Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Louis Andrew Stockman
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2014 WI 113 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2014AP516-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Louis Andrew Stockman, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Louis Andrew Stockman, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STOCKMAN OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: October 7, 2014 2014 WI 113 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2014AP516-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Louis Andrew Stockman, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, OCT 7, 2014 v. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court Louis Andrew Stockman, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended. ¶1 PER CURIAM. This is a reciprocal discipline case. On March 7, 2014, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint and motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22 asking that this court suspend the license of Attorney Louis Andrew Stockman for a period of six months as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court. No. ¶2 Attorney Stockman Wisconsin in 1999. was admitted to 2014AP516-D practice law in He was previously admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 1993. On October 10, 2012, Attorney Stockman's Wisconsin law license was suspended for a period of five months as a result Minnesota. of discipline reciprocal to that imposed in See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stockman, 2012 WI 110, 344 Wis. 2d 26, 821 N.W.2d 249. His Wisconsin license remains suspended. ¶3 the The OLR's complaint noted that on February 8, 2013, Minnesota Supreme Court suspended Attorney Stockman's license to practice law in that state for a period of six months for misconduct communicate consisting with communication two from of neglecting clients; opposing failing counsel, and failing to to respond to including discovery requests; making a false statement to opposing counsel; failing to properly supervise another lawyer in his law firm; failing to comply with and making false statements regarding his compliance with the notice requirements for a previous suspension from the practice of law; displaying signage and utilizing law firm and other designations falsely implying that he continued to be licensed to practice law while he was suspended; engaging in the unauthorized advertising practice in various of law; telephone and contracting directories that for legal would be distributed during the period of his suspension. ¶4 The OLR's complaint also alleged that by failing to notify the OLR of his suspension in Minnesota within 20 days of 2 No. 2014AP516-D the effective date of its imposition, Attorney Stockman violated SCR 22.22(1). ¶5 On April 15, 2014, this court issued an order directing Attorney Stockman to show cause why the imposition of the identical discipline to that Supreme Court would be unwarranted. imposed by the Minnesota Attorney Stockman has not responded to the order to show cause. ¶6 Under SCR 22.22(3), in reciprocal discipline matters, this court shall impose the identical discipline unless one of the enumerated exceptions is shown. There is no indication that any of those exceptions apply in this case. ¶7 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Louis Andrew Stockman to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six months, effective the date of this order. ¶8 comply IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Louis Andrew Stockman shall with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. ¶9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. SCR 22.29(4)(c). 3 all See No. 1 2014AP516-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.
