Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jolie M. Semancik

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

2015 WI 31 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2013AP2780-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jolie M. Semancik, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Jolie M. Semancik, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SEMANCIK OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: March 18, 2015 2015 WI 31 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2013AP2780-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jolie M. Semancik, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, MAR 18, 2015 v. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court Jolie M. Semancik, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license revoked. ¶1 PER CURIAM. On August 29, 2014, referee Christine Harris Taylor filed a report recommending that Attorney Jolie M. Semancik be declared in default, concluding that Attorney Semancik engaged in serious professional misconduct warranting revocation of her license to practice law in Wisconsin, and recommending that the court impose the costs of this proceeding. Subsequently, the referee twice amended her report, first to correct a statement and clarify that the costs should be imposed No. 2013AP2780-D on Attorney Semancik, and second to accede to the request of the Office of Lawyer restitution Regulation order, although (OLR) that restitution she recommend a not requested in was either the disciplinary complaint or in the OLR's motion for default judgment. ¶2 We pertaining conclude to that Attorney the referee's Semancik's findings ethical of fact misconduct are supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence in the record. Attorney Semancik failed to present a defense despite being given multiple opportunities to do so, and we declare her to be in default. We further agree that the seriousness of Attorney Semancik's misconduct warrants the revocation of her license to practice law in Wisconsin. full costs of this In addition, we conclude that the proceeding, which are $840.56 as of October 28, 2014, should be assessed against Attorney Semancik, and we direct Attorney Semancik to pay $108,000 in restitution, as ordered by the Milwaukee County Circuit Court and recommended by the referee. ¶3 Attorney Wisconsin in Semancik 1994. In was 2005, admitted this to court practice suspended law in Attorney Semancik's license for six months for converting funds in her trust account that the Office of the State Public Defender had provided to pay an investigator. Against Semancik, 2005 WI 139, In re Disciplinary Proceedings 286 Wis. 2d 24, 704 N.W.2d 581. Her license remains suspended. ¶4 Attorney On November charged 7, 2012, Attorney the Milwaukee Semancik 2 with County District felony theft - No. embezzlement of over $10,000. State of Wisconsin v. Jolie M. Semancik, Milwaukee County Case No. 2012-CF-5523. complaint alleged that 2013AP2780-D between January 2010 The criminal and July 2012, Attorney Semancik stole $80,674.50 from the title company where she was a vice president and operations manager. Attorney Semancik wrote several checks for her own benefit from company accounts and made false entries into records to disguise her acts. On March 25, 2013, Attorney Semancik pled no contest to the charge and was convicted. As part of her sentencing, the Milwaukee County Circuit Court ordered her to pay a total of $108,000 in restitution to Mayfair Title Company ($58,000) and Society Insurance Company ($50,000). ¶5 complaint On December 17, 2013, the OLR filed a disciplinary against Attorney Semancik alleging one count of professional misconduct arising from her criminal conviction. On January 31, 2014, Attorney Semancik was personally served with the complaint and order to answer. ¶6 Other than a single appearance at a telephone scheduling conference on April 9, 2014, at which she indicated that she did not intend to file an answer, Attorney Semancik has not participated in these proceedings. She did not appear at the scheduling conference on May 12, 2014, despite efforts to contact her by telephone and email. She did not respond to correspondence from the OLR attempting to resolve this matter by stipulation. She did not respond to a scheduling order advising her that the OLR intended to seek default judgment if she failed to submit an answer by June 17, 2014. 3 No answer was ever filed. No. ¶7 When 2014 June 17, Attorney scheduling default hearing. motion for Semancik failed conference, to the 2013AP2780-D appear referee at the scheduled a On June 23, 2014, the OLR filed its expected default judgment. Attached to the supporting affidavit was a copy of the criminal complaint filed against Attorney Semancik, a copy of her judgment of conviction, and excerpts from transcripts of her plea hearing and the ensuing sentencing hearings. ¶8 the The default motion asked the referee to determine that OLR Court had properly served Attorney (SCR) 22.13(1).1 Rule The Semancik motion under further Supreme sought a determination that Attorney Semancik was in default by failing to timely file an answer to the complaint. The motion sought an order of for default judgment and issuance a report making findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the allegations in the complaint. ¶9 The referee filed an order on July 15, 2014, recommending that this court grant the OLR's motion for default judgment. 