notifying them of Attorney Luther's representation and requested
    6
    No.       2015AP1285-D
    all correspondence should be sent to Attorney Luther, via MDI.
    MDI did not send copies of these letters to J.B.
    ¶23   In April, August, and October of 2013, MDI rejected
    settlement     offers      from    J.B.'s       creditors.          Neither       Attorney
    Luther nor MDI informed J.B. of the settlement offers.
    ¶24   In January 2014, J.B. learned that MDI was not paying
    his creditors. On February 5, 2014, J.B. spoke with Attorney
    Luther's paralegal, requesting a full refund or full payment of
    his debts enrolled in the MDI program.                     While this conversation
    was ongoing, MDI generated a settlement offer regarding one of
    J.B.'s    debts     for    Attorney   Luther's        consideration.              Attorney
    Luther approved the offer that day, but did not discuss it with
    J.B.     On March 6, 2014, J.B. wrote to Attorney Luther requesting
    a full refund.
    ¶25   In April, Attorney Luther requested that MDI refund
    all of J.B.'s payments, less $1,000.                  On May 16, 2014, Attorney
    Luther's paralegal sent J.B. a refund check for $3,060.
    ¶26   On     June   30,    2015,     the      OLR    filed     a     disciplinary
    complaint against Attorney Luther alleging thirteen (13) counts
    of     misconduct      and       seeking        an   18-month        suspension          and
    restitution.         Attorney     Luther        retained    counsel       and    filed   an
    Answer.      On August 25, 2015, Jonathan V. Goodman was appointed
    referee.
    ¶27   On November 1, 2016, the OLR filed an Amended Complaint
    alleging ten (10) counts of misconduct and seeking a public
    reprimand.        Attorney Luther filed an Amended Answer.
    7
    No.        2015AP1285-D
    ¶28    On May 17, 2017, the OLR and Attorney Luther filed a
    Stipulation whereby Attorney Luther withdrew her Amended Answer
    and stipulated that she did not contest the alleged misconduct.
    The   Stipulation          states      that   "Luther     and    OLR     agree       that    the
    appropriate        level         of     discipline      to      impose     for        Luther's
    misconduct       is    a    public       reprimand."            It   acknowledged           that
    restitution had been paid.
    ¶29    The      OLR's      amended      complaint       alleged,        and     Attorney
    Luther stipulated that, by failing to provide M.M. information
    reasonably necessary to inform her of the results of accepting
    MDI's     debt   settlement           plan,   the     advisability       of     paying      fees
    which would not be used to achieve her objectives, or to discuss
    with M.M. other options to achieve her goal of paying her debts
    and       avoiding          bankruptcy,              Attorney        Luther           violated
    SCR 20:1.4(a)(2)1 and(b).2
    ¶30    The      amended         complaint      alleged,    and     Attorney       Luther
    stipulated       that,      by     failing      to    provide    M.M.     copies       of    the
    letters sent to her creditors or accurately                          inform M.M. of the
    actions     taken     on     her      behalf,       thereby   failing      to       keep    M.M.
    1
    SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) provides:   "A lawyer shall reasonably
    consult with the client about the means by which the client's
    objectives are to be accomplished."
    2
    SCR 20:1.4(b) provides: " A lawyer shall explain a matter
    to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make
    informed decisions regarding the representation."
    8
    No.     2015AP1285-D
    reasonably informed about the status of her matter, Attorney
    Luther violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).3
    ¶31    The   amended   complaint      alleged,   and    Attorney     Luther
    stipulated that, by failing to inform M.M. of the default/right
    to    cure   notice   from    GE   Capital,      Attorney     Luther     violated
    SCR 20:1.4(a)(3),     and    thereby    preventing     M.M.   from     making    an
    informed decision regarding the representation, Attorney Luther
    violated SCR 20:1.4(b).
    ¶32    The   amended   complaint      alleged,   and    Attorney     Luther
    stipulated that, by charging M.M. a $50 monthly fee for which
    M.M. received no meaningful services, and which was not used for
    any    expenses     specifically       related    to   the     representation,
    Attorney Luther violated SCR 20:1.5(a).4
    3
    SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides:     "A lawyer shall keep                      the
    client reasonably informed about the status of the matter."
