Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Barry S. Wagner
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2018 WI 36 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2017AP2427-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Barry S. Wagner, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Barry S. Wagner, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WAGNER OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: April 17, 2018 2018 WI 36 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2017AP2427-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Barry S. Wagner, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, APR 17, 2018 v. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court Barry S. Wagner, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly reprimanded. ¶1 PER CURIAM. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Barry S. Wagner have filed a stipulation pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 that Attorney Wagner be publicly reprimanded as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Arizona. approve the discipline. stipulation and After reviewing the matter, we impose the stipulated reciprocal In light of the parties' stipulation and the fact No. 2017AP2427-D that no referee needed to be appointed, we impose no costs upon Attorney Wagner. ¶2 Attorney Wagner Wisconsin in 2000. in 2004. was admitted to practice law in He was admitted to practice law in Arizona Attorney Wagner's Wisconsin law license has been suspended since October 2006 for failure to pay bar dues and since May 2007 for failure to fulfill continuing legal education requirements. Attorney Wagner has not been the subject of previous professional discipline in this state. ¶3 On Arizona and agreement for discipline by consent with the Supreme Court of Arizona. On Attorney March Wagner, 22, 2017, through the counsel, State Bar filed of an April 14, 2017, the State Bar of Arizona reprimanded Attorney Wagner, based on his professional misconduct. order, the Arizona court required As part of their Attorney Wagner to be on disciplinary probation for two years and complete trust account ethics training. The Arizona Supreme Court found that Attorney Wagner's violated Conduct actions by specific failing rules to regarding the safe Arizona keep trust Rules property account of and Professional by management. violating Attorney Wagner did not notify the OLR of the Arizona reprimand within twenty days of its effective date. ¶4 On December 13, 2017, the OLR filed a disciplinary complaint alleging that Attorney Wagner should be subject to reciprocal discipline due to the public reprimand imposed by the Supreme Court of Arizona. complaint had been On February 22, 2018, after the OLR's served on Attorney 2 Wagner, the OLR and No. Attorney Wagner entered into a stipulation 2017AP2427-D whereby Attorney Wagner agreed that the facts alleged in the OLR's complaint supported the imposition of a public reprimand as reciprocal discipline. ¶5 Under SCR 22.22(3),1 this court shall impose the identical discipline imposed in another jurisdiction unless one or more of three exceptions apply. In his stipulation, Attorney Wagner states that he does not claim any of the exceptions in SCR 22.22(3). He agrees that this court should impose the public reprimand sought by the OLR. ¶6 Attorney Wagner further states that the stipulation was not the result of plea bargaining, that he does not contest the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR or the discipline that the OLR director is seeking in this matter, that he fully understands 1 the ramifications should the court impose SCR 22.22(3) provides: 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 establishing the misconduct the supreme court could conclusion in respect to incapacity. an infirmity of proof or medical incapacity that not accept as final the the misconduct or medical (c) The misconduct justifies different discipline in this state. 3 substantially the No. 2017AP2427-D stipulated level of discipline, that he fully understands his right to consult with counsel and has consulted with an Arizonalicensed counsel about this matter, and that his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily and represents his decision not to contest the misconduct in the complaint or the level of discipline sought by the OLR director. ¶7 Having stipulation and considered impose reciprocal to that Because this matter a this public matter, we reprimand, accept as the discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Arizona. has been resolved through a stipulation without the appointment of a referee and the OLR has not sought the imposition of any costs, we do not impose costs in this matter. ¶8 IT IS ORDERED that Barry reprimanded. 4 S. Wagner is publicly No. 1 2017AP2427-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.