1 By recommending that this court grant the motion for SCR 22.13(1) provides: The complaint and the order to answer shall be served upon the respondent in the same manner as a summons under section 801.11(1) of the statutes. If, with reasonable diligence, the respondent cannot be served under section 801.11(1)(a) or (b) of the statutes, service may be made by sending by certified mail an authenticated copy of the complaint and order to answer to the most recent address furnished by the respondent to the state bar. 4 No. default judgment, the referee implicitly 2013AP2780-D incorporated by reference the allegations in the OLR's complaint and deemed them established. ¶10 On August 29, 2014, the referee issued a report finding that the OLR had proven the allegations in the complaint and concluding that Attorney Semancik's criminal conviction for felony theft (embezzlement) violated SCR 20:8.4(b), provides that it is professional misconduct which for a lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, respects." trustworthiness The referee or fitness recommended as that a lawyer Attorney in other Semancik's license be revoked and that she be ordered to pay the full costs of this proceeding.2 ¶11 On September 19, 2014, the OLR wrote to the referee, asking the referee to recommend imposing restitution on Attorney Semancik in the amount of $108,000. The OLR conceded that it had failed to include this request in either its complaint or as part of the requested relief in the default proceeding. It explained that the restitution order sought is identical to that already imposed on Attorney Semancik in the underlying state court criminal proceeding. On October 10, 2014, the referee issued a second amended report noting that Attorney Semancik did 2 On September 3, 2014, the OLR requested that the referee correct the report to accurately reflect the OLR's recommendation as to costs; on September 9, 2014, the referee issued an amended report clarifying that the costs should be imposed on Attorney Semancik. 5 No. 2013AP2780-D not respond to the motion, repeating the OLR's motion to modify the report nearly verbatim, and recommending that the court impose the requested restitution award. ¶12 Attorney Semancik has not filed an appeal from the referee's report and recommendation. Accordingly, our review proceeds pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).3 ¶13 A referee's clearly erroneous. See In re findings of fact are affirmed Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Disciplinary Proceedings Against 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. impose whatever unless sanction it referee's recommendation. sees fit, Eisenberg, The court may regardless of the See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. ¶14 should We be agree declared with in the referee default. that Although Attorney Semancik the properly OLR effected service of its complaint pursuant to SCR 22.13(1) and although Attorney Semancik was given notice of the hearing on the motion for default judgment, she failed to appear or present a defense. 3 Accordingly, we declare her in default. SCR 22.17(2) provides: If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or modify the referee's findings and conclusions or remand the matter to the referee for additional findings; and determine and impose appropriate discipline. The court, on its own motion, may order the parties to file briefs in the matter. 6 No. ¶15 complaint We also have agree been that the established allegations and that in 2013AP2780-D the Attorney OLR's Semancik engaged in the misconduct alleged in the complaint, namely, a violation of SCR 20:8.4(b). We further agree that revocation is an for appropriate sanction Attorney Semancik's serious misconduct, and we agree that she should pay the full costs of the proceeding. ¶16 We restitution. restitution participated also The would in accept belated be these the recommendation nature of the problematic if Attorney proceedings, but OLR's in regarding request for Semancik had this case, she indicated she did not intend to participate in the disciplinary proceeding. Attorney Semancik is already subject to the requested restitution, as it was imposed by the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in her underlying state court criminal proceeding. ¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jolie M. Semancik to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this order. ¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Jolie M. Semancik shall pay a total of $108,000 in restitution, to Mayfair Title Company ($58,000) and Society Insurance Company ($50,000), consistent with the order rendered by the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in State of Wisconsin v. Jolie M. Semancik, Case No. 2012-CF-5523. ¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Jolie M. Semancik shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 7 No. ¶20 2013AP2780-D IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer Regulation. ¶21 already IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not done so, Jolie M. Semancik shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license to practice law has been revoked. 8 No. 1 2013AP2780-D

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.