Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ritland (In re Ritland)

396 Wis.2d 509

957 N.W.2d 540

2021 WI 36

In the MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST James C. RITLAND, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant-Respondent-Cross-Appellant,

v.James C. Ritland, Respondent-Appellant-Cross-Respondent.

No. 2018AP1832-D

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Opinion Filed: April 22, 2021

Motion For Reconsideration Filed May 14, 2021

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This disciplinary matter comes to the court on Attorney James C. Ritland's appeal and the Office of Lawyer Regulation's (OLR) cross-appeal of a report and recommendation of Referee Allan Beatty. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the referee concluded that the OLR had proven the sole misconduct charge asserted in its complaint; namely, that Attorney Ritland's conduct resulting in convictions for two counts of attempted adultery and one count of disorderly conduct reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer in other respects. See Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 20:8.4(b).¹ As a sanction, the referee recommended that the court suspend Attorney Ritland's Wisconsin law license for three months and order him to pay the full costs of this disciplinary matter, which total $21,017.24 as of March 2, 2020. Restitution is not at issue; because this case solely concerns Attorney Ritland's sexual misconduct, there are no funds to restore.

¶2 Both Attorney Ritland and the OLR have appealed the referee's report and recommendation. In his appeal, Attorney Ritland generally contests the sufficiency of the evidence against him and claims his behavior merits, at most, a public reprimand. In its cross-appeal, the OLR argues that a six-month suspension—not a three-month suspension, as the referee recommended—is warranted.

¶3 After reviewing this matter and considering Attorney Ritland's appeal and the OLR's cross-appeal, we accept the referee's factual findings, and we agree with the referee that Attorney Ritland committed the charged SCR 20:8.4(b) violation. We deem the referee's recommended three-month suspension insufficient: Attorney Ritland's conduct and our case law call for a two-year suspension. We impose full costs.

¶4 The OLR initiated this disciplinary proceeding with the filing of a one-count complaint in September 2018, alleging an SCR 20:8.4(b) violation. Attorney Ritland filed an answer in which he denied any misconduct.

¶5 The case proceeded through discovery and to an evidentiary hearing in August 2019, which featured testimony from thirteen witnesses.

¶6 In October 2019, the referee filed his report. The following factual summary is drawn from that report.

¶7 Attorney Ritland has held a Wisconsin law license since 1978, and has an otherwise clean disciplinary history. The wrongdoing involved in this case centered on his sexual misconduct with two women: Z.H. and M.F.

¶8 In 2013, Attorney Ritland met Z.H. while in the checkout line at a Walmart.

After Z.H. exited the store, Attorney Ritland invited her into his car, gave her his business card for his law office, and told her to contact him if she needed help or money. Several months later, Z.H. called Attorney Ritland, and he invited her to come to his law office after regular business hours. Upon luring Z.H. to his office and isolating her as he was the only one present, he gave her $40, touched her breasts outside of her clothing, and received oral sex from her. On another occasion, Z.H. again called Attorney Ritland and went to his office. He gave her $40, after which she displayed her breasts and then left, promising to return to complete the sexual encounter. Subsequent to these two incidents, Attorney Ritland visited Z.H. in jail, at a time when she was represented by a different attorney. Attorney Ritland informed jail personnel that he was visiting Z.H. as her attorney.

¶9 Attorney Ritland knew the other woman involved in this case, M.F., through his representation of her in numerous criminal matters. Attorney Ritland knew that M.F. had substance addiction problems. Attorney Ritland also knew that M.F. had financial troubles, as she consistently did not have the resources to pay modest bail amounts.

¶10 Attorney Ritland occasionally paid M.F.'s bail. For example, in January 2015, Attorney Ritland signed a surety bond form and posted a $100 cash bail for M.F. in a matter in which he represented her. The following day, Attorney Ritland revoked his surety bond but informed the clerk of court that the $100 belonged to M.F.

¶11 Attorney Ritland ceased representing M.F. in February 2015, after the district attorney warned him that he may have a conflict of interest in continuing to represent her given that his personal checkbook was found amongst items believed to be stolen by M.F.

