Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Richard A. Kranitz
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2014 WI 47 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2013AP2128-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Richard A. Kranitz, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Richard A. Kranitz, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KRANITZ OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: July 1, 2014 2014 WI 47 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2013AP2128-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Richard A. Kranitz, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, JUL 1, 2014 v. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court Richard A. Kranitz, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended. ¶1 PER CURIAM. In this disciplinary proceeding, we review a stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.121 between the Office of 1 SCR 22.12 provides: 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. 2013AP2128-D Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Richard A. Kranitz. stipulation, Attorney Kranitz agrees with the OLR's In the position that his misconduct that resulted in a federal felony conviction for conspiracy to commit securities fraud warrants the imposition of a two-year suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin. ¶2 After fully reviewing the stipulation and the facts of this matter, we accept the stipulation and impose the two-year suspension jointly requested by the parties. Given the OLR's statement that no funds came into Attorney Kranitz's control in connection with his misconduct and no individual victims were directly harmed, we do not impose any restitution obligation. Finally, in light of the parties' stipulation and the fact that no referee needed to be appointed in this matter, we do not impose any costs on Attorney Kranitz. ¶3 Attorney Kranitz was admitted to the practice of law in June 1969. He most recently practiced in Grafton. He has not been the subject of professional discipline prior to the present matter. Following his federal conviction in 2013, this (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. court summarily Wisconsin suspended pursuant to SCR his license 22.20. to His 2013AP2128-D practice law law license in remains suspended. ¶4 On April 16, 2013, Attorney Kranitz entered a guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, in violation the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. United States v. hearing, of 18 U.S.C. Kranitz, Attorney CR §§ 1348, No. Kranitz 1349, and 2, 11-10415-NMG. acknowledged in During that the the plea federal government would have been able to produce sufficient facts at trial to prove that he had participated in a conspiracy to pay secret kickbacks to a purported investment fund representative in exchange for having the fund pay inflated prices for shares of stock in a corporation, China Wi-Max Communications, Inc. (China Wi-Max), for which Attorney Kranitz served as a director and attorney.2 Attorney Kranitz's involvement in the conspiracy included drafting agreements and invoices that facilitated the stock purchase and attempted to conceal the kickback. Unbeknownst to Attorney Kranitz and the other co-conspirators, the purported investment fund representative was an undercover agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 2 Based on Attorney Steven T. Berman, who was also licensed to practice law in Wisconsin, was the chief executive officer of China Wi-Max and was also convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud for the same kickback scheme. In the disciplinary proceeding involving Attorney Berman, we suspended his license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of two years. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Berman, 2014 WI 2, 351 Wis. 2d 771, 841 N.W.2d 50. 3 No. the information provided by the prosecution 2013AP2128-D and Attorney Kranitz's statements at the plea hearing, the federal district court accepted Attorney Kranitz's guilty plea. ¶5 On July 17, 2013, the federal court sentenced Attorney Kranitz to serve 18 months in prison and one year of supervised release, as well as levied a fine and imposed other conditions. As Attorney Kranitz has noted, while the federal court did not find that Attorney Kranitz needed to pay restitution to any individuals, it did order him and his co-conspirators to repay $16,000 to the federal government. ¶6 In the stipulation in this disciplinary proceeding, Attorney Kranitz admits that his actions in connection with the stock that purchase reflect and kickback adversely on scheme his constituted honesty, criminal acts trustworthiness, fitness as a lawyer, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).3 or He further agrees that a two-year suspension of his license to practice law in this state would be an appropriate level of discipline for his misconduct. ¶7 The stipulation also contains a set of representations by Attorney Kranitz. He represents that he fully understands the misconduct allegations in the OLR's complaint and that he understands the ramifications that acceptance of the stipulation. would follow this court's He further acknowledges that he 3 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; . . . ." 