The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a disciplinary referee's recommendation to suspend attorney Daniel P. Steffen's law license for 18 months following his conviction on three felony charges for capturing intimate representations without consent. The court's decision, issued July 1, 2025, signals that more severe discipline may be warranted for the serious criminal misconduct.
The Office of Lawyer Regulation brought disciplinary charges against Steffen after he was convicted of violating Wisconsin Statute Section 942.09(2)(am)1, which criminalizes capturing intimate representations of a person without their knowledge or consent. The criminal case, *State v. Steffen*, was prosecuted in Polk County under case number 2021CF67 and concluded on Feb. 2, 2021.
Referee David A. Piehler had recommended the 18-month suspension along with an order requiring Steffen to pay the full costs of the disciplinary proceeding. The recommendation came after the Office of Lawyer Regulation alleged that Steffen violated Supreme Court Rule 20:8.4(b), which prohibits lawyers from committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on their honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as attorneys.
The disciplinary rule at issue provides that "it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." This professional conduct standard requires attorneys to maintain higher ethical standards than the general public due to their role in the legal system and their access to confidential client information.
In its per curiam opinion, the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the referee's finding that there was "clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence" that Steffen violated the professional conduct rule based on his admitted conduct that led to the criminal convictions. The court also adopted the material factual assertions contained in two stipulations agreed to by both parties.
However, the court explicitly rejected the 18-month suspension recommendation, finding it insufficient. The court cited several factors in its analysis, including "the seriousness and nature of the misconduct, the need to protect the public, the need to impress upon Attorney Steffen the seriousness of the misconduct, the need to deter other attorneys from similar misconduct, and the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors."
Neither the Office of Lawyer Regulation nor Steffen filed an appeal of the referee's recommendation, meaning the case proceeded under Supreme Court Rule 22.17(2), which governs the court's review of uncontested disciplinary recommendations.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's rejection of the recommended discipline suggests the court may impose a more severe sanction. Options available to the court include a longer suspension, permanent disbarment, or additional conditions such as mandatory psychological evaluation or treatment as part of any reinstatement process.
Voyeurism-related crimes have increasingly drawn attention from state bar disciplinary authorities as technology makes it easier to capture and distribute intimate images without consent. The non-consensual capture of intimate images represents a serious violation of privacy that courts and disciplinary bodies view as particularly damaging to the legal profession's reputation.
The case highlights the strict ethical standards imposed on attorneys, who can face professional discipline even for criminal conduct unrelated to their legal practice. Attorney disciplinary proceedings are designed not only to punish individual misconduct but also to protect the public and maintain confidence in the legal profession.
Steffen's felony convictions for intimate representation crimes fall squarely within the type of conduct that reflects on an attorney's fitness to practice law. Such crimes involve deception, violation of trust, and exploitation of others—qualities directly contrary to the ethical obligations attorneys owe to clients and the public.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision to reject the recommended suspension indicates the court views Steffen's conduct as warranting more serious consequences. The court's emphasis on deterring similar misconduct by other attorneys suggests concern about the potential for copycat behavior if discipline is perceived as too lenient.
The case will now proceed to the court's determination of appropriate discipline. The court may schedule oral arguments or issue a final disciplinary order based on the written record. Steffen will have opportunities to present mitigation evidence, though his admitted conduct in the underlying criminal cases limits potential defenses.
This disciplinary proceeding demonstrates Wisconsin's commitment to holding attorneys accountable for criminal conduct that undermines public trust in the legal profession. The ultimate discipline imposed will likely serve as guidance for future cases involving similar misconduct by licensed attorneys.