From Suspension to Automatic Revocation: The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s New Standard for Prosecutorial Sexual Misconduct
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Daniel P. Steffen, 2025 WI 31

1. Introduction

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Steffen presented the Supreme Court of Wisconsin with egregious facts: an assistant district attorney used his position of trust to initiate sexual relationships with two women—one an unrepresented defendant in a case he was prosecuting—and secretly recorded the encounters. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) sought a two-year suspension; the referee recommended 18 months. The Court, reviewing the matter unopposed under SCR 22.17(2), instead revoked Steffen’s license retroactive to the date of his summary suspension, imposed full costs, and articulated a series of principles that now govern attorney discipline where (i) sexual misconduct intersects with prosecutorial power and (ii) the misconduct extends beyond the bare elements of the criminal convictions.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Violation Found – Steffen admitted and the Court found a violation of SCR 20:8.4(b): committing criminal acts reflecting adversely on fitness as a lawyer.
• Sanction – License revoked; revocation effective June 22 2023 (date of the earlier summary suspension under SCR 22.20).
• Costs – Full costs of $9,574.37 assessed under SCR 22.24(1m).
• Key Holdings / Precedent
  • Revocation is appropriate when an attorney in a prosecutorial role engages in sexual misconduct that undermines public confidence in impartial justice, even if the attorney has no prior discipline.
  • Courts may and should scrutinise surrounding circumstances—not just statutory elements of a crime—when measuring seriousness under SCR 20:8.4(b).
  • Time served in criminal confinement carries mitigating weight and does not offset systemic harm.
  • Where a summary suspension preceded final discipline, the final sanction (suspension or revocation) will ordinarily run retroactively from the summary-suspension date.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• In re DeLadurantey (2023) – Restated four core factors for sanctioning (seriousness, public protection, individual deterrence, general deterrence). The Court applied those factors but gave them different weight from the referee.
• In re Ritland (2021) – Two-year suspension for attorney’s sexual crimes. Court used Ritland as a baseline and concluded Steffen’s abuse of prosecutorial authority warranted more severe punishment.
• In re King (2023) – One-year suspension for district attorney’s harassment and impairment. Demonstrated that prosecutorial status aggravates misconduct; the Court treated Steffen’s misconduct as more egregious because it affected open criminal matters.
• In re Voss (2011) and In re Hanes (2020) – Lengthy suspensions for sexually exploitative behaviour toward vulnerable individuals. These cases underscored that longer sanctions issue where (a) victims are vulnerable and (b) pattern exists; Steffen met both criteria.
• ABA Standards 5.11 & 5.12 – Distinguish between disbarment and suspension. The Court—contrary to the referee—relied on 5.11(b) (intentional dishonest conduct seriously reflecting on fitness) to justify revocation.
• Summary-Suspension line of cases (Kranitz, Dudas, Blomme) – Confirm retroactivity of final discipline to summary-suspension date.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Scope of Misconduct The Court held that lawyer discipline concerns conduct, not merely convictions. Thus it scrutinised:
   • Steffen’s undisclosed romantic/sexual relationship with Victim 1 during active prosecution and DJOC supervision.
   • Advice to Victim 2 on evading charges contemporaneously with non-consensual recording.
   • Failure to disclose conflicts to court and district attorney; dishonesty toward law enforcement.
   These facts demonstrate abuse of public office and systemic harm.
2. Aggravating Factors
   • Dishonest/selfish motive.
   • Pattern of misconduct (three felony counts, two victims).
   • Substantial legal experience, including elected DA background.
   • Victims’ vulnerability flowing from Steffen’s prosecutorial power.
3. Mitigating Factors – No prior discipline, expressed remorse, 10-month confinement. But the Court deemed these outweighed by aggravation; incarceration was not “substantial” mitigation.
4. Proportionality Comparing Ritland (2-year suspension) and Hanes (4-year suspension), the Court found Steffen’s case more damaging to institutional integrity because it involved:
   • A sitting prosecutor.
   • Active manipulation of a pending prosecution.
   Therefore progressive discipline was inappropriate; revocation necessary.
5. Retroactivity Consistent with prior practice, revocation deemed to commence on summary-suspension date to avoid “double counting” and to reflect that Steffen has not lawfully practiced since June 2023.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

The ruling creates a robust, easily-citable precedent in three respects:

• Penalty Benchmark – For prosecutors (and by extension other lawyers wielding public power) who commit sexual misconduct tied to their official duties, revocation—not suspension—will be the starting point.
• Analytical Framework – Courts must examine the entire factual matrix, not just the crimes of conviction, when applying SCR 20:8.4(b). This narrows any “elements-only” approach.
• Limited Mitigation from Criminal Sentences – Time served will rarely outweigh systemic harm in sexual-misconduct cases.
• Future OLR Litigation Strategy – The OLR is now equipped with strong language to argue for revocation in analogous cases, thereby elevating expectations for candour and propriety among prosecutors.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• SCR 20:8.4(b) – Ethical rule making it misconduct to commit a criminal act that tarnishes a lawyer’s honesty or fitness. Conviction is not required; the behaviour alone suffices.
• Deferred Judgment of Conviction (DJOC) – Agreement where a defendant pleads guilty but judgment is withheld; if terms are met, the charge is dismissed. Prosecutors supervise compliance and can revoke the deal.
• Summary Suspension (SCR 22.20) – Emergency, interim suspension imposed upon proof of a “serious crime”; remains until final disposition.
• Revocation vs. Permanent Revocation – In Wisconsin, “revocation” allows petition for reinstatement after 5 years (SCR 22.29). Justice Ziegler’s concurrence again critiques this terminology.
• ABA Standards 5.11 & 5.12 – National guidelines differentiating when disbarment (revocation) or suspension is appropriate based on severity and intent of criminal conduct.

5. Conclusion

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Steffen marks a watershed in Wisconsin attorney-discipline jurisprudence. The Court unequivocally held that sexual misconduct intertwined with prosecutorial power constitutes a categorical breach warranting revocation—even for a first-time offender—and that disciplinary analysis must encompass the totality of circumstances, not merely statutory elements. The decision reinforces public trust by signalling that lawyers who exploit power for sexual gratification will forfeit their professional status, and it supplies a clear template for future cases involving comparable abuse. Ultimately, Steffen stands for a simple but powerful proposition: When the guardians of justice weaponise their authority for personal, clandestine sexual gain, the privilege to practice law is forfeited.