Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mark Alan Ruppelt

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.

¶ 32. (dissenting.) The discipline should be more than a public reprimand. Attorney Ruppelt not only violated SCR 20:1.8(j), but also violated SCR 20:8.4(h) and (f) by repeatedly misrepresenting the facts to his law firm and the OLR, as explicitly set forth in the opinion. Per curiam, ¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 11.

¶ 33. In addition, I would impose full costs. SCR 22.24(lm) states the court's "general policy [] that upon a finding of misconduct, it is appropriate to impose all costs." The rule then sets forth the factors to consider when determining whether to deviate from that general policy and reduce the costs.

¶ 34. Because the per curiam does not explain or evaluate how those factors apply in this case, there has been no showing that we should deviate from our general policy here.

¶ 35. I am authorized to state that CHIEF JUSTICE SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON joins this dissent.