Office of Lawyer Regulation v. David J. Silberman
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2017 WI 10 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2016AP2014-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against David J. Silberman, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. David J. Silberman, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SILBERMAN OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: February 17, 2017 2017 WI 10 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2016AP2014-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against David J. Silberman, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, FEB 17, 2017 v. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court David J. Silberman, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license revoked. ¶1 and PER CURIAM. Attorney pursuant to Silberman's David Supreme license The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) J. Silberman Court to have practice a (SCR) Rule filed 22.12 that law in Wisconsin stipulation Attorney should be revoked, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of approve Illinois. the Upon stipulation careful and impose review the of the stipulated matter, we reciprocal No. discipline. The OLR does not seek the 2016AP2014-D imposition of costs against Attorney Silberman, and we impose no costs. ¶2 Attorney Wisconsin in 1972. in 1973. Silberman was admitted to practice law in He was admitted to practice law in Illinois Attorney Silberman's Wisconsin law license has been suspended since October 31, 2015, for failure to pay bar dues and failure to file an OLR trust account certificate. ¶3 On September 22, 2016, the Supreme Court of Illinois entered an order disbarring Attorney Silberman in that state. The disbarment was based on two counts of misconduct: (1) Failure to hold property of third persons that is in his possession in connection with a representation separate from his own property, by converting real estate escrow account proceeds to fund the operation of Nova Title, in violation of Rule 1.15(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and (2) Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, by using real estate escrow funds to pay Nova Title's operating expenses, in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010). ¶4 Court of The two counts of misconduct for which the Supreme Illinois disbarred Attorney Silberman arose out of allegations that Attorney Silberman transferred over $460,000 in real estate escrow money from his trust account to the operating account of Nova Title, a company that he owned. The transfers were unrelated to the purpose of the escrow and exceeded any amounts legitimately due to Attorney Silberman or his company. Accordingly, Attorney Silberman's transfer of the funds constituted conversion of his clients' trust funds to his own 2 No. personal use. 2016AP2014-D Attorney Silberman transferred some of the funds back but over $180,000 was not returned. Attorney Silberman failed to respond to the Illinois disciplinary proceeding and provided no Accordingly, defense the to allegations the allegations were deemed against admitted him. and his of the disbarment was ordered pursuant to default proceedings. ¶5 Attorney Silberman did not notify the OLR Illinois disbarment within 20 days of its effective date. ¶6 On October 18, 2016, the OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Silberman alleging the following counts of misconduct: Count One: disbarment, reciprocal SCR 22.22. By virtue of the Illinois disciplinary Attorney Silberman is subject to discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to Count Two: By failing to notify OLR of the Illinois disciplinary disbarment within 20 days of the effective date of that jurisdiction's imposition of public discipline for professional misconduct, Attorney Silberman violated SCR 22.22(1). ¶7 On December 6, 2016, Attorney Silberman entered into a stipulation with the OLR in which he agreed that the facts alleged in the OLR's complaint supported the revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin as reciprocal discipline to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois. ¶8 Under SCR 22.22(3), this court shall impose the identical discipline imposed in another jurisdiction unless one or more of three exceptions apply. In his stipulation, Attorney Silberman states that he does not claim any of the defenses 3 No. 2016AP2014-D found in SCR 22.22(3), and he agrees that this court should revoke his license to practice law in Wisconsin. ¶9 In the stipulation, Attorney Silberman states that the stipulation did not result from plea bargaining, that he does not contest the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR or the discipline sought by the OLR director. Attorney Silberman further states that he agrees the facts alleged in the OLR's complaint may form a basis for the discipline requested by the OLR director. misconduct He further avers that he fully understands the allegations; fully understands the ramifications should this court impose the stipulated level of discipline; fully understands his right to contest the matter; fully understands his right to consult with counsel and represents that he has in fact consulted with counsel; that his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily; that he has read the OLR's complaint and the stipulation and that his entry into the stipulation represents his decision not to contest the misconduct alleged in the complaint or the level and type of discipline sought by the OLR director. ¶10 Upon review of this matter, we accept the stipulation and impose the identical discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois, namely the revocation license to practice law in Wisconsin. of Attorney Silberman's Because this matter has been resolved by means of a stipulation without the appointment of a referee and because the OLR has not requested the imposition of costs, we do not impose any costs upon Attorney Silberman. 4 No. ¶11 2016AP2014-D IT IS ORDERED that the license of David J. Silberman to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this order. ¶12 already IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not done so, David J. Silberman shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. ¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. SCR 22.28(3). 5 all See No. 1 2016AP2014-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.