4 No. 2013AP2128-D understands his right to contest the allegations in this matter, but he admits that he engaged in the misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint. He recognizes his right to consult with counsel and states that he has, in fact, been represented by counsel during the Kranitz avers execution that his of entry knowingly and voluntarily. the into stipulation. the Attorney stipulation is made In addition, the OLR indicates that the stipulation was not the result of plea-bargaining, and that it represents Attorney Kranitz's assent to the misconduct charged and the level of discipline sought by the OLR. ¶8 OLR In its memorandum in support of the stipulation, the states analyzing that what it considered sanction it a number would of cases in Ultimately, request. prior it concluded that a two-year suspension was the proper level of discipline, misconduct reasoning found in that In this re matter is Disciplinary analogous Proceedings to the Against Stern, 2013 WI 46, 347 Wis. 2d 552, 830 N.W.2d 674 (two-year suspension imposed where attorney convicted in federal court of money laundering imprisonment); and and sentenced In re to one year Disciplinary and one Proceedings day of Against Henningsen, 2004 WI 119, 275 Wis. 2d 285, 685 N.W.2d 523 (twoyear suspension imposed where attorney convicted of four counts of mail fraud and sentenced to 33 months of imprisonment). The OLR the also sought disciplinary Attorney case Kranitz's Proceedings Against this same against level Attorney co-conspirators. Berman, 2014 5 WI of discipline Steven See 2, In 351 Berman, re in one of Disciplinary Wis. 2d 771, 841 No. N.W.2d 50. The OLR further states that in 2013AP2128-D fashioning its sanction request, it considered a number of aggravating factors, including the fact that the conduct dishonesty and fraud for personal gain. involved intentional On the other hand, the OLR notes in mitigation that this is the first time Attorney Kranitz has received professional discipline in a legal career that has spanned more than four decades. ¶9 As briefly mentioned above, the OLR is not seeking a restitution award in this matter. It states that Attorney Kranitz's misconduct was discovered in the course of an FBI "sting" operation, and therefore no individuals were directly harmed by Attorney Kranitz's misconduct. Moreover, Attorney Kranitz did not take into his possession funds belonging to others. ¶10 After closely reviewing this matter, we accept the stipulation and determine that Attorney Kranitz did engage in criminal acts in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b). We determine that a two-year suspension of his license to practice law in this state is an appropriate level of discipline to impose in light of the nature of the misconduct and the other factors present in this case. We have already determined that a two-year suspension was the proper level of discipline to be imposed on Attorney Berman, and we do not see a significant distinction between their situations. Although they played different roles, they were both co-conspirators in the same illegal scheme. ¶11 effective We further conclude that the suspension should be made as of the date on which 6 we summarily suspended No. Attorney Kranitz's license, August 9, 2013. 2013AP2128-D This is consistent with our practice in previous disciplinary proceedings involving a prior summary suspension following a criminal conviction. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hughes, 2008 WI 120, ¶13, 314 Wis. 2d 270, 756 N.W.2d 567; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against George, 2008 WI 21, ¶31, 308 Wis. 2d 50, 746 N.W.2d 236; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Burke, 2007 WI 46, ¶16, 300 Wis. 2d 198, 730 N.W.2d 651. ¶12 We particular attorney not facts of petitioning suspension of demonstrate settled do six that all attorney's] explanation impose this for months the claims any case. the note, reinstatement or more is "has persons misconduct . . . , of We attorney of restitution failure or a required made if under however, from injured or, award the that any disciplinary to allege restitution or not, harmed the inability by and to or [the [attorney's] to do so." SCR 22.29(4m). ¶13 Finally, since this matter was brought to the court in the context of an SCR 22.12 stipulation without the appointment of a referee, we do not impose any costs on Attorney Kranitz. ¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Richard A. Kranitz to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two years, effective August 9, 2013. ¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richard A. Kranitz shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 7 No. ¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance 2013AP2128-D with conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. SCR 22.29(4)(c). 8 all See No. 1 2013AP2128-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.
