Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Bradford A. Borman
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2016 WI 25 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2016AP217-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bradford A. Borman, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Bradford A. Borman, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BORMAN OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: April 15, 2016 2016 WI 25 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2016AP217-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bradford A. Borman, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, APR 15, 2016 v. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court Bradford A. Borman, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly reprimanded. ¶1 PER CURIAM. This is reciprocal discipline matter. On January 29, 2016, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney Bradford A. Borman, seeking the imposition of discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar. On October 8, 2015, the Maine Board publicly of Overseers of the Bar Borman based on two counts of misconduct. reprimanded Attorney No. ¶2 Attorney Wisconsin in 2001. 2007. Borman was admitted to 2016AP217-D practice law in He was admitted to practice law in Maine in His Wisconsin law license was administratively suspended in 2008, for failure to comply with continuing legal education (CLE) requirements. ¶3 On His Wisconsin license remains suspended. February 24, 2016, Attorney Borman and the OLR entered into a stipulation whereby Attorney Borman agrees it would be appropriate discipline sought reprimand. misconduct The in for by this the court OLR stipulation Maine impose director, notes consisted to of that his the namely, level a Attorney failure of public Borman's to file an affidavit demonstrating that he notified relevant parties of the administrative suspension of his Maine law license and failure to respond to Maine disciplinary authorities. his A Bar Grievance Commission panel of the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar found that Attorney Borman violated Maine Bar Rules by: (a) failing to file an affidavit certifying that he provided notice administrative to certain suspension, in parties violation after of an Rule 7.3(i)(2)(B) of the Maine Rules; and (b) failing to respond to Bar Counsel during their investigation of his misconduct, in violation of Rules 8.1(b) and 8.4(a)(d) of the Maine Rules. ¶4 Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22(3) states as follows: The supreme court shall impose the identical discipline or license suspension unless one or more of the following is present: 2 No. 2016AP217-D (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. substantially ¶5 that Attorney Borman does not claim defenses found in SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c) apply. further result states from that plea his entry bargaining. into He the any of the Attorney Borman stipulation represents that did he not fully understands the misconduct allegations; he fully understands the ramifications should this court impose the stipulated level of discipline; he fully understands his right to contest this matter; he fully understands his right to consult with counsel; and his entry voluntarily, and into the stipulation represents his is decision made not knowingly to contest and the misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint or the level and type of discipline sought by the OLR director. ¶6 After fully parties' stipulation. reviewing the matter, we accept the We agree that it is appropriate to impose the discipline identical to that imposed by the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar, namely, a public reprimand. Since this matter was resolved by means of a stipulation, the OLR has not sought the imposition of costs and we do not assess any costs. ¶7 IT IS ORDERED that Bradford reprimanded. 3 A. Borman is publicly No. ¶8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 2016AP217-D administrative suspension of Bradford A. Borman's Wisconsin law license for failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements remains in effect. 4 No. 1 2016AP217-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.
