Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jolie M. Semancik , 361 Wis. 2d 441 ( 2015 )

2015 WI 31SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2013AP2780-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Jolie M. Semancik, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Jolie M. Semancik,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SEMANCIK
OPINION FILED: March 18, 2015
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2015 WI 31NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2013AP2780-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Jolie M. Semancik, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
MAR 18, 2015
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Jolie M. Semancik,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. On August 29, 2014, referee Christine
Harris Taylor filed a report recommending that Attorney Jolie M.
Semancik be declared in default, concluding that Attorney
Semancik engaged in serious professional misconduct warranting
revocation of her license to practice law in Wisconsin, and
recommending that the court impose the costs of this proceeding.
Subsequently, the referee twice amended her report, first to
correct a statement and clarify that the costs should be imposed
No. 2013AP2780-D
on Attorney Semancik, and second to accede to the request of the
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) that she recommend a
restitution order, although restitution was not requested in
either the disciplinary complaint or in the OLR's motion for
default judgment.
¶2 We conclude that the referee's findings of fact
pertaining to Attorney Semancik's ethical misconduct are
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence in the record.
Attorney Semancik failed to present a defense despite being
given multiple opportunities to do so, and we declare her to be
in default. We further agree that the seriousness of Attorney
Semancik's misconduct warrants the revocation of her license to
practice law in Wisconsin. In addition, we conclude that the
full costs of this proceeding, which are $840.56 as of
October 28, 2014, should be assessed against Attorney Semancik,
and we direct Attorney Semancik to pay $108,000 in restitution,
as ordered by the Milwaukee County Circuit Court and recommended
by the referee.
¶3 Attorney Semancik was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1994. In 2005, this court suspended Attorney
Semancik's license for six months for converting funds in her
trust account that the Office of the State Public Defender had
provided to pay an investigator. In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Semancik, 2005 WI 139, 286 Wis. 2d 24, 704 N.W.2d 581.
Her license remains suspended.
¶4 On November 7, 2012, the Milwaukee County District
Attorney charged Attorney Semancik with felony theft -
2
No. 2013AP2780-D
embezzlement of over $10,000. State of Wisconsin v. Jolie M.
Semancik, Milwaukee County Case No. 2012-CF-5523. The criminal
complaint alleged that between January 2010 and July 2012,
Attorney Semancik stole $80,674.50 from the title company where
she was a vice president and operations manager. Attorney
Semancik wrote several checks for her own benefit from company
accounts and made false entries into records to disguise her
acts. On March 25, 2013, Attorney Semancik pled no contest to
the charge and was convicted. As part of her sentencing, the
Milwaukee County Circuit Court ordered her to pay a total of
$108,000 in restitution to Mayfair Title Company ($58,000) and
Society Insurance Company ($50,000).
¶5 On December 17, 2013, the OLR filed a disciplinary
complaint against Attorney Semancik alleging one count of
professional misconduct arising from her criminal conviction.
On January 31, 2014, Attorney Semancik was personally served
with the complaint and order to answer.
¶6 Other than a single appearance at a telephone
scheduling conference on April 9, 2014, at which she indicated
that she did not intend to file an answer, Attorney Semancik has
not participated in these proceedings. She did not appear at
the scheduling conference on May 12, 2014, despite efforts to
contact her by telephone and email. She did not respond to
correspondence from the OLR attempting to resolve this matter by
stipulation. She did not respond to a scheduling order advising
her that the OLR intended to seek default judgment if she failed
to submit an answer by June 17, 2014. No answer was ever filed.
3
No. 2013AP2780-D
¶7 When Attorney Semancik failed to appear at the
June 17, 2014 scheduling conference, the referee scheduled a
default hearing. On June 23, 2014, the OLR filed its expected
motion for default judgment. Attached to the supporting
affidavit was a copy of the criminal complaint filed against
Attorney Semancik, a copy of her judgment of conviction, and
excerpts from transcripts of her plea hearing and the ensuing
sentencing hearings.
