Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Voss, 795 N.W.2d 415

Wisconsin attorney Frederick J. Voss was suspended for at least four years, eight months, due to serious misconduct involving a vulnerable client.
OLR charged multiple counts alleging sexual relations with the client during representation or as SSI payee, plus harassment and disclosure of confidential information.
Referee Hack conducted extensive discovery and 15 days of hearings; Voss invoked Fifth Amendment in response to many questions.
Court sealed the record due to the sensitive nature of the misconduct and ordered no contact between Voss and the client, with the file kept confidential.
Court awarded full costs of the disciplinary proceeding to OLR, totaling $145,216.81, and ordered payment within six months; nonpayment could extend the suspension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Voss engage in professional misconduct warranting discipline?	OLR: counts proven; egregious, exploitative conduct against a vulnerable client.	Voss: denies sexual relations; asserts ongoing attorney-client discretion.	Yes; suspension of four years eight months affirmed.
Should there be a no-contact order and confidentiality for the file?	OLR sought ongoing no-contact and sealed file for protection of client.	Voss objected to no-contact but did not oppose sealing.	No contact ordered; file sealed and confidential.
Should Voss be liable for the costs of the disciplinary proceeding?	OLR requested full costs given scope of proceedings.	Voss contested amount; argued ordinary sanctioning.	Yes; costs awarded in full ($145,216.81).
Is revocation warranted or only suspension?	OLR argued revocation considered but ultimately suspension suffices.	Voss urged lesser sanction or potential termination of representation.	Court chose suspension (four years eight months) rather than revocation.
What guidance or alignment with prior ethics decisions applies?	OLR relied on prior Wisconsin disciplinary standards and analogous cases to justify severity.	Voss emphasized distinction from cases with less egregious facts.	Court affirmed use of substantial suspension, citing Woodmansee as more egregious but not revoking.

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 269 Wis. 2d 43 (2004 WI 14) (standard for reviewing referee findings and conclusions of law)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 261 Wis. 2d 45 (2003 WI 34) (court may impose discipline divergent from referee)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woodmansee, 434 N.W.2d 94 (1989 WI 9) (comparison of sanctions for egregious sexual conduct with a client)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 279 Wis. 2d 583 (2005 WI 40) (considerations in determining attorney sanctions for misconduct)
State ex rel. OLR v. Goodman, 147 Wis. 2d 837 (1989 WI) (analogy on heightened sanction and record handling)