
Vol. 78, No. 2, February 
2005
Lawyer Discipline
The Office 
of Lawyer Regulation (formerly known as the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court 
and component of the lawyer regulation system, assists the court in 
carrying out its constitutional responsibility to supervise the practice 
of law and protect the public from misconduct by persons practicing law 
in Wisconsin. The Office of Lawyer Regulation has offices located at 
Suite 315, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703, and Suite 300, 342 N. 
Water St., Milwaukee, WI 53202. Toll-free telephone: (877) 315-6941.
 
Disciplinary Proceeding against John A. 
Birdsall
On Nov. 23, 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded 
John A. Birdsall, Milwaukee, for professional misconduct consisting of 
committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on Birdsall's honesty, 
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b); 
and counseling a client to engage, or assisting a client, in conduct 
that Birdsall knew was criminal or fraudulent, in violation of SCR 
20:1.2(d). Disciplinary Proceedings Against Birdsall, 2004 WI 
143.
Birdsall defended a client on various felonies relating to domestic 
abuse, including an incident in which the victim reported to police that 
Birdsall's client repeatedly choked her, hit her head against the 
steering wheel of a car, and pointed a gun at her head and pulled the 
trigger but the gun did not fire. Despite being aware that his client 
was under a circuit court order to have no contact with the victim, 
Birdsall scheduled a meeting with the victim which Birdsall knew could 
not be concluded prior to his own client's planned arrival. Birdsall 
then allowed the victim's interview to continue after his own client 
arrived, stating to his client, "I think it is clearly more useful for 
you to be here." During the meeting, which Birdsall surreptitiously 
videotaped and recorded through a third person, Birdsall encouraged the 
victim to change or recant her statements to the police, even after the 
victim informed him that the district attorney advised her that she 
could not change her story because that would be perjury.
Birdsall was charged with two counts of being a party to the crime of 
violating court orders, contrary to Wis. Stat. section 940.48(1). The 
charges were amended later to allege that Birdsall violated the court 
orders, contrary to Wis. Stat. section 940.48(2) (contempt of court). 
Meanwhile, Birdsall's client was charged and convicted of felony bail 
jumping for violating the no-contact provisions of his bail. He was 
sentenced to five years in prison.
Birdsall contested the Office of Lawyer Regulation's (OLR) 
disciplinary complaint, and the matter was tried before a referee for 
four days. The referee concluded that Birdsall, as a party to a crime, 
aided and abetted his client in the act of bail jumping, thereby 
committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on Birdsall's honesty, 
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation 
of SCR 20:8.4(b); and that Birdsall assisted his client in conduct 
Birdsall knew was criminal, in violation of SCR 20:1.2(d). Birdsall 
appealed, but later withdrew his appeal. The supreme court adopted the 
referee's misconduct conclusions.
With regard to discipline, the court, although ultimately accepting 
the referee's (and OLR's) recommendation to publicly reprimand Birdsall, 
stated that it was "greatly troubled" by Birdsall's misconduct, that it 
"condemn[s] it in the strongest terms possible," that "engaging in 
similar behavior in the future on the theory that he is simply 
`zealously' representing his client will result in more stringent 
sanctions," and that "this kind of misconduct cannot and will not be 
condoned."
In addition to publicly reprimanding Birdsall, the court ordered him 
to pay the $19,540.82 cost of the disciplinary proceeding.
Disciplinary Proceeding against John A. 
Krueger
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the Wisconsin law license of 
John A. Krueger, Minnesota, for 30 days effective Nov. 17, 2004, as 
discipline reciprocal to a 30-day suspension imposed on Krueger by the 
Minnesota Supreme Court, effective July 26, 2004.
The Minnesota suspension resulted from Krueger's failure to supervise 
a nonlawyer employee, thus enabling the employee to negotiate and settle 
personal injury claims on behalf of a deceased client and secure forged 
client signatures on settlement checks and a release; notarize a client 
release that contained a forged client signature; endorse settlement 
checks that contained a forged client signature and withdraw attorney 
fees from settlement proceeds; and fail to timely file state and federal 
income tax returns in 1996 and 1997. Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Krueger, 2004 WI 141.
Public Reprimand of Chris J. Trebatoski
The OLR and Chris J. Trebatoski, age 45, Milwaukee, entered into an 
agreement for imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 
22.09(1). A referee appointed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court thereafter 
approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand on Dec. 6, 
2004.
Trebatoski reported to the police that on returning from a casino, he 
encountered a burglar in his home. While investigating the burglary, the 
police learned that several unsuccessful attempts had been made at the 
casino to obtain cash using Trebatoski's credit/ATM cards. Trebatoski 
told the police that he had not made the attempts himself, and the 
police therefore investigated the possible cloning of Trebatoski's 
cards. After obtaining a surveillance camera tape from the casino, 
however, the police learned that it was Trebatoski who made each 
attempted cash withdrawal. Trebatoski nevertheless signed six affidavits 
averring that he had not made the credit card/ATM transactions. He 
subsequently pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor count of obstructing 
a police officer.
By engaging in criminal conduct that reflects adversely on his 
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, 
Trebatoski violated SCR 20:8.4(b). By signing six affidavits that 
averred that he had not made credit card/ATM transactions that he had in 
fact attempted to make, Trebatoski engaged in conduct involving 
misrepresentation, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c).
Wisconsin 
Lawyer