At least 135 attorneys with criminal convictions are practicing law today in Wisconsin - including some who kept their licenses while serving time and others who got them back before they were off probation, a Journal Sentinel investigation has found.

The roster includes lawyers with felony or misdemeanor convictions for fraud, theft, battery and repeat drunken driving, as well as offenses involving political corruption, drugs and sex. A child-sex offender got probation for his crime but never lost his law license. A politician convicted in a check-kiting scheme was reprimanded but also kept his license.

Another 70 lawyers were charged with crimes but succeeded in having the charges reduced or avoided conviction by completing a deferred prosecution plan. All were given the green light to practice law.

The newspaper's review, which ran nearly 24,000 Wisconsin lawyers against state and federal court records, found that lawyers who are convicted of crimes are then subjected to a slow-moving disciplinary system that operates largely behind closed doors.

Wisconsin appears to be comparatively lenient in dealing with lawbreaking lawyers.

Unlike many other states, where the licenses of lawyers convicted of serious crimes such as fraud are immediately suspended to give regulators time to determine the proper sanction, Wisconsin sometimes allows criminals to keep their law licenses even while they are behind bars.

"The system is run by lawyers and is for lawyers," said Michael Frisch, a national expert in legal discipline who teaches law at Georgetown University. "It's called self-regulation, and it's a pretty good system for lawyers."

And there are consequences that can affect future clients.

Statistics provided by the state Supreme Court's Office of Lawyer Regulation show that in about 40% of the cases reviewed by the agency, lawyers who received only minor sanctions for violating discipline rules went on to reoffend.

Wisconsin's low-profile system for disciplining lawyers has drawn more attention recently after it was disclosed that the Office of Lawyer Regulation took no action against former Calumet County District Attorney Kenneth Kratz after he sent sexually suggestive text messages to a domestic violence victim.

"The Kratz matter caused everybody to stop and pause and say we should see if we could improve the system," said Supreme Court Justice N. Patrick Crooks.

When told of the newspaper's findings, Crooks and two other state Supreme Court justices said it may be time for an in-depth review of the state's lawyer-discipline system.

Among the felons licensed to practice:

• Joseph Engl. Reprimanded after he was convicted in 2004 of using the computer in his downtown law office to set up an attempted sexual encounter with a 14-year-old girl who was actually a Milwaukee County sheriff's deputy. Engl, now 34, was sentenced to four years' probation for the felony. His law license was never suspended.

• Hazel Washington. Her first conviction came in 1979 when she was sentenced to five years in state prison for defrauding Medicaid out of nearly $329,000. She received her law license in 1988 after then-Gov. Tommy Thompson granted her a pardon. In 2006, she was convicted of federal tax evasion, sentenced to five months in prison and up to five months of house arrest. She lost her law license only temporarily. It was reinstated in 2008.

• Michael Gral. Once a partner at the state's third-largest law firm, he was sentenced in 2006 to two years in federal prison and ordered to pay $1.75 million in restitution after he pleaded guilty to mail fraud in a case that involved a $20 million fraud scheme. Last March, one month after he completed probation, the court reinstated Gral's law license, despite objections from his victim and his former firm.

• Gary R. George. Once one of the most powerful Democrats in the Legislature, George was sentenced in 2004 to four years in federal prison for illegally accepting $270,000 in "kickbacks" - a phrase the Supreme Court itself picked up in its reinstatement order. George got his law license back in September, the month after he completed federal probation.

The cases illustrate how legal maneuvering takes advantage of a closed-door process that is overseen only by the state Supreme Court, which allows lawyers to minimize their suspensions and get their licenses back. Supreme Court rules call for disciplining a lawyer convicted of a crime when the offense reflects poorly on his or her "fitness as a lawyer."

Lawyers "understand the different nuances and exceptions in the law," said Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm. "You are in a unique position to use that knowledge for good or for bad."

Those lawyers find a disciplinary system open to forgiveness.

"The court is very willing to be open-minded about people who have sinned, and sinned mightily," said Daniel Blinka, a Marquette University law professor who has worked as a prosecutor and defense lawyer.

No automatic loss

In Wisconsin, felons do not automatically lose their law licenses - and even when their licenses are taken away, they often get them back.

In some other states, felons are automatically disbarred - a penalty that runs for life in Mississippi and for a minimum of seven years in New York.

"We hold attorneys to a higher standard of conduct," said Diana Szochet, former assistant counsel to the New York agency that polices lawyers in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.