    4
    SCR 20:1.5(a) provides:
    (a) A lawyer shall not make an agreement for,
    charge,   or  collect  an  unreasonable   fee  or  an
    unreasonable amount for expenses. The factors to be
    considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee
    include the following:
    (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and
    difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill
    requisite to perform the legal service properly;
    (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client,
    that the acceptance of the particular employment will
    preclude other employment by the lawyer;
    (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality
    for similar legal services;
    (4) the amount involved and the results obtained;
    (continued)
    9
    No.    2015AP1285-D
    ¶33    The   amended     complaint     alleged,    and    Attorney       Luther
    stipulated that, by failing to explain to M.M. the purpose and
    effect of the advanced payments M.M. was making, Attorney Luther
    violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1).5
    ¶34    The   amended     complaint     alleged,    and    Attorney    Luther
    stipulated     that,     by     failing      upon      termination       of     the
    representation in May of 2013 to refund the entire amount M.M.
    paid to Attorney Luther, when Attorney Luther had provided no
    meaningful    legal    services   to   earn    the     fee,    Attorney       Luther
    violated SCR 20:1.16(d).6
    (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or
    by the circumstances;
    (6) the nature and length              of    the    professional
    relationship with the client;
    (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of
    the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and
    (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
    5
    SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) provides:
    The scope of the representation and the basis or
    rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will
    be responsible shall be communicated to the client in
    writing, before or within a reasonable time after
    commencing the representation, except when the lawyer
    will charge a regularly represented client on the same
    basis or rate as in the past.     If it is reasonably
    foreseeable that the total cost of representation to
    the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000
    or less, the communication may be oral or in writing.
    Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or
    expenses shall also be communicated in writing to the
    client.
    6
    SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:
    (continued)
    10
    No.      2015AP1285-D
    ¶35    The    amended      complaint       alleged    and   Attorney       Luther
    stipulated that, by failing to give J.B. information reasonably
    necessary to evaluate the material advantages and disadvantages
    of MDI's proposed course of action, the advisability of paying
    fees which would not be used to achieve his objectives, or to
    discuss with J.B. other options and alternatives which could
    achieve      his    goal   of    paying     his   debts     in   full    in    order   to
    maintain his credit, Attorney Luther violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(2)
    and (b).
    ¶36    The amended complaint alleged and Attorney Luther
    stipulated that, by failing to provide J.B. copies of the
    letters sent to his creditors or otherwise accurately inform
    him of the status of his debts, thereby failing to keep J.B.
    reasonably informed about the status of his matter, Attorney
    Luther violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).
    ¶37    The amended complaint alleged and Attorney Luther
    stipulated that, by entering into an agreement for and charging
    J.B.   a     $50    monthly     fee   for   which   he    received      no    meaningful
    services in furtherance of his objectives, and which was not
    Upon termination of representation, a lawyer
    shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable
    to protect a client's interests, such as giving
    reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for
    employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and
    property to which the client is entitled and refunding
    any advance payment of fee or expense that has not
    been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers
    relating to the client to the extent permitted by
    other law.
    11
    No.      2015AP1285-D
    used     for     any      expenses      incurred        by   Attorney         Luther    or
    specifically related to her representation of                        J.B., Attorney
    Luther charged an unreasonable fee and an unreasonable amount
    for expenses in violation of SCR 20:1.5(a).
    ¶38     The amended complaint alleged and Attorney Luther
    stipulated that, by failing to explain to J.B. the purpose and
    effect of the advanced payments he was making, Attorney Luther
    violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1).
    ¶39     Attorney Luther affirms that the stipulation did not
    result       from   plea        bargaining;      she     fully     understands          the
    misconduct      allegations;         she    fully      understands      her    right    to
    contest this matter; she fully understands her right to consult
    with counsel; her entry into this stipulation is made knowingly
    and voluntarily; and, her entry into this stipulation represents
    her    decision     not    to    contest     the    misconduct       alleged     in    the
    amended complaint.