¶12 Attorney Ritland admitted at his deposition in this matter that after he withdrew from representing M.F., he had sexual contact with her at his office on a number of occasions. The sexual contact included Attorney Ritland touching M.F.'s breasts, and, in one instance, M.F. performing oral sex on him.

¶13 After he withdrew from representing M.F., Attorney Ritland continued to provide money and other benefits to her. In March 2015, Attorney Ritland posted a $250 cash bail for M.F. in a criminal matter. In May 2015, Attorney Ritland and M.F. went to a casino together, where Attorney Ritland provided M.F. with money. In August 2015, Attorney Ritland told law enforcement that he did not want to pursue charges against M.F. even though she had altered a check originally made payable to him by making herself the payee. In March 2016, Attorney Ritland posted $300 cash bail for M.F. in a criminal matter; visited her in jail, identifying himself on the jail visitor log as an attorney even though he did not represent her; and gave her a note, received as a hearing exhibit, that said: "I still want 6 free ones. I got you out of jail." The referee found that the phrase "6 free ones" referred to sexual interactions.

¶14 As of September 2016, M.F. owed Attorney Ritland hundreds or perhaps thousands of dollars in legal fees. After Attorney Ritland learned he would be charged with criminal offenses pertaining to his sexual contacts with M.F., he removed information pertaining to M.F. from his office's billing records.

¶15 In 2017, the State charged Attorney Ritland with four counts of solicitation of prostitution, two counts of attempted adultery, four counts of prostitution, one count of disorderly conduct, and one count of maintaining a drug trafficking place. Attorney Ritland ultimately pled no contest to, and was convicted of, one count of attempted adultery related to his conduct with Z.H., another count of attempted adultery related to his conduct with M.F., and one count of disorderly conduct. See State v. Ritland, Jackson County Case No. 2016CF177. The remaining counts were dismissed and read-in for sentencing purposes.

¶16 The circuit court withheld sentence for Attorney Ritland, placed him on probation for twelve months, and required him to serve twenty-five days in jail. According to the sentencing transcript included in the record before us, the circuit court commented at sentencing that Attorney Ritland's conduct "behind closed doors" made him "a totally different person" than the one the public knew. The circuit court observed that Attorney Ritland's "character is sort of split down the middle" between his "public persona and [his] secret[ ] life."

¶17 This disciplinary case followed. The OLR alleged a single count in its complaint:

By engaging in conduct which included paying money to M.F. and Z.H. to perform sex acts and being convicted on two counts of attempted adultery and one count of disorderly conduct for that underlying conduct, [Attorney] Ritland violated SCR 20:8.4(b).

¶18 In his report, the referee determined that "[b]y evidence which is clear, satisfactory and convincing," Attorney Ritland "has committed the violation alleged in the Complaint." Briefly summarized, the referee determined in his report that Attorney Ritland abused his professional status as a lawyer in committing his criminal acts, which consisted of cajoling vulnerable women into having adulterous contact with him at his law office. His actions showed a lack of trustworthiness and reflected poorly on his professional judgment and ability.

¶19 In evaluating the appropriate level of discipline, the referee weighed various aggravating and mitigating factors. On the aggravating side of the scale, Attorney Ritland's victims were vulnerable because they were burdened with substance abuse and/or financial problems. He engaged in a pattern of misconduct. He did not appreciate the wrongful nature of his conduct, notwithstanding having been criminally convicted of three offenses. He showed no remorse. On the mitigating side of the scale, the referee noted that Attorney Ritland has no prior discipline, and he has contributed to the community through volunteer efforts in his church and with youth organizations. Ultimately, the referee recommended that this court suspend Attorney Ritland for three months and impose full costs against him.

¶20 As mentioned above, both Attorney Ritland and the OLR have appealed from the referee's report. We turn first to the arguments in Attorney Ritland's appeal.

¶21 Attorney Ritland has taken a scattershot approach to his appeal, raising seven separate issues, one of which has seven subparts. We address the minimally developed claims as best we can, grouping like contentions where possible. Some arguments, however, are too inadequately developed to warrant a response. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646–47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992).

¶22 Generally speaking, Attorney Ritland challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against him. He dismisses Z.H.'s testimony as not credible and unsupported by physical evidence. He argues that "no facts concerning [M.F.] should be considered since she did not testify at the [disciplinar...