Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Stoltman (In Re Stoltman)

2018 WI 91
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2018AP810-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Stephanie C. Stoltman, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Stephanie C. Stoltman,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STOLTMAN
OPINION FILED