Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Steven T. Berman
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2014 WI 2 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2013AP2126-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Steven T. Berman, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Steven T. Berman, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BERMAN OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: January 3, 2014 2014 WI 2 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2013AP2126-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Steven T. Berman, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, JAN 3, 2014 v. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court Steven T. Berman, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended. ¶1 to SCR 1 PER CURIAM. 22.121 by the We review a stipulation filed pursuant Office of SCR 22.12 states as follows: Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 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. and No. Attorney Steven T. Berman. agrees that conviction by for engaging the 2013AP2126-D In the stipulation, Attorney Berman in felony conduct offense leading of to conspiracy a to securities fraud, he violated the supreme court rules. criminal commit He also agrees that a two-year suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin misconduct. is an There appropriate is no level request of in discipline this matter for for his a restitution award, nor is there a request for the imposition of costs against Attorney Berman. ¶2 Following careful review of the matter, we agree that a two-year suspension of Attorney Berman's license to practice law is a proper sanction. Since this matter is being resolved without the appointment of a referee, we do not impose any costs on Attorney Berman. ¶3 Attorney Berman was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin in 1987. His law license was summarily suspended, upon the motion of the OLR, on August 9, 2013. His 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 No. remains suspended. 2013AP2126-D Attorney Berman has not previously been the subject of professional discipline. ¶4 The Attorney Gorton stipulation Berman in United states that appeared before the States District on April Honorable Court for the 12, 2013, Nathaniel M. District of Massachusetts in the matter of United States v. Steven Berman, CR No. 11-10415-NMG, and entered a guilty plea to the felony offense of Conspiracy to Commit Securities Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1348, 1349, and 2. The court adjudged Attorney Berman guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Securities Fraud. On July 16, 2013, Attorney Berman was sentenced to a prison term of 18 months in federal prison, plus a term of one year of supervised release upon his release from imprisonment. ¶5 On September 25, 2013, the OLR filed a complaint alleging that by engaging in conduct leading to his conviction for the felony offense of Conspiracy to Commit Securities Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1348, 1349, and 2, Attorney Berman violated SCR 20:8.4(b).2 ¶6 On stipulation October whereby 15, Attorney violated SCR 20:8.4(b). would be appropriate 2013, for the Berman parties agreed entered that his into a conduct Attorney Berman also agreed that it this court 2 to impose the level of SCR 20:8.4(b) states 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; . . . ." 3 No. discipline sought by the OLR director, namely, 2013AP2126-D a two-year suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin. ¶7 the Attorney Berman represents that he fully understands misconduct allegation and the ramifications court impose the stipulated level of discipline. should this He also states that he fully understands his right to contest the matter and his right to consult with counsel. He states his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily. He also states that he is aware that imposition of a two-year suspension of his law license until and would unless result he in his license successfully remaining petitions for suspended reinstatement pursuant to the procedures set forth in SCRs 22.29-22.33. ¶8 the Having carefully considered this matter, we approve stipulation conclusion given of the suspension serious of suspensions adopt professional stipulated misconduct. of the Berman's facts We also misconduct, license to and legal agree that, a two-year practice law is We note that we have previously imposed similar in court cases of where "white Disciplinary Wis. 2d 552, 830 attorneys collar" Proceedings Against the nature Attorney appropriate. federal and Against N.W.2d 674; Henningsen, 2004 In WI have crimes. Stern, re 119, been convicted in See, e.g., re 2013 Disciplinary 275 WI In 46, 347 Proceedings Wis. 2d 285, 685 N.W.2d 523. ¶9 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Steven T. Berman to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for two years, effective the date of this order. 4 No. ¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Steven T. 2013AP2126-D Berman shall continue compliance with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose Wisconsin has been suspended. 5 license to practice law in No. 1 2013AP2126-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.
