Against Stephen M. Compton, Attorney at Law:
Stephen M. Compton,
No. 2006AP1036-D2006AP1036-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN
IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Stephen M. Compton, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant-Respondent,
v.
Stephen M. Compton,
Respondent-Appellant.
FILED
JAN 16, 2008
David R. Schanker
Clerk of Supreme Court
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review referee Kim M.
Peterson's
recommendation that the license of Attorney Stephen M. Compton to
practice law in this state be suspended for a period of 60 days due
to his professional misconduct.
¶2 We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence. We further
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Compton's misconduct
warrants the suspension of his license to practice law for 60 days
and that the costs of the proceeding, which are $4,622.69 as of
January 24, 2007, should be assessed against him.
¶3 Attorney Compton was licensed to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1992. He was publicly reprimanded in 2002 for falsely
recording time he had worked on a contingency fee case. Public
Reprimand of Stephen M. Compton, 2002-6.
¶4 When the events giving rise to this disciplinary
proceeding occurred, part of Attorney Compton's practice included
representing criminal defendants by appointment of the Office of
the State Public Defender.
¶5 In the fall of 2000 Attorney Compton was appointed to
represent J.M. in proceedings before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
J.M. was ultimately incarcerated at the Dodge County Correctional
Institution. In late 2001 or early 2002, while incarcerated, J.M.,
a former paralegal, informed Attorney Compton that he would be
interested in doing legal research work for Attorney Compton. In
January 2002 Attorney Compton made arrangements whereby J.M. would
perform legal research for him. Attorney Compton forwarded a case
file to J.M. at the Dodge Correctional Institution without his
client's prior knowledge or approval. J.M. performed legal
research on this file for Attorney Compton. The referee
specifically found that while J.M. was incarcerated, Attorney
Compton did not have effective procedures in place to supervise
J.M., to ensure that his conduct was compatible with Attorney
Compton's professional obligations, or to ensure that J.M. would be
able to maintain the confidentiality of the client matter while
working from prison.
¶6 Upon J.M.'s release from prison in May 2002, Attorney
Compton hired J.M. as a paralegal. From May 2002 to July 2002,
J.M. worked on a number of case files for Attorney Compton. He
performed legal research, drafted correspondence, memos and
pleadings, and met with clients.
¶7 The billing policies of the Office of the State Public
Defender require that an appointed attorney submit bills for
reimbursement for "reasonable hours" the attorney has spent working
on client matters to which they have been appointed as counsel.
The policies provide further that work done by another attorney
will not be reimbursed unless specifically approved by the Office
of the State Public Defender.
¶8 Despite this policy, Attorney Compton billed the Office
of the State Public Defender for approximately 120 hours of work
for legal services on various client matters when the work was
actually performed by J.M. In three cases, Attorney Compton
falsely certified to the Office of the State Public Defender that
he had done all the legal work on the cases, when in fact J.M. had
done much of the work.
¶9 J.M.'s work on Office of the State Public Defender case
files was discovered when successor counsel in one matter reviewed
a client's file and ascertained that J.M. had performed
considerable work on the file.
¶10 In July 2004 the Office of the State Public Defender and
Attorney Compton entered into a settlement agreement wherein
Attorney Compton acknowledged wrongfully billing the Office of the
State Public Defender for work actually performed by J.M. He
agreed to be decertified from the appointment list maintained by
the Office of the State Public Defender, and further agreed that
the Office of the State Public Defender could recoup $4,800 from
bills submitted by Attorney Compton on outstanding cases. He self-reported this matter to
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) in
August 2004.
¶11 On May 1, 2006, the OLR issued a complaint alleging the
misconduct described herein. On November 1, 2006, the parties
executed a stipulation and no contest plea. Attorney Compton
agreed to withdraw his answer and to permit the referee to use the
OLR complaint as the factual basis for a finding of misconduct. A
hearing was held to consider the appropriate sanction.
