Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Arthur L. Schuh
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2007 WI 43 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: OF WISCONSIN 2006AP2235-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur L. Schuh, Jr., Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Arthur L. Schuh, Jr., Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SCHUH OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: April 19, 2007 2007 WI 43 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2006AP2235-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur L. Schuh, Jr., Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, APR 19, 2007 v. David R. Schanker Clerk of Supreme Court Arthur L. Schuh, Jr., Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license revoked. ¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a stipulation filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Arthur L. Schuh, Jr., pursuant 1 to SCR 22.121 SCR 22.12 provides: requesting this court to revoke Stipulation. (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. 2006AP2235-D Attorney Schuh's license to practice law in Wisconsin due to his professional misconduct, effective July 27, 2006, the date of the summary suspension of Attorney Schuh's license. Schuh's misconduct consisted of committing Attorney criminal acts, conspiring to distribute a controlled substance and knowingly possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, that reflect adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness and fitness as a lawyer, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).2 ¶2 Having independently reviewed the matter, we approve the SCR 22.12 stipulation and adopt its stipulated facts and conclusions of law. We agree that the serious nature of Attorney Schuh's professional misconduct requires the revocation of his license to practice law in this state. We also agree to the parties' request that the revocation be made effective on the date of the summary suspension of Attorney Schuh's license. (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 20:8.4(b) 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." 2 No. ¶3 Attorney Schuh was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin in area. 2006AP2235-D 1982. He previously practiced in the Appleton Prior to the summary suspension of his license due to his criminal convictions, he had not been subject to professional discipline. ¶4 On April 3, 2006, pursuant to a plea agreement, Attorney Schuh pled guilty to two criminal counts in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In Count 1, Attorney Schuh pled guilty to conspiring to distribute a controlled containing substance, cocaine, in 500 grams violation of or more Title of 21, a United Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and 846. mixture States In Count 2, Attorney Schuh pled guilty to knowingly possessing a firearm in furtherance of the drug trafficking crime, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(c)(1)(A)(i). According to the plea agreement, which the parties stipulate to including in the record of this proceeding, from 2000 to 2003 Attorney Schuh routinely obtained supplier, used one some of to it three for ounces of personal cocaine from consumption, a and distributed the rest to friends and associates. ¶5 On July 13, 2006, the federal district court sentenced Attorney Schuh to a total of 123 months of imprisonment, to be followed by four years of supervised release. The court also ordered Attorney Schuh to pay a $2000 fine and to forfeit his ownership interest in a motorcycle and a cabin in Pine River, Wisconsin. 3 No. ¶6 On July 27, 2006, this court 2006AP2235-D summarily suspended Attorney Schuh's license to practice law in this state pursuant to SCR 22.20 and based on his federal criminal convictions. ¶7 In the SCR 22.12 stipulation, Attorney Schuh agrees that his criminal acts of conspiring to distribute cocaine and knowingly possessing trafficking a crime trustworthiness and firearm in reflect fitness violation of SCR 20:8.4(b). furtherance adversely as a of on lawyer, his and that drug honesty, constitute a On the basis of that violation, Attorney Schuh and the OLR jointly request that the court revoke his license to practice law in Wisconsin, effective as of July 27, 2006. ¶8 The stipulation notes that Attorney Schuh's misconduct is aggravated by the willful nature of his violations of the law and the damage his criminal acts have done to the perception of lawyers and the legal system in this state. On the mitigating side, the stipulation notes that Attorney Schuh does not have a prior disciplinary history and the OLR has no information that Attorney Schuh Moreover, failed Attorney consequences including to represent Schuh has a prison his clients experienced term of ten years diligently. significant and three months, which is close to the mandatory minimum total of ten years required for the two federal offenses. ¶9 The stipulation understands the properly misconduct states allegations that Attorney Schuh against him, the ramifications of the stipulated level of discipline, his right 4 No. 2006AP2235-D to contest the matter, and his right to consult with counsel.3 Further, Attorney Schuh verifies that he is entering the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily. ¶10 Finally, the stipulation contains several requests and statements by Attorney Schuh. He requests the court to take note of his assertions that he did not engage in selling drugs for profit and distributed drugs to a limited number acquaintances in connection with his own use of drugs. asserts that he responsibly transferred other attorneys prior to his conviction. that Attorney Schuh accepts his client of He also files to The stipulation states responsibility and expresses "heartfelt remorse" for his actions. ¶11 the After independently considering this matter, we accept SCR 22.12 stipulation and its joint request for the revocation of Attorney Schuh's license to practice law in this state. Whether or not Attorney Schuh sold the cocaine for profit or simply distributed it to his friends and associates, his actions constitute serious criminal offenses and violations of his obligations as an attorney, and require the revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin. Nonetheless, as we have done in similar cases, we accept the stipulation's request that the revocation be deemed to have commenced on July 27, 2006, when this court summarily suspended Attorney Schuh's Attorney Schuh's license due to his criminal convictions. 3 The counsel. stipulation is also 5 signed by No. ¶12 Because revocation of his Attorney license, Schuh has eliminating stipulated the need 2006AP2235-D to the for the appointment of a referee, and because the OLR has not requested the imposition of costs, we do not assess the costs of this disciplinary proceeding against Attorney Schuh. ¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Arthur L. Schuh, Jr., to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective as of July 27, 2006. ¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if he has not already done so, Attorney Schuh shall comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 6 No. 1 2006AP2235-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.
