Retroactive License Revocation for Prosecutorial Sexual Misconduct: A Commentary on Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Daniel P. Steffen, 2025 WI 31

1. Introduction

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Daniel P. Steffen is a disciplinary decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin issued on 1 July 2025. It arose out of three felony convictions under Wis. Stat. § 942.09(2)(am)1 for surreptitiously recording intimate images of two women—one of whom was an unrepresented criminal defendant actively being prosecuted by Mr Steffen while he served as a part-time Assistant District Attorney.

The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) sought professional sanctions for violation of SCR 20:8.4(b) (“criminal act reflecting adversely on honesty, trustworthiness or fitness”). A referee recommended an 18-month suspension. Neither side appealed, but the Court exercised its own review powers under SCR 22.17(2) and—invoking its heightened scrutiny of sexual misconduct—revoked Steffen’s license, back-dating the revocation to the date of his 2023 summary suspension. The ruling clarifies when revocation (rather than suspension) is appropriate for criminal sexual misconduct committed by prosecutors and cements the practice of making the sanction retroactive to a prior summary suspension.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court adopted the parties’ stipulations and confirmed that Steffen violated SCR 20:8.4(b).
• Finding the referee’s 18-month suspension inadequate, it ordered revocation of Steffen’s law license.
• The effective date is retroactive to 22 June 2023—the day Steffen was summarily suspended under SCR 22.20(1) after his felony convictions.
• Steffen must pay the full disciplinary costs of $9,574.37.
• A concurring opinion again urged the Court to adopt a rule allowing permanent revocation (non-reinstatable) in the most egregious cases.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Court meticulously compared Steffen to a line of sexual-misconduct and criminal-conviction decisions:

• In re DeLadurantey, 2023 WI 17 – Restated the four primary factors for discipline and announced heightened scrutiny for sexual misconduct.
• In re Ritland, 2021 WI 36 – Two-year suspension for misdemeanor sexual conduct; Court refused to “close its eyes” to dismissed but read-in charges. Used to show Steffen’s conduct was worse because he was a prosecutor and victims were defendants.
• In re King, 2023 WI 77 – One-year suspension for a District Attorney’s sexual harassment of staff; cited to underscore that prosecutorial status aggravates misconduct.
• In re Voss, 2011 WI 2 – 4 years 8 months for exploiting a vulnerable client. Helped calibrate why Steffen deserved even stiffer punishment.
• In re Hanes, 2020 WI 89 – 4-year suspension for sexual assault + fleeing police; showed that non-prosecutorial misconduct of similar gravity already yields long suspensions.
• In re Kranitz, 2014 WI 47 & In re Dudas, 2021 WI 5 – Both confirm that final sanctions can be made retroactive to the date of an earlier SCR 22.20 summary suspension.
• In re Blomme, 2022 WI 80 & In re Merry, 2024 WI 16 – Illustrate departures from “progressive discipline” when misconduct eviscerates public trust.
• ABA Standards 5.11 & 5.12 – Framework for deciding between disbarment and suspension in criminal-conduct cases.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Nature & seriousness of misconduct. The Court refused to view the felony counts in isolation, examining the context: Steffen leveraged his prosecutorial power, secretly engaged in sexual relationships with vulnerable parties, failed to disclose conflicts, and lied to investigators—actions that “strike at the heart of the justice system.”
2. Aggravating factors. (i) Dishonest/selfish motive; (ii) pattern of misconduct; (iii) multiple victims; (iv) substantial legal/prosecutorial experience; (v) abuse of position of trust; (vi) vulnerability of victims. These outweighed mitigators (no prior discipline, remorse, partial confinement).
3. Mitigating factors rejected or discounted. The referee gave significant credit for Steffen’s 10-month imprisonment; the Court found that weight excessive.
4. Choice of sanction. Applying ABA Standard 5.11(b), the Court deemed Steffen’s conduct “intentional dishonesty/deceit that seriously adversely reflects on fitness,” warranting revocation rather than lengthy suspension.
5. Retroactivity. Consistent with Kranitz and Dudas, revocation is dated back to the summary suspension, ensuring the attorney does not effectively receive “double credit” time-served on suspension vs. revocation.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

• Heightened penalties for prosecutors. The Court signals zero tolerance when prosecutorial authority intersects with sexual exploitation, even where there is no prior disciplinary record.
• Clarifies progressive-discipline carve-out. Misconduct undermining systemic integrity justifies immediate revocation.
• Affirms retroactivity doctrine. Future respondents on summary suspension should expect the final sanction to date back unless exceptional circumstances exist.
• Guidance for referees. Referees must analyze all surrounding circumstances, not just statutory elements, and must weigh abuse of public office and victim vulnerability more heavily.
• Reopens debate on “permanent” revocation. The concurring opinion renews calls for a procedural mechanism to impose non-reinstatable revocation for the most egregious cases.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• SCR 20:8.4(b) – A broad ethics rule making any criminal act that questions a lawyer’s honesty or fitness a disciplinary offense, regardless of whether the lawyer is formally convicted.
• Summary Suspension (SCR 22.20) – An emergency measure allowing immediate temporary suspension upon proof of a serious criminal conviction, before the disciplinary case is even litigated.
• Revocation vs. Suspension. In Wisconsin, “revocation” terminates the license entirely, but the lawyer may apply for reinstatement after 5 years; “suspension” temporarily removes the license for a set period after which the lawyer may practice (often subject to conditions) without a full reinstatement proceeding.
• Deferred Judgment of Conviction (DJOC). A plea arrangement where judgment is withheld pending compliance with conditions; violation can reinstate prosecution. Steffen’s undisclosed relationship with the DJOC participant tainted prosecutorial neutrality.
• ABA Standards 5.11 & 5.12. National guidelines: 5.11 recommends disbarment when the lawyer’s criminal misconduct involves intentional dishonesty that harms fitness; 5.12 recommends suspension when criminal conduct is serious but not within 5.11’s parameters.

5. Conclusion

Steffen sets two important guideposts in Wisconsin attorney discipline:

1. Prosecutorial sexual exploitation that intersects with criminal acts and deception will presumptively warrant revocation, irrespective of an unblemished disciplinary past.
2. When a lawyer has already been summarily suspended for the same misconduct, the final sanction—whether suspension or revocation—will ordinarily commence on the summary-suspension date.

By refusing to adopt the referee’s lenient recommendation, the Court reinforces public confidence in the impartiality of the justice system and delivers a clear deterrent message: abuse of prosecutorial power in the intimate sphere is a career-ending offense. Future disciplinary tribunals must scrutinize not only the criminal convictions but also the contextual misuse of professional authority and victim vulnerability when determining sanction severity.