¶12 The referee concluded that by billing the Office of the
State Public Defender for 120 hours of work at the appointed
attorney rate when that work was actually performed by J.M.,
Attorney Compton engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation in violation of former SCR 20:8.4(c).(1) The referee concluded further that by failing to
adequately supervise J.M. while J.M. was
performing legal work from prison, Attorney Compton violated SCR 20:5.3(a) and (b),
which
provided in relevant part:
20:5.3 Responsibilities regarding nonlawyer
assistants
With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by
or associated with a lawyer:
(a) A partner in a law firm shall make reasonable
efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures
giving reasonable assurance that the person's conduct is
compatible with the professional obligations of the
lawyer;
(b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority
over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to
ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the
professional obligations of the lawyer.
¶13 Most of the discussion at the disciplinary hearing was
devoted to the appropriate sanction for Attorney Compton's
misconduct. The OLR requested the referee recommend a 90-day
suspension. Attorney Compton requested the referee recommend a
public reprimand.
¶14 The referee noted that it was troubling that Attorney
Compton had engaged in this misconduct while he was negotiating his
public reprimand in another disciplinary matter, a time when he
should have been "extra vigilant." However, while not excusing the
ethical violation or the potential harm to clients, the referee did
note that J.M., a former paralegal, apparently performed
competently and obtained "good results" for the clients.
Ultimately, the referee concluded that a 60-day suspension was
warranted, along with the payment of the costs of the disciplinary
proceeding. See, e.g., In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Glesner, 2000 WI 18, 233 Wis. 2d 35, 606 N.W.2d 173, and
In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Davison, 2002 WI 24, 251
Wis. 2d 1, 640 N.W.2d 508.
¶15 In his appeal, which he has since dismissed, Attorney
Compton sought to distinguish his situation from Glesner and
Davison, asserting that he never intended to deceive the Office of
the State Public Defender and maintaining that his intentions were
good. He self-reported the violation and has advised this court
that he ceased practicing law as of August 1, 2007. He asks the
court to impose any suspension retroactive to August 1, 2007.
¶16 The matter is submitted to the court for review of the
referee's report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).(2)
¶17 In conducting our review, we will affirm the referee's findings of fact
unless they are
clearly erroneous. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 562
N.W.2d 137 (1997). We review the referee's conclusions of law de novo.
See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636
N.W.2d 718. In accordance
with our authority to supervise the practice of law in this state, we determine the level of
discipline
that is appropriate under the particular circumstances, independent of the referee's
recommendation,
but benefiting from it. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.
¶18 The referee's findings of fact in this case have not been shown to be
clearly erroneous,
and we adopt them. We also agree with the referee's conclusions of law. We further agree
with the
referee's recommendation for a 60-day suspension of Attorney Compton's license to practice
law in
Wisconsin. Finally, we find it appropriate to require Attorney Compton to pay the full costs
of this
proceeding. We decline to impose the suspension retroactive to August 1, 2007, but, given
Attorney
Compton's assertion that he has ceased the practice of law, the suspension is made effective
the date
of this order.
¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Stephen M. Compton to practice
law in
Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, effective the date of this order.
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this
order, Stephen
M. Compton pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. If the
costs are
not paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay
the costs
within that time, the license of Stephen M. Compton to practice law in Wisconsin shall
remain
suspended until further order of the court.
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not yet done so,
Stephen M.
Compton comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose
license
to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.
1 Effective July 1, 2007,
substantial changes were made to the
Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20. See Supreme Court Order No. 04-07, 2007
WI 4, 293 Wis. 2d xv; and Supreme Court Order No. 06-04, 2007 WI
48, 297 Wis. 2d xlvii. Because the conduct underlying this case
arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless otherwise indicated, all
references to the supreme court rules will be to those in effect
prior to July 1, 2007.
Former 20:8.4(c) states that it is misconduct for a lawyer to
"engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation."
2 As noted, Attorney
Compton initially filed an appeal from the
referee's report and recommendation and appellate briefs were
submitted by Attorney Compton and the OLR. On August 17, 2007,
Attorney Compton filed a letter voluntarily dismissing his appeal.
Accordingly, this matter is treated as a review of the referee's report pursuant to SCR
22.17(2).
Return to wisbar.org
Wisconsin Supreme Court
