Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Sandra K. Coplien

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

2010 WI 109 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2009AP916-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sandra K. Coplien, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Sandra K. Coplien, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COPLIEN OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: September 3, 2010 2010 WI 109 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2009AP916-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sandra K. Coplien, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, SEP 3, 2010 v. A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Supreme Court Sandra K. Coplien, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended. ¶1 has PER filed a CURIAM. The complaint Office seeking of Lawyer discipline Regulation (OLR) identical to that imposed in Illinois, where Attorney Sandra Coplien was suspended for six months for professional misconduct. Decker was appointed referee. Decker concluded Attorney discipline in Wisconsin. Attorney John R. After a default hearing, Referee Coplien is subject to reciprocal Referee Decker recommended Attorney No. 2009AP916-D Coplien be suspended for a period of six months and that she pay the costs of this proceeding. ¶2 Because no appeal has been filed, referee's report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1 review of the record, we findings and conclusions. approve and we review the Upon our independent adopt the referee's We determine that by virtue of having been suspended in Illinois for violation of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, Attorney Coplien reciprocal discipline pursuant to SCR 22.22.2 1 is subject Attorney Coplien's 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. 2 SCR 22.22 states: Reciprocal discipline. (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 from the other jurisdiction. 2 the to judgment or order No. 2009AP916-D (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. (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. 3 No. 2009AP916-D license to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six months and she is directed to pay the costs of this proceeding. ¶3 Attorney Sandra K. Coplien was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin on September 1, 1983. practice law in Illinois on November She was admitted to 1, 1982. Effective October 31, 2001, Attorney Coplien's Wisconsin law license was suspended for failure to pay dues. Her Wisconsin law license remains suspended. ¶4 that On April 10, 2009, the OLR filed a complaint alleging Attorney Coplien committed two counts of professional misconduct and asking this court to suspend Attorney Coplien's Wisconsin law license for six months as discipline reciprocal to that imposed upon Attorney Coplien in Illinois. Following the appointment of Referee Decker, the OLR filed a notice of motion and motion for default judgment. referee scheduled a December 18, On December 10, 2009, the 2009, hearing on the OLR's motion, noting that failure to appear could result in a default judgment. ¶5 On April 15, 2010, the referee filed his report and recommendation. The referee stated that Attorney Coplien had been served with the complaint and motion and failed to appear or contest the proceedings. The referee incorporated into his findings the allegations of the OLR complaint. ¶6 The misconduct upon which Attorney Coplien's Illinois suspension was based consisted of two counts of misconduct. In the first matter, Attorney Coplien's client's ex-spouse filed 4 No. three separate regarding petitions change of against visitation Attorney and child 2009AP916-D Coplien's support. client Attorney Coplien failed to inform her client of these various filings, failed to respond to these petitions, and missed scheduled court dates. Attorney Coplien failed to respond to her client's numerous attempts to contact Attorney Coplien by telephone. In re Sandra Kay Coplien, IL Supreme Court No. MR See 22301, Commission No. 07CH45. ¶7 In addition, Attorney Coplien failed to cooperate with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission ("ARDC"). ARDC found Attorney Coplien to be uncooperative and nonresponsive. ¶8 Attorney Coplien's misconduct violated the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct ("IRPC") by: (a) failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of Rule 1.3 of the IRPC; (b) failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter in violation of Rule 1.4(a) of the IRPC; (c) failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client in violation of Rule 3.2 of the IRPC; (d) failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of Rule 8.1(a)(2) of the IRPC; (e) conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 4(a)(4) of the IRPC (two counts); and (f) conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into 5 No. 2009AP916-D disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770 of the IRPC (two counts). ¶9 Referee Decker noted that Attorney Coplien failed to notify OLR of her Illinois suspension. OLR first learned of Attorney Coplien's Illinois discipline ruling in February 2009 through the American Bar Association's Center for Professional Responsibility. Coplien failed Accordingly, the referee found that Attorney to notify the OLR of the within 20 days of its effective date.3 failed to inform the court of any Illinois discipline Attorney Coplien also reason why discipline identical to that imposed in Illinois should not be imposed in Wisconsin. ¶10 The referee concluded Attorney Coplien was in default and the allegations contained in the OLR's complaint were deemed admitted. The referee concluded Attorney Coplien had violated SCR 22.22(1) by failing to notify the OLR within 20 days of the effective date of her Illinois suspension. The referee concluded Attorney Coplien is subject to reciprocal discipline and recommended her license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended and that she be ordered to pay the costs of this proceeding. ¶11 We approve and adopt the conclusions, which are unchallenged. referee's findings and By virtue of having been suspended by the Illinois Supreme Court for her violation of the 3 On May 19, 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court ordered a sixmonth suspension. The OLR learned of Attorney Coplien's Illinois suspension more than eight months later. 6 No. Illinois subject Rules to of Professional reciprocal Conduct, discipline in Attorney Wisconsin 2009AP916-D Coplien is pursuant to SCR 22.22. ¶12 We suspend Attorney Coplien's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of six months, and we direct Attorney Coplien to bear the costs of this proceeding, which were $1,407.68 as of May 5, 2010. ¶13 practice IT IS ORDERED that the license of Sandra K. Coplien to law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six months, effective the date of this order. ¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date of this order, Sandra K. Coplien pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of the proceeding. ¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sandra K. Coplien shall comply with SCR 22.26 regarding the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 7 No. 1 2009AP916-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.