Nearly 20 states allow for lifetime disbarments, including California and New Jersey, said Edward Hannan, a Brookfield lawyer who argued unsuccessfully before the state Supreme Court last year for lifetime revocations in Wisconsin.

The rule-change petition had been brought by the Preliminary Review Committee, a lawyer/citizen board that decides when there is probable cause for the court's Office of Lawyer Regulation to seek disciplinary action against an attorney.

Hannan, who chairs the review committee, said he believes lawyers convicted of crimes "involving theft of property, bribery and public corruption" should face permanent disbarment.

"The court has been lenient in terms of discipline - a case that comes to mind specifically is Gary George," Hannan said.

In Wisconsin, a disbarred lawyer - one whose license is revoked - must wait five years to petition the high court for reinstatement. All Wisconsin lawyers suspended for six months or more must ask the court to be reinstated and go through a public hearing.

Most get their licenses back.About 60% of the reinstatement petitions acted on in Wisconsin from 2001 through July were approved by the court, according to a Journal Sentinel review.

In comparison, a mortgage broker convicted of a felony cannot get his or her license back for at least seven years, under a mandate issued last year by Congress in response to the national mortgage meltdown. Those convicted of crimes involving fraud, dishonesty or a breach of trust are banned for life.

Veteran Appeals Court Judge Ralph Adam Fine argues all felons should be banned for life from being lawyers unless there are some "extraordinary" circumstances.

"There are plenty of good, honest lawyers around. Society isn't going to struggle to find legal representation," Fine said.

Raymond Dall'Osto, who has represented numerous lawyers in trouble, agrees the standards must be high, but opposes lifetime bans that do not allow lawyers to redeem themselves.

"Lawyers are no more angelic than any other profession," Dall'Osto said. "Nor are they any more devilish."

Washington's case

Consider the case of the twice-convicted Washington, who made this plea during her 2007 reinstatement hearing:

"I'm 60 years old, and I don't have very much longer to practice law," Washington said, according to a transcript. "But I want to practice a few more years to redeem myself, to prove to everyone . . . I will never do anything that a lawyer shouldn't do."

The Office of Lawyer Regulation opposed Washington's reinstatement, noting at the time she still owed $750,000 in back taxes.

The court reinstated her in 2008, citing the report of Richard M. Esenberg, a Milwaukee lawyer who served as the court-appointed referee and presided over her reinstatement hearing.

Referees are paid $55.64 an hour to review evidence and conduct hearings in disciplinary cases brought by the Office of Lawyer Regulation. They also preside over reinstatement hearings for suspended or disbarred attorneys.

The referees write detailed reports with a recommendation to the Supreme Court, which makes the final decision.

In its unanimous reinstatement opinion, the court wrote: "The referee was clearly convinced that Attorney Washington is genuinely remorseful for her past misconduct and will be loathe to commit future misconduct."

Contacted at her Milwaukee office, Washington said, "I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing."

Levels of discipline

Several levels of discipline exist for Wisconsin lawyers convicted of crimes or who violate other rules.

A lawyer may agree to a diversion program - a program providing guidance that aims to address problems ranging from bad business practices to substance abuse.

The Office of Lawyer Regulation also can issue a public or confidential reprimand with the approval of a referee and consent of the targeted attorney. Reprimands are written warnings to the lawyer that carry no fines or additional punishment. Of the 39 reprimands issued in the last fiscal year, 17 - nearly 44% - were secret.

Other disciplinary sanctions or contested reprimands go to the Supreme Court for final action.

Some 21% of attorneys who were sent to diversion programs between 2000 and 2003 were charged with new wrongdoing by 2008. The repeat-offender rate jumps to 39% for those given private reprimands and 44% for those hit with public reprimands, according to Keith Sellen, the office's director.

Crimes that have resulted in confidential reprimands include repeat drunken driving, drug possession, battery and hit-and-run while intoxicated. Under the rules, it is impossible to know the attorneys who received these reprimands.

Public reprimands are made available online through the Supreme Court's website. They have been issued for everything from bad business practices to felony convictions.

Critics argue that reprimands amount to a slap on the wrist, though defense lawyers disagree.

"It's a very serious penalty," said Francis W. Deisinger, attorney for Engl, the reprimanded lawyer convicted of trying to arrange sex with a person he thought was a teenage girl.

Few complaints filed

Headquartered behind a locked door - visitors must ring a doorbell to be admitted - on the third floor of Madison's Tenney Building, the Office of Lawyer Regulation has spent a lot of unwanted time in recent years in the limelight.

