Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Marc G. Kurzman

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

2016 WI 32 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2016AP307-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Marc G. Kurzman, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Marc G. Kurzman, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KURZMAN OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: May 10, 2016 2016 WI 32 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2016AP307-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Marc G. Kurzman, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, MAY 10, 2016 v. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court Marc G. Kurzman, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. CURIAM. review Attorney's license suspended. ¶1 PER We a stipulation pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 between the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) stipulation, that his and Attorney misconduct Attorney Kurzman warrants Marc agrees the G. with Kurzman. the imposition In OLR's of the position a 60-day suspension as discipline reciprocal to that imposed on him in Minnesota. No. ¶2 2016AP307-D After fully reviewing the stipulation and the facts of this matter, we accept the stipulation and impose the 60-day suspension jointly requested by the parties. ¶3 Attorney Wisconsin history in 2003. consists anomalies. Kurzman was Attorney of admitted Kurzman's public to practice Wisconsin reprimand for law in disciplinary trust account Public Reprimand of Marc G. Kurzman, 2012-OLR-12. He was admitted to practice law in Minnesota on October 20, 1972. He practices in Minneapolis, Minnesota. ¶4 On November 25, 2015, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a 60-day suspension of Attorney Kurzman's license based on two counts of misconduct alleging five rule violations for inappropriately questioning a witness during a deposition, failing to provide two different clients with their files within a reasonable period of time, failing to submit records to the court as directed, and providing confidential materials from multiple clients to another of his clients. ¶5 The Minnesota Supreme Court found these acts violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 4.4(a), Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d), Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d), Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, and Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6(a). Attorney Kurzman failed to notify OLR of discipline within 20 days of its effective date. 2 the Minnesota No. ¶6 On February 11, 2016, the OLR filed a 2016AP307-D complaint alleging that, by virtue of the Minnesota discipline, Attorney Kurzman is subject to pursuant to SCR 22.22.1 1 reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin The complaint further alleged that by SCR 22.22 provides that: (1) An attorney on whom public discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for medical incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction shall promptly notify the director of the matter. Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the effective date of the order or judgment of the other jurisdiction constitutes misconduct. (2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in this state, the director may file a complaint in the supreme court containing all of the following: (a) A certified copy of the judgment or order from the other jurisdiction. (b) A motion requesting an order directing the attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of the identical discipline or license suspension by the supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual basis for the claim. (3) 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. (continued) 3 No. failing to notify OLR of his Minnesota 2016AP307-D discipline for professional misconduct within 20 days of the effective date of its imposition, Attorney Kurzman violated SCR 22.22(1). The OLR asked this court to issue an order directing Attorney Kurzman to inform the court of any claim by him predicated upon the grounds set forth in SCR 22.22(3) that imposition of discipline reciprocal to that imposed in Minnesota would be unwarranted. (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 (4) Except as provided in sub.(3), a final adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity shall be conclusive evidence of the attorney's misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a proceeding under this rule. (5) The supreme court may refer a complaint filed under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16. At the hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the imposition of discipline or license suspension different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction to demonstrate that the imposition of identical discipline or license suspension by the supreme court is unwarranted. (6) If the discipline or license suspension imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the stay expires. 4 No. ¶7 executed On March 31, stipulation 2016, whereby the parties Attorney 2016AP307-D filed Kurzman a jointly agrees that by virtue of the Minnesota suspension, he is subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22. He agrees that the factual allegations contained in the OLR's complaint are accurate and that he committed the professional misconduct charged in the complaint. The stipulation states that Attorney Kurzman does not claim any of the defenses set forth in SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c). The stipulation states that Attorney Kurzman fully understands the nature of the misconduct allegations against him, his right to contest those allegations, and the ramifications that would follow from this court's imposition of the stipulated level of discipline. The stipulation indicates that Attorney Kurzman understands his right to counsel and verifies that he is entering into the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily and that his entry into the stipulation represents his decision not to contest this matter. He agrees that it would be appropriate for this court to suspend his license to practice law for a period of 60 days. ¶8 the Having carefully considered this matter, we approve stipulation, adopt the stipulated facts and legal conclusions of professional misconduct, and we suspend Attorney Kurzman's Because license Attorney to practice Kurzman law for entered 5 a period into a of 60 days. comprehensive No. 2016AP307-D stipulation under SCR 22.12 and no referee was needed, we do not impose any costs in this matter. ¶9 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Marc G. Kurzman to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, effective the date of this order. ¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if he has not already done so, Marc G. Kurzman shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended. 6 No. 1 2016AP307-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.