Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jon E. Stanek

Annotate this Case
Download PDF 2013 WI 41 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2013AP133-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jon E. Stanek, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Jon E. Stanek, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STANEK OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: May 16, 2013 2013 WI 41 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2013AP133-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jon E. Stanek, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED Complainant, MAY 16, 2013 v. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court Jon E. Stanek, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended. ¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a stipulation filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Jon E. Stanek pursuant to SCR 22.121 requesting this court to suspend Attorney 1 SCR 22.12 provides: (1) The director may file with the complaint a stipulation of the director and the respondent to the facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may consider the complaint and stipulation without the appointment of a referee. No. Stanek's license to practice law in Wisconsin 2013AP133-D as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota. ¶2 According to the stipulation, Attorney Stanek became licensed to practice law in Wisconsin in 2005, and practices in Eau Claire. ¶3 He has no prior Wisconsin disciplinary history. In the stipulation Attorney Stanek acknowledges that on November 26, 2012, the Supreme Court of Minnesota suspended his Minnesota law license for 30 days for failing to comply with the terms of a consent agreement for conditional admission and making false statements to the director of Minnesota's Office of Lawyers Professional investigation. Responsibility during a disciplinary The Supreme Court of Minnesota found that those actions violated Rules 3.4(c), 8.1(a) and (b), 8.4(c) and (d), and 25 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. ¶4 Attorney Stanek states in the stipulation that he does not claim that any of the conditions listed in SCR 22.22(3)(a)(c)2 prevent the imposition of reciprocal discipline in (2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law and impose the stipulated discipline. (3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. (4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the prosecution of the complaint. 2 SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c) states: 2 this No. case. 2013AP133-D Attorney Stanek and the OLR jointly request that Attorney Stanek's license to practice law in this state be suspended for 30 days. The stipulation properly provides that it did not result from plea bargaining. contest the facts discipline that Attorney and misconduct the OLR Stanek director represents misconduct allegations; should court the Attorney Stanek says he does not impose that fully the alleged is he by seeking fully understands stipulated the OLR in this or matter. understands the level the the ramifications of discipline; fully understands his right to contest this matter; and fully understands his right to consult with counsel. that his entry voluntarily and into the stipulation represents his was decision He further avers made not knowingly to contest and the misconduct alleged or the type of discipline sought by the OLR director. ¶5 the Based upon our independent review, we determine that SCR 22.12 stipulation should be accepted and Attorney The supreme court shall impose the identical discipline or license suspension unless one or more of the following is present: (a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process. (b) There was such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that the supreme court could not accept as final the conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical incapacity. (c) The misconduct justifies different discipline in this state. 3 substantially No. Stanek's license to practice law in Wisconsin 2013AP133-D should be suspended for 30 days as reciprocal discipline to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota. Since Attorney Stanek entered into a stipulation and there was no need to appoint a referee, we agree that costs should not be imposed in this case. ¶6 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jon E. Stanek to practice law in the State of Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 30 days, effective June 13, 2013. ¶7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jon E. Stanek shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice FURTHER ORDERED law in Wisconsin has been with all suspended. ¶8 IT IS that compliance conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. SCR 22.28(2). 4 See No. 1 2013AP133-D