Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Barry S. Wagner , 381 Wis. 2d 1 ( 2018 )

2018 WI 36SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2017AP2427-D
COMPLETE TITLE: 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: April 17, 2018
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2018 WI 36NOTICE
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:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
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. After reviewing the matter, we
approve the stipulation and impose the stipulated reciprocal
discipline. 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 was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 2000. He was admitted to practice law in Arizona
in 2004. 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 March 22, 2017, the State Bar of Arizona and
Attorney Wagner, through counsel, filed an agreement for
discipline by consent with the Supreme Court of Arizona. On
April 14, 2017, the State Bar of Arizona reprimanded Attorney
Wagner, based on his professional misconduct. As part of their
order, the Arizona court required 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 actions violated the Arizona Rules of Professional
Conduct by failing to safe keep property and by violating
specific rules regarding trust account management. 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. On February 22, 2018, after the OLR's
complaint had been served on Attorney Wagner, the OLR and
2
No. 2017AP2427-D
Attorney Wagner entered into a stipulation 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 the ramifications should the court impose the
1
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 an infirmity of proof
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that
the supreme court could not accept as final the
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical
incapacity.
(c) The misconduct justifies substantially
different discipline in this state.
3
No. 2017AP2427-D
stipulated level of discipline, that he fully understands his
right to consult with counsel and has consulted with an Arizona-
licensed 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 considered this matter, we accept the
stipulation and impose a public reprimand, as discipline
reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Arizona.
Because this matter 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 S. Wagner is publicly
reprimanded.
4
No. 2017AP2427-D
1