    ¶40     On June 28, 2017, the referee issued a report stating
    that "based upon the Stipulation and the fact that the pleadings
    involved herein indicate that Luther had no prior misconduct,
    the Referee recommends a Public Reprimand."                       He recommended the
    court impose the costs of the proceeding on Attorney Luther.
    ¶41     On July 18, 2017, the OLR filed its statement of costs
    in the amount of $7,414.04.                 In this statement, the OLR noted
    that it agreed to a reduction in the proposed discipline because
    the OLR determined that Attorney Luther had paid restitution and
    that    her    involvement       with      MDI   was    limited    to    overall       debt
    12
    No.     2015AP1285-D
    reduction        services,     and    was        not   as     egregious     as       initially
    believed.
    ¶42    On August 8, 2017, Attorney Luther filed an objection
    to costs, seeking an unspecified reduction.                             Essentially, she
    argued that the OLR initially, but wrongly, thought that she was
    heavily involved in MDI's business.                         Attorney Luther asserted
    that she shouldn't be expected to pay the costs for the OLR's
    "overzealous approach."
    ¶43    On August 17, 2017, the OLR filed a reply to Attorney
    Luther's objection to costs.                    The OLR maintained that full costs
    were warranted.
    ¶44    No appeal was filed so we review this matter pursuant
    to SCR 22.17(2).            This court 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
    .        The court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit,
    regardless        of    the    referee's          recommendation.               See    In   re
    Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 
    2003 WI 34
    , ¶44, 
    261 Wis. 2d 45
    , 
    660 N.W.2d 686
    .
    ¶45    On September 11, 2017, this court remanded the matter
    to the referee with directions to file a supplemental report
    justifying the recommendation for a public reprimand and for a
    recommendation on the costs dispute.                        The referee permitted the
    parties to submit supplemental memoranda on these issues and, on
    October     2,    2017,     filed     a    supplemental        report.          In    it,   the
    referee states that "[w]here parties have come to an agreement,
    13
    No.     2015AP1285-D
    the   referee    must    find      some    factor     which    would       shock     the
    conscience for the referee to recommend a discipline other than
    that agreed to by the parties."                    No case is cited for this
    assertion,      probably     because       there     is    none.         This   is     a
    misstatement of the applicable legal standard.
    ¶46    We note our recent observation in In re Disciplinary
    Proceedings Against Ruppelt, 
    2017 WI 80
    , ¶30, 
    377 Wis. 2d 441
    ,
    
    898 N.W.2d 473
    :
    [I]n   lawyer   disciplinary  cases,   this  court  is
    obligated to act as a protector of the public, the
    court system, and the integrity of the bar——not as a
    scribe charged with formalizing the parties' mutual
    wishes. Although this court fully appreciates the
    efficiency attained through stipulations, we will not
    allow the goal of efficiency to take precedence over
    the necessity of effecting the core functions of the
    lawyer   disciplinary   system.  Sometimes,   then,  a
    departure from a joint stipulation is necessary.
    ¶47    Just as this court is free to reject a stipulated
    disciplinary     sanction     as     circumstances        require,    so    too,     are
    referees.         See,       e.g.,        
    id., (adopting the
         referee's
    recommendation for a 15-month suspension, as opposed to the one-
    year suspension to which the parties had stipulated).
    ¶48    As no two disciplinary cases are precisely the same,
    there is no standard sanction for any particular misconduct.
    For   that   reason,    it   is    particularly       important      that    referees
    identify and consider the factors relevant to determining an
    appropriate sanction, which include:
    [T]he seriousness, nature and extent of misconduct,
    the level of discipline needed to protect the public,
    the courts, and the legal system from repetition of
    the attorney's misconduct, the need to impress upon
    14
    No.     2015AP1285-D
    the attorney the seriousness of the misconduct and the
    need to deter other attorneys from committing similar
    misconduct.
    In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan, 
    2006 WI 38
    , ¶72,
    
    290 Wis. 2d 30
    , 
    712 N.W.2d 877
    .                    In determining an appropriate
    sanction    recommendation          referees        should    consider        whether         the
    lawyer     has     previously         been    disciplined         and     whether             any
    aggravating and or           mitigating factors             are present.             See      ABA
    Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.                     Typically, the referee
    will consider factually similar cases.                      Stipulated discipline is
    entitled to no special deference.
