Pattern of Repeated OWI Offenses Constitutes Professional Misconduct under SCR 20:8.4(b)

Introduction

This commentary examines the Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s decision in Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Lynne Layber, 2025 WI 9 (Apr. 8, 2025). The case arises from disciplinary proceedings against Attorney Lynne Layber following her fourth-offense operating a vehicle while intoxicated (“OWI”) conviction. The key issues are whether Layber’s conduct violated Supreme Court Rule 20:8.4(b)—which bars criminal acts that reflect adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness—and what discipline is appropriate. The parties, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (“OLR”) as complainant and Lynne Layber as respondent, submitted cross-motions for summary judgment and jointly requested a public reprimand. The Supreme Court reviewed the referee’s report, adopted the finding of misconduct, and imposed a public reprimand plus costs.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court unanimously concluded:

Attorney Layber’s fourth-offense OWI conviction (Class H felony) violated SCR 20:8.4(b) because it reflected a pattern of disregard for the law and adversely affected her fitness as a lawyer.
The prior two-decade gap between her third and fourth OWI did not erase the pattern of making deliberate choices to drive impaired, imperiling public safety.
Applying the American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions and weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, the Court determined that a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction.
Layber must pay the full costs of the proceeding—$3,699.19—within 60 days.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court traced its reasoning to a line of disciplinary decisions involving multiple impaired-driving convictions:

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brandt (Brandt II), 2009 WI 43, 317 Wis. 2d 266, 766 N.W.2d 194. Five DWI convictions, three recent, created a pattern reflecting a lack of respect for law—violation of SCR 20:8.4(b), public reprimand.
Brandt III, 2012 WI 8, 338 Wis. 2d 524, 808 N.W.2d 687. Sixth impaired-driving offense after a hiatus—stipulated violation, public reprimand.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Steinhafel, 2013 WI 93, 351 Wis. 2d 313, 839 N.W.2d 404. Third OWI with passenger minor—default judgment, violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ewald-Herrick, 2014 WI 40, 354 Wis. 2d 672, 847 N.W.2d 823. Fourth OWI in five years—no-contest plea, public reprimand.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Horsch, 2020 WI 10, 390 Wis. 2d 99, 937 N.W.2d 925. Fifth or sixth OWI—stipulation, public reprimand.

These decisions establish that multiple impaired-driving convictions, even if separated by years, may constitute professional misconduct under SCR 20:8.4(b) when they reveal a recurring choice to flout legal restrictions and endanger the public.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court applied a two-step analysis:

Violation of SCR 20:8.4(b): By admitting the facts—four OWI convictions and a measured blood alcohol concentration five times above her restricted BAC limit—Layber conceded that her conduct was illegal and posed a risk to public safety. The Court agreed with the referee that a pattern of misconduct—even with a long remission period—demonstrates “indifference to her obligation under the law” and “reflects adversely on her fitness as a lawyer.”
Appropriate Discipline: Guided by the ABA Standards, the Court weighed aggravating factors (pattern of offenses, severity of the latest BAC) against mitigating factors (no prior discipline, cooperation, criminal penalties already imposed, remoteness of earlier offenses). Although the mitigating circumstances could support a private reprimand, the Court determined that the extreme level of intoxication and the public-safety concerns warranted a public reprimand to underscore the seriousness of the misconduct.

The Court emphasized its independent review of legal conclusions and ultimate sanction, even while giving due regard to the referee’s recommendations.

Impact

This decision reinforces and clarifies several points in lawyer discipline law:

Multiple OWI convictions—regardless of time gaps—can constitute a pattern of professional misconduct under SCR 20:8.4(b) if they show a deliberate disregard for legal restrictions and public safety.
Counsel must be aware of any special operating-license limitations imposed by prior convictions; ignorance of updated BAC limits is not excusable.
Public reprimands remain the norm for serious patterns of impaired-driving offenses when aggravating factors outweigh mitigation.
The decision signals to the bar the continuing importance of personal conduct that exemplifies respect for the law and public protection.

Complex Concepts Simplified

SCR 20:8.4(b): Professional misconduct occurs when a lawyer commits a crime that shows dishonesty, untrustworthiness, or impairs fitness to practice.
Field Sobriety Tests: Standard roadside assessments (e.g., walk-and-turn, horizontal gaze nystagmus) used by police to infer intoxication.
Public vs. Private Reprimand: A public reprimand is announced in the official reports and serves as a stronger deterrent; a private reprimand remains confidential.
ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions: A framework categorizing misconduct by type and severity, guiding courts in selecting appropriate discipline by balancing aggravating and mitigating factors.

Conclusion

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Lynne Layber reaffirms that lawyers hold a heightened responsibility to respect and follow the law in personal conduct as well as professional. Fourth-offense OWI—particularly when it involves a BAC well above restricted and statutory limits—crosses the boundary from isolated personal mistake to professional misconduct under SCR 20:8.4(b). The Court’s decision to impose a public reprimand, despite significant mitigating factors, underscores the legal profession’s insistence on public safety, accountability, and the integrity of the bar. Going forward, attorneys must recognize that repeated impaired-driving convictions remain severely sanctionable, even if earlier offenses are distant in time, and must take affirmative steps to address any substance-related issues before facing more serious discipline.