Office of Lawyer Regulation v. William J. Spangler
2016 WI 61
| Wis. | 2016Background
- William J. Spangler, admitted 2003, practiced in Eau Claire; no prior discipline. OLR charged him with misconduct based on two client matters (F.M. and F.B.).
- In F.M.'s case Spangler dismissed the suit without client consent, then fabricated court orders, judgments, a suspension order, and a complaint to convince the client a judgment/collection efforts were underway; he also advanced at least $45,000 of his own funds to the client to perpetuate the ruse.
- In F.B.'s matter Spangler never filed the complaint he prepared but created a false transmittal letter, fake file-stamp indicators, and repeatedly misled the client for years; he later fabricated a settlement/release and paid $75,000 of his own funds as purported settlement money.
- Spangler admitted the facts in stipulations, and the referee adopted those findings; parties jointly recommended a 60-day suspension and full costs.
- The referee recommended (and parties agreed to) a 60-day suspension and assessment of costs; the Supreme Court adopted the facts and rule violations but increased the sanction to a six-month suspension and ordered payment of costs ($6,678.43).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OLR) | Defendant's Argument (Spangler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Spangler violated duties to clients and engaged in dishonesty | OLR: he knowingly fabricated documents and misled clients, violating SCR 20:8.4(c), 20:1.2, 20:1.4 | Spangler admitted misconduct, offered mitigation (remorse, restitution, no prior history) | Court: violations proven; findings and conclusions of law adopted |
| Whether the stipulated public reprimand/60-day suspension was adequate | OLR initially agreed to 60 days but acknowledged seriousness when ordered to show cause | Spangler argued mitigation warranted limited discipline (60 days/public reprimand) | Court: 60 days inadequate given long-term, elaborate deception |
| Appropriate sanction | OLR supported suspension (parties jointly proposed 60 days); emphasized client harm and deceit | Spangler urged remediation, restitution, character affidavits as mitigating factors | Court: six-month suspension imposed to reflect gravity and deter similar conduct |
| Assessment of costs and procedural adoption of referee report | OLR sought costs; referee recommended assessing full costs | Spangler did not contest assessment of costs in stipulation | Court: ordered Spangler to pay full costs ($6,678.43) and comply with suspension procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fitzgerald, 290 Wis. 2d 713 (2006 WI 58) (attorney who fabricated settlement and used personal funds suspended 90 days)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mauch, 304 Wis. 2d 541 (2007 WI 109) (attorney who deceived client about settlement and paid client from personal funds suspended 90 days)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 269 Wis. 2d 43 (2004 WI 14) (standard of review for referee findings and conclusions)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 261 Wis. 2d 45 (2003 WI 34) (court may impose any sanction regardless of referee recommendation)