    ¶49     To    be   sure,     the     parties'      opinions     on        disciplinary
    sanctions are informative but they are just that – opinions, not
    authorities       to   which    the    referee       must     defer.     We,        in     turn,
    "remain     the    ultimate      arbiter       of     the    appropriate            level     of
    discipline, owing no deference on this subject to either the
    parties or the referee."            See Ruppelt, 
    377 Wis. 2d 441
    , ¶34.
    ¶50      Here,     the     referee       has     provided    case         law     in      the
    supplemental report that supports the recommended discipline.
    We agree that In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shepherd,
    
    2017 WI 66
    , 
    376 Wis. 2d 129
    , 
    897 N.W.2d 44
    is instructive and
    that the nature of the misconduct is sufficiently analogous to
    this case, that imposing similar discipline is not unreasonable.
    There, we imposed a public reprimand on a lawyer with no prior
    disciplinary history, who committed ten counts of misconduct,
    including    violations        of   the      rules    regarding     fee        agreements,
    trust accounts, failure to respond to clients, and failure to
    cooperate     with     the     OLR's     investigation.           See         also       In    re
    15
    No.        2015AP1285-D
    Disciplinary      Proceedings          Against        Trudgeon,          
    2009 WI 96
    ,      
    321 Wis. 2d 560
    , 
    774 N.W.2d 469
    (public reprimand imposed on lawyer
    with    no    prior        discipline      who        committed          eight          counts      of
    professional misconduct including failing to appear at a court
    hearing,      failing      to   properly       explain        the     basis        of     his    fee,
    failing to adequately communicate with his client, and failing
    to   respond     to     reasonable       requests           for     information);              In    re
    Disciplinary      Proceedings          Against        D'Arruda,          
    2013 WI 90
    ,      
    351 Wis. 2d 227
    , 
    839 N.W.2d 575
    (public reprimand imposed on lawyer
    with one previous private reprimand who committed 12 counts of
    misconduct, including failing to explain the basis or rate of
    his fee, failing to refund unearned fees, failing to provide a
    client's      file    to    successor      counsel,           failing         to     respond        to
    reasonable requests for information, and repeatedly failing to
    cooperate with the OLR's investigation); and In re Disciplinary
    Proceedings      Against        Hicks,   
    2012 WI 11
    ,    
    338 Wis. 2d 558
    ,              
    809 N.W.2d 33
         (public      reprimand      imposed          on    lawyer      with        no    prior
    disciplinary history who committed eight counts of misconduct
    including failing to timely pursue clients' postconviction or
    appellate interests, failing to communicate with clients, and
    failing to respond to the OLR's requests for information).
    ¶51    On balance, we will adopt the referee's findings of
    fact    and    conclusions        of     law        that,     based      on     the        parties'
    stipulation, Attorney Luther violated the supreme court rules as
    alleged in the ten counts of the amended complaint.                                     We further
    agree   with    the     referee     that       a     public       reprimand         of     Attorney
    Luther's      license      to   practice       law     in    Wisconsin          is       sufficient
    16
    No.    2015AP1285-D
    discipline.     We agree, further, that notwithstanding Attorney
    Luther's objections, it is appropriate to impose the full costs
    of this disciplinary proceeding on her.                 We accept the OLR's
    representation that there is no need for a restitution order in
    this matter.
    ¶52    IT   IS   ORDERED    that    Tiffany    T.   Luther     is   publicly
    reprimanded.
    ¶53    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
    of this order Tiffany T. Luther shall pay to the Office of
    Lawyer   Regulation    the     costs   of   this   proceeding,      which   are
    $7,414.04 as of July 18, 2017.
    ¶54    Ann Walsh Bradley, J., did not participate.
    17
    No.   2015AP1285-D.ssa
    ¶55   SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.    (dissenting).     A public
    reprimand is an insufficient sanction for the serious misconduct
    to which Attorney Luther stipulated.
    1
    No.   2015AP1285-D.ssa
    1