Pattern of Repeat OWI Offenses Constitutes Professional Misconduct Under SCR 20:8.4(b)

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s decision in Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Lynne Layber, 2025 WI 9, marks a clear articulation of the principle that multiple convictions for operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), even when prior offenses are decades old, can establish professional misconduct under Supreme Court Rule 20:8.4(b). In this disciplinary proceeding, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) charged Attorney Lynne Layber—admitted to practice in June 1992 and with no prior discipline—with violating SCR 20:8.4(b) after her fourth OWI conviction (a Class H felony) on July 4, 2020. The key issues were whether Layber’s conduct “reflect[ed] adversely on her honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer” and what sanction would be appropriate.

Summary of the Judgment

By per curiam order, the Court adopted the referee’s findings and concluded as a matter of law that Layber’s fourth-offense OWI conviction violated SCR 20:8.4(b). Neither party appealed the legal conclusion. The Court imposed a public reprimand and directed Layber to pay the full costs of the disciplinary proceeding ($3,699.19). In doing so, the Court emphasized Layber’s pattern of impaired-driving offenses, the high blood-alcohol concentration (BAC of 0.106%—five times above her restricted limit), and her decision to drive while intoxicated despite knowing the law’s consequences.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Brandt II, 2009 WI 43: Established that five OWI convictions, three within a two-year span, evince a “serious lack of respect for the law” and violate SCR 20:8.4(b).
Brandt III, 2012 WI 8: Held that a sixth impaired-driving conviction after a hiatus still violated SCR 20:8.4(b).
Ewald-Herrick, 2014 WI 40: Affirmed that a fourth OWI in five years warranted a public reprimand under SCR 20:8.4(b), especially where prior private discipline existed.
Steinhafel, 2013 WI 93: Found that a third OWI with a minor present violated SCR 20:8.4(b).
Horsch, 2020 WI 10: Accepted a stipulation that a fifth or sixth OWI offense constituted professional misconduct.

These decisions underscore the Court’s consistent view that repeated impaired-driving convictions, taken together, create a pattern of misconduct reflecting adversely on an attorney’s fitness.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied de novo review to the rule violation and independent review to the sanction. It concluded that:

OWI offenses involving high BAC levels and repeated occurrences demonstrate a conscious decision to disregard legal restrictions and public safety.
Even remote prior convictions contribute to a pattern that “reflects adversely on fitness as a lawyer.”
SCR 20:8.4(b) does not require dishonesty or fraud; it is broad enough to encompass criminal acts that undermine public confidence in the legal profession.

In weighing discipline, the Court balanced aggravating factors (four total OWI convictions, high BAC, public risk) against mitigating factors (no prior professional discipline, cooperative stance, criminal penalties already imposed), concluding that a public reprimand best serves the interests of maintaining public trust and upholding the profession’s integrity.

Impact

This ruling reinforces and extends established precedent by clarifying that:

Long-ago OWI convictions remain relevant when assessing an attorney’s fitness if they form part of a continuing pattern.
Attorneys are under a continuing obligation to know and obey all conditions on their driving privileges.
Public reprimands will be imposed where repeated impaired-driving offenses show indifference to the law, even absent any dishonest motive.

Future disciplinary matters involving OWI convictions will likely reference Layber as further support for imposing public sanctions where repeat offenses demonstrate disregard for public safety and legal obligations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

OWI (Operating While Intoxicated): A criminal offense for driving with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit.
BAC (Blood Alcohol Concentration): The percentage of alcohol in a person’s bloodstream; higher BAC increases impairment and legal culpability.
SCR 20:8.4(b): The Wisconsin rule prohibiting a lawyer from committing any criminal act that reflects adversely on fitness to practice law.
Summary Judgment in Disciplinary Context: A procedural ruling that, where facts are undisputed, resolves the legal question of rule violation without a full hearing.
Public Reprimand vs. Private Reprimand: A public reprimand is published and accessible, signaling serious misconduct, whereas a private reprimand is confidential and used for less aggravated cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s decision in Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Layber cements the principle that a pattern of repeated OWI convictions—regardless of temporal gaps—constitutes professional misconduct under SCR 20:8.4(b). By imposing a public reprimand, the Court emphasized attorneys’ duty to model respect for the law and protect public welfare. This decision serves as a clear warning: attorneys who repeatedly violate impaired-driving laws risk public discipline and damage to the profession’s reputation.