Brookfield lawyer earns public reprimand for 4th OWI

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a public reprimand to a Brookfield attorney Tuesday after she was convicted for her fourth offense of operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI).

The court also ordered attorney Lynne Layber, who was admitted into the bar in 1992 and has not previously been the subject of professional discipline, to pay $3,669.19 to cover the full costs of the proceedings.

Layber, who operates her own practice in Brookfield, was stopped on July 4, 2020, in Lake Mills for suspicion of OWI after an individual at a beach pointed her car out to a police officer and said the the driver appeared intoxicated. The officer followed the vehicle for several blocks and observed her vehicle deviating from its lane. The officer then pulled her over.

During the stop, the police officer noticed the smell of alcohol on Layber’s breath. The officers learned her driver’s license was subject to a legal blood alcohol concentration of 0.02% due to her three prior OWI convictions, one in 1991 and two in 1999. The officer asked her to perform field sobriety tests, which she agreed to do. Layber, however, refused to take a preliminary breath test. Based on her driving, the results of the field sobriety tests and the smell of alcohol on her breath, she was arrested. At the Lake Mills police station, police obtained a warrant to perform a blood draw, which showed a BAC of 0.106%.

Layber pled no contest to the fourth-offense OWI charge, a Class H felony. She was sentenced to six months of jail with Huber release privileges. The court also required Layber to place an ignition interlock on her car for 33 months.

Two days after the criminal complaint was filed, Layber notified the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) of the charges, which began an investigation.

Although Layber admitted the facts alleged in the OLR’s complaint, she denied the claim that her conduct violated SCR 20:8.4(b). She argued her conduct did not “reflect adversely on (her) honesty, trustworthiness or fitness in other respects.”  However, the referee concluded Layber’s multiple OWIs constituted a pattern of conduct that showed an indifference to her obligation under the law, which reflected adversely on her fitness as a lawyer. The referee also pointed to the fact that Layber’s BAC was more than five times higher than the limit that applied to her at the time of this offense. The referee therefore granted the OLR’s summary judgment motion and concluded Layber violated SCR 20:8.4(b).

When deciding on a proposed punishment, the referee weighed the facts that Layber’s four OWIs constituted a pattern of misconduct, although two decades had passed since her most recent offense. However, Layber had not previously been the subject of professional discipline and she exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the OLR’s investigation and the discipline hearing.

Ultimately, the referee determined the mitigating factors appeared to outweigh the aggravating factors, which would have supported the imposition of a private reprimand. Nonetheless, he concluded that a public reprimand was appropriate under the circumstances.

Although Layber initially argued before the referee that her conduct in operating a vehicle while intoxicated for the fourth time was not a violation of SCR 20:8.4(b), she has not appealed from the referee’s legal conclusion of a violation of that rule.

The court agreed with the referee’s ruling on SCR 20:8.4(b).

The court wrote the decision to drive after drinking,” even if made while impaired, reflects adversely on (Layber’s) fitness as a lawyer and an officer of the court, who should be providing an example of respect for the law. Consequently, we conclude that Attorney Layber’s most recent felony conviction for OWI, based on a BAC well above the restriction on her operating privileges and even above the legal limit for individuals without any restriction, constitutes a violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).”

The court then “concluded that a public reprimand is appropriate for the facts of this case.”