Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Douglas Batt
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2010 WI 7 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2008AP2817-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Douglas Batt, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Douglas Batt, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BATT OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: February 3, 2010 2010 WI 7 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2008AP2817-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Douglas Batt, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, FEB 3, 2010 v. David R. Schanker Clerk of Supreme Court Douglas Batt, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly reprimanded. ¶1 of PER CURIAM. Referee publicly Timothy reprimanded We review the report and recommendation L. Vocke for that Attorney professional Douglas misconduct Attorney Batt pay the costs of this proceeding. Lawyer Regulation Attorney Batt (OLR) alleging filed a four-count misconduct with representation of his former client, L.G. Batt and be that The Office of complaint respect against to his The referee concluded the evidence supported the allegations that Attorney Batt failed No. 2008AP2817-D to consult with L.G. regarding the means by which to appeal, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a)(2)1 (Count 2), and that Attorney Batt failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)2 (Count 3). ¶2 the The referee determined the evidence failed to support allegation that Attorney Batt failed to client's decision to file an appeal (Count 1). abide by his The referee also concluded the evidence was insufficient to show Attorney Batt violated his duty to act with reasonable diligence by failing to file a timely appeal (Count 4). The referee recommended dismissal of Counts 1 and 4. ¶3 findings Upon our independent review, we approve the referee's and referee's conclusions report and and adopt recommendation them. has No been appeal filed. of the The referee's findings and conclusions are supported by the record. We conclude Attorney Batt's professional misconduct warrants a public reprimand. We order Attorney Batt to pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding. ¶4 Attorney Batt was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin in 1990. Attorney Batt violations. was He practices in the Milwaukee area. publicly reprimanded for trust In 2007 account See Public Reprimand of Douglas Batt, No. 2007-04. 1 SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) provides that a lawyer shall "reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished; . . . ." 2 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides that a lawyer shall "keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; . . . ." 2 No. ¶5 The current matter involves 2008AP2817-D Attorney Batt's representation of L.G. in his probation revocation proceedings. Attorney Batt attended L.G.'s probation revocation hearing on August 8, 2007. In a decision dated August 10, administrative law judge revoked L.G.'s probation. 2007, the On the same day, a copy of the decision was sent to Attorney Batt with a letter stating the time limit to file an administrative appeal was August 24, 2007. L.G. also received a copy of the decision and was notified of the time limit for filing an appeal. ¶6 Following a conversation with L.G. after the appeal time had expired, Attorney Batt sent a letter to the division of hearings and appeals requesting an extension to file an appeal. The administrator denied the extension, noting he had no authority to enlarge the time for an administrative appeal. The referee the found that Attorney Batt did not inform L.G. administrator had denied his extension request. ¶7 Attorney Batt did not file a timely appeal on behalf of L.G. The referee found credible Attorney Batt's testimony at the disciplinary hearing that L.G. did not request an appeal to be filed before the time limit had expired. The referee determined the OLR failed to show that Attorney Batt was under any obligation to file an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari, absent a request from his client. ¶8 The referee concluded the violations as alleged in Counts 2 and 3. evidence established The referee found that Attorney Batt failed to consult with his client regarding the means by which the appeal of the adverse probation revocation 3 No. 2008AP2817-D decision was to be accomplished or otherwise advise his client of available options. failing to notify denied, Attorney The L.G. Batt referee that the failed to also determined extension request keep client his that had by been reasonably informed regarding the status of the matter. ¶9 As to Count 1, the referee concluded the OLR failed to show L.G. had made a timely request to appeal. With respect to Count 4, the referee further concluded the OLR failed to show that the scope of Attorney Batt's representation included the filing of an administrative appeal. ¶10 Turning to the issue of discipline, the referee found the most aggravating factor was Attorney Batt's previous public reprimand. Another aggravating factor the referee found was that client communication is a basic and significant duty. mitigation, the referee observed Attorney Batt's In previous discipline involved totally unrelated trust account violations. Additionally, the referee doubted Attorney Batt's misconduct caused L.G. any actual harm, noting that L.G. had been "in deep trouble long before he ran into [Attorney Batt]. It's unlikely that there's anything that Mr. Batt could have done at that hearing to get him out of trouble or subsequently. the testimony Therefore, the today, there referee was concluded no merit Attorney to Based upon an Batt's appeal." misconduct warranted a public reprimand and he should bear the costs of the proceeding. ¶11 A referee's findings of fact will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 4 No. Against Carroll, N.W.2d 718. 2001 We conclusions. WI 130, ¶29, independently Id. 248 review adopt the Wis. 2d 662, the referee's 636 legal Referee Vocke's findings and conclusions are unchallenged and supported by the record. and 2008AP2817-D referee's findings and We therefore approve conclusions regarding Attorney Batt's misconduct. ¶12 It appropriate is our independent discipline. See responsibility In re to Disciplinary determine Proceedings Against Reitz, 2005 WI 39, ¶74, 279 Wis. 2d 550, 694 N.W.2d 894. We must consider the seriousness of the misconduct, the need to protect the public, courts, and legal system from the repetition of misconduct, seriousness attorneys of from the the need to impress misconduct, engaging in and similar upon the the need attorney to deter misconduct. See the other In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910. We are satisfied the record supports the referee's recommendation of a public reprimand. ¶13 We also impose full costs. Supreme court rule 22.24 governs the assessment of costs in this proceeding.3 3 Under SCR SCR 22.24 reads in part: Assessment of costs. (1) The supreme court may assess against the respondent all or a portion of the costs of a disciplinary proceeding in which misconduct is found, a medical incapacity proceeding in which it finds a medical incapacity, or a reinstatement proceeding and may enter a judgment for costs. The director may assess all or a portion of the costs of an investigation when discipline is imposed under SCR 22.09. Costs are payable to the office of lawyer regulation. 5 No. 2008AP2817-D 22.24(1m), the court's general policy is to impose costs on the respondent, Attorney Batt. To award less than full costs, the court must find "extraordinary circumstances." Batt has not objected to the costs and Id. has Attorney not claimed extraordinary circumstances to justify the imposition of less than full costs. We conclude Attorney Batt shall bear the entire costs of the proceedings.4 ¶14 IT IS ORDERED that Douglas Batt is publicly reprimanded as discipline for professional misconduct. ¶15 of this IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date order, Douglas Batt pay to Regulation the costs of this proceeding. the Office of Lawyer If costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing of his inability to pay, Douglas Batt's license to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of the court. (1m) The court's general policy is that upon a finding of misconduct it is appropriate to impose all costs, including the expenses of counsel for the office of lawyer regulation, upon the respondent. In cases involving extraordinary circumstances the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, reduce the amount of costs imposed upon a respondent. . . . 4 The OLR filed a statement of costs totaling $4,772.09. 6 No. 1 2008AP2817-D
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
