Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Sommers, 811 N.W.2d 387

Sommers appeals a referee's 30‑day license suspension and half-cost assessment following a disciplinary proceeding.
The case arose from Sommers' defense of Raisbeck in the Raisbeck matter and related investigations of the OLR and ADA Humphrey, involving extensive discovery, filings, and hearings over several years.
The referee found Counts Two and Three of the OLR complaint supported misconduct; Count One was dismissed.
Sommers challenged procedural issues, including attempts to pursue a counterclaim against the OLR, and contested the record and discovery rulings.
The court conducted de novo review, adopted the referee's findings, and ultimately imposed a 30‑day suspension with a 50% costs reduction due to circumstances saw as unusual.
Costs totaled $94,612.56; Sommers was required to pay half in light of partial success and extensive discovery efforts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sommers committed misconduct on Counts Two and Three	Sommers contends findings were incomplete/unsupported	OLR asserts clear, convincing evidence of misconduct	Counts Two and Three sustained; misconduct found
Whether Count One should have been sustained	Sommers argues the subpoena issue was mischaracterized	OLR sought violation of rules; evidence insufficient	Count One dismissed
Whether Sommers could assert a counterclaim against the OLR	Sommers maintains right to counterclaim per SCR 22.25	Rules do not contemplate formal counterclaims under SCR 22.25	No formal counterclaim allowed; affirmative defense permitted
Whether May 24, 2004 outburst violated SCR 20:3.5/20:8.2/20:8.4(g)	Sommers acted in good faith; remarks were not shown to be false	Outburst disrupted proceedings and damaged judicial integrity	Violations established; conduct disrupted tribunal and violated oath and justice standards
Whether pretrial publicity violated SCR 20:3.6 and sanctions were appropriate	Sommers asserts right to public critique of DA; some publicity warranted	Publicity risked prejudicing adjudicative process	Count Three established violation of SCR 20:3.6; sanctions warranted

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Charlton, 174 Wis. 2d 844 (Wis. 1993) (adopted standard for review of referee findings of fact; de novo on law; fact‑finding reviewed for clear error)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Swartout, 116 Wis. 2d 380 (Wis. 1984) (standard for deference to referee on findings of fact vs. law)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hetzel, 118 Wis. 2d 257 (Wis. 1984) (limits on appellate deference to referee's conclusions of law)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Norlin, 104 Wis. 2d 117 (Wis. 1981) (limits on review of referee decisions)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Osicka, 2009 WI 38 (Wis. 2009) (minimum suspension policy and cost considerations)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grady, 188 Wis. 2d 98 (Wis. 1994) (discretion to deviate from minimum suspension in rare cases)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Schnitzler, 140 Wis. 2d 574 (Wis. 1987) (sanction standards for professional misconduct)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against O'Byrne, 2002 WI 123 (Wis. 2002) (guide to sanctions in complex disciplinary matters)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40 (Wis. 2005) (ABA standards as a framework for sanctions)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Reitz, 2005 WI 39 (Wis. 2005) (considerations of public protection and deterrence in sanctions)