Though many lawyers say they fear the agency, few are ever disciplined by it. The state found probable cause to file complaints against 30 lawyers - or 0.13% of all Wisconsin's lawyers in fiscal 2009, a figure that was about one-third of the national average of 0.4%, according to the American Bar Association. The figure excludes attorneys who accepted a sanction such as a reprimand or revocation.

The total number of lawyers disciplined last year was 63 - or 0.26% of the bar. The figure excludes the 125 lawyers who avoided discipline by agreeing to attend diversion programs.

The wall around the agency cracked last fall when the controversy about Kratz - the then-Calumet County prosecutor who sent suggestive text messages to a domestic-violence victim - came to light.

Even before the Kratz case, the discipline system had begun attracting attention as four politicians convicted in highly publicized cases were admitted back into the Bar - three times with the blessing of the Office of Lawyer Regulation.

"People started taking notice and said, 'Oh my goodness, there are people who are felons who are practicing law out there,' " said Mark Hazelbaker, who represented George.

Mark Sostarich, former chairman of the state Democratic Party, was convicted in connection with the George case and got his license back in 2006 - while still on federal probation.

He was followed by former Senate Majority Leader Chuck Chvala and ex-Sen. Brian Burke, whose law licenses were each suspended for two years after they were convicted of felony misconduct in office in 2005. The court let both back in the game in 2008. Today Chvala maintains an office in Madison across the street from the Capitol and Burke is a public defender in Milwaukee County. Both declined to comment.

When the state Supreme Court gave George his license back in September, it rejected the recommendations of the Office of Lawyer Regulation, which argued, among other things, that he had not paid his court-ordered restitution, showed no remorse and may have violated conditions of his four-year, three-month suspension.

Referee James J. Winiarski also opposed George's reinstatement.

"George does not believe he did anything wrong," Winiarski wrote in his report. "He believes he was prosecuted unfairly as a result of political motivations."

But in its September decision, the Supreme Court said, "There is nothing in the Supreme Court rules that requires Attorney George to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his actions."

In an e-mail, George said, no member of the public "registered or spoke against reinstatement of my license."

Hazelbaker, George's lawyer, said the court simply followed its own rules.

"They set a standard when they decided to reinstate Chuck Chvala, Brian Burke and Mark Sostarich," he said.

Engl's reprimand

The court's reliance on past practice helped Engl, the lawyer convicted of a sex crime in 2004, to receive a public reprimand instead of having his license yanked.

In recommending the reprimand, Sellen, director of the Office of Lawyer Regulation, cited five "similar matters" - that is, offenses by lawyers that resulted in reprimands and not suspensions. Offenses cited in the 2005 memo include fourth-degree sexual assault of a child, felony aggravated battery, sex with a 17-year-old and a fifth conviction for operating while intoxicated.

Sellen said his job is limited to telling the court which rules and precedents apply to the case - not to urge them to break new ground in disciplining lawyers.

Justice Crooks, however, said that by relying so heavily on precedents, the court could be falling behind.

"Times have changed, attitudes have changed," said Crooks, a justice since 1996, who said he's heard complaints that the court is too lenient in disciplining lawyers. "That tells me we should look at it again."

Justices David Prosser and Michael Gableman agreed a review may be needed. Gableman, the court's newest member, said a review would address "any concerns either that the process currently used is not adequately transparent or that the dispositions which result from the process are too lenient."

In an e-mail response to questions, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson stopped short of calling for a full review.

"The court is well aware of the possibility that lawyers and members of the public may perceive the result in any one case or in several cases as too lenient, too tough, or too slow," Abrahamson wrote.

The other justices on the court - Ann Walsh Bradley, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler - either declined to comment or did not return calls.

Automatic suspension

In many states, any lawyer convicted of a "serious crime" - such as perjury, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit or theft - is automatically suspended while regulators determine the proper punishment to seek, said Robert Fellmeth, who teaches public-interest law at the University of San Diego.

That action is in accordance with American Bar Association guidelines that recommend rules stating that a convicted lawyer "shall" be suspended. Wisconsin Supreme Court rules, however, say the convicted lawyer "may" be summarily suspended.

Wisconsin officials did not want an automatic penalty for fear that the temporary suspension would last longer than the sanction the crime actually deserved, Sellen said.

It would have in the case of Thomas Ryan, a Beloit lawyer sentenced to three years' probation in 2003 for writing a worthless $202,000 check. Regulators issued a public reprimand as a result of the conviction - but Ryan's license was never suspended. If there had been an automatic suspension, it would have exceeded the discipline that was ultimately imposed.