¶8 The default motion asked the referee to determine that
the OLR had properly served Attorney Semancik under Supreme
Court Rule (SCR) 22.13(1).1 The motion further sought a
determination that Attorney Semancik was in default by failing
to timely file an answer to the complaint. The motion sought an
order for default judgment and issuance of a report making
findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the
allegations in the complaint.
¶9 The referee filed an order on July 15, 2014,
recommending that this court grant the OLR's motion for default
judgment. By recommending that this court grant the motion for
1
SCR 22.13(1) provides:
The complaint and the order to answer shall be
served upon the respondent in the same manner as a
summons under section 801.11(1) of the statutes. If,
with reasonable diligence, the respondent cannot be
served under section 801.11(1)(a) or (b) of the
statutes, service may be made by sending by certified
mail an authenticated copy of the complaint and order
to answer to the most recent address furnished by the
respondent to the state bar.
4
No. 2013AP2780-D
default judgment, the referee implicitly incorporated by
reference the allegations in the OLR's complaint and deemed them
established.
¶10 On August 29, 2014, the referee issued a report
finding that the OLR had proven the allegations in the complaint
and concluding that Attorney Semancik's criminal conviction for
felony theft (embezzlement) violated SCR 20:8.4(b), which
provides that 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." The referee recommended that Attorney Semancik's
license be revoked and that she be ordered to pay the full costs
of this proceeding.2
¶11 On September 19, 2014, the OLR wrote to the referee,
asking the referee to recommend imposing restitution on Attorney
Semancik in the amount of $108,000. The OLR conceded that it
had failed to include this request in either its complaint or as
part of the requested relief in the default proceeding. It
explained that the restitution order sought is identical to that
already imposed on Attorney Semancik in the underlying state
court criminal proceeding. On October 10, 2014, the referee
issued a second amended report noting that Attorney Semancik did
2
On September 3, 2014, the OLR requested that the referee
correct the report to accurately reflect the OLR's
recommendation as to costs; on September 9, 2014, the referee
issued an amended report clarifying that the costs should be
imposed on Attorney Semancik.
5
No. 2013AP2780-D
not respond to the motion, repeating the OLR's motion to modify
the report nearly verbatim, and recommending that the court
impose the requested restitution award.
¶12 Attorney Semancik has not filed an appeal from the
referee's report and recommendation. Accordingly, our review
proceeds pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).3
¶13 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless
clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg,
2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. The court may
impose whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of the
referee's recommendation. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.
¶14 We agree with the referee that Attorney Semancik
should be declared in default. Although the OLR properly
effected service of its complaint pursuant to SCR 22.13(1) and
although Attorney Semancik was given notice of the hearing on
the motion for default judgment, she failed to appear or present
a defense. Accordingly, we declare her in default.
3
SCR 22.17(2) provides:
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or
remand the matter to the referee for additional
findings; and determine and impose appropriate
discipline. The court, on its own motion, may order
the parties to file briefs in the matter.
6
No. 2013AP2780-D
¶15 We also agree that the allegations in the OLR's
complaint have been established and that Attorney Semancik
engaged in the misconduct alleged in the complaint, namely, a
violation of SCR 20:8.4(b). We further agree that revocation is
an appropriate sanction for Attorney Semancik's serious
misconduct, and we agree that she should pay the full costs of
the proceeding.
¶16 We also accept the recommendation regarding
restitution. The belated nature of the OLR's request for
restitution would be problematic if Attorney Semancik had
participated in these proceedings, but in this case, she
indicated she did not intend to participate in the disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney Semancik is already subject to the
requested restitution, as it was imposed by the Milwaukee County
Circuit Court in her underlying state court criminal proceeding.
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jolie M. Semancik to
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this
order.
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Jolie M. Semancik shall pay a total of $108,000
in restitution, to Mayfair Title Company ($58,000) and Society
Insurance Company ($50,000), consistent with the order rendered
by the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in State of Wisconsin v.
Jolie M. Semancik, Case No. 2012-CF-5523.
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Jolie M. Semancik shall pay to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.
7
No. 2013AP2780-D
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation.
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not
already done so, Jolie M. Semancik shall comply with the
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney
whose license to practice law has been revoked.
8
No. 2013AP2780-D
1