Quantcast
Home / Opinion / Professional Responsibility — suspension

Professional Responsibility — suspension

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Professional Responsibility — suspension

Where attorney William F. Mross failed to communicate with clients, a 60-day suspension is appropriate.

“When reviewing a referee’s report and recommendation, we will affirm the referee’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125. The referee’s conclusions of law are subject to de novo review. Id. We determine the appropriate level of discipline given the particular facts of each case, independent of the referee’s recommendation, but benefitting from it. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. After independently reviewing the matter, we conclude that the findings of fact contained in the referee’s supplemental report are not clearly erroneous, and we adopt them. We also agree that the referee’s supplemental conclusions of law regarding Attorney Mross’s misconduct are correct, and we concur with the referee that a 60-day suspension of Attorney Mross’s license to practice law is appropriate. We also agree that Attorney Mross should be required to pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding.”

2012AP406-D OLR v. Mross

Per Curiam.

Attorneys: For Complainant: Weigel, William J., Madison; Price, Matthew J., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Mross, William F., Racine

Leave a Comment