Ryan, the former president of the Beloit Common Council, declined to comment.

Wisconsin also has allowed lawyers to do time while carrying a Bar card.

"I have had instances where I represented jailhouse lawyers . . . who have gone through periods of incarceration fully licensed," said defense lawyer Richard Cayo.

Lawyer's 'moral character'

Reinstatement after a suspension requires an attorney to show he has abided by the terms of the suspension and has the "moral character" needed to be an attorney.

"I may have lived a rather sordid life five years ago, but if I could convince the court I am of good moral character, then they admit me," said Marquette's Blinka of the standard.

He cited the court's decision to reinstate Gral's license. Gral was convicted in 2005 of mail fraud, putting his interests ahead of his clients' in real estate deals in which he was investing via a partnership.

To get his multimillion-dollar crime behind him as quickly as possible, Gral - a former partner at Michael Best & Friedrich - spent millions of his own and borrowed dollars. "At a very early stage, we decided to follow a path to cooperate fully and accept responsibility," said Nathan Fishbach, Gral's lawyer.

That meant quickly pleading guilty to a criminal mail fraud charge, surrendering his law license, paying about $2 million in restitution and working out settlements with Bielinski Brothers Inc., the victim of the crime. Between the court-ordered and independently negotiated settlements, Gral agreed to pay $4.5 million in restitution. He also has a separate, confidential agreement with Michael Best.

Gral's strategy worked. His license was reinstated last year - one month after he was off federal probation and over the vehement objections of Bielinski Brothers, which noted Gral was $600,000 behind in his payments, and of Michael Best, which court records shows returned $1 million in fees to Bielinski as a result of Gral's actions.

"Mr. Gral's crimes were not the result of a bad decision under difficult circumstances," Steven Means, a former Michael Best partner, wrote to the Office of Lawyer Regulation. "They were the result of conscious, deliberate acts over a period of time that were motivated by personal greed. This man should never practice law again."

Gral, who says he is not practicing law, offers no apologies for winning his license back.

"I earned it," Gral said when contacted in his east side office.

A high standard

The reason lawyers should be held to a high standard is simple, said Fellmeth, the University of San Diego law professor. "People are entrusting their lives and their fortunes to you, and you better deserve it," he said.

In November, Waukesha County Judge Patrick Haughney spoke of that trust - and took the matter of disciplining a lawyer into his own hands - when he sentenced Mark Kramer, a Brookfield lawyer convicted of taking at least $100,000 from clients.

Haughney talked about the financial and personal damage Kramer had caused when he violated a "sacred trust," according to a transcript of the Nov. 29 hearing.

Then Haughney imposed a sentence on the disbarred lawyer that experienced prosecutors and defense lawyers say is unheard of: The judge banned Kramer from applying to get his license back until he's off probation - a sentence that will run for 10 years after Kramer, 50, completes a four-year prison sentence.

"This isn't just a theft, Mr. Kramer, this is being the wolf in sheep's clothing," Haughney said. "People came to you who were in trouble, and you told them that you could help them, but instead of being the good shepherd, you, in turn, were the wolf who ate these people up."

***

Who are you going to call?

The state Supreme Court oversees rules and discipline for the state's nearly 24,000 attorneys. Here is how to reach the members of the court.

Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson

Term expires 2019

(608) 266-1885

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley

Term expires 2015

(608) 266-1886

Justice N. Patrick Crooks

Term expires 2016

(608) 266-1883

Justice Michael J. Gableman

Term expires 2018

(608) 266-1884

Justice David T. Prosser Jr.

Term expires 2011

(608) 266-1882

Justice Patience Drake Roggensack

Term expires 2013

(608) 266-1888

Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler

Term expires 2017

(608) 266-1881

***

Records analyzed

To report this story, the Journal Sentinel analyzed several databases from the Wisconsin Court System.

The system provided the newspaper with a database of 24,000 licensed attorneys who are listed in good standing by the State Bar.

Reporters compared this list of attorneys with a court records database obtained from the Wisconsin Consolidated Court Automation Programs, commonly known as CCAP.

Comparing these two databases produced more than 200 possible matches in which lawyers were convicted of crimes.

Reporters then reviewed state, federal and Supreme Court records along with the State Bar's website to corroborate that at least 135 licensed attorneys have been convicted. Another 70 were charged with crimes but were able to get the charges reduced to ordinance violations or avoided conviction by completing a deferred prosecution plan.

–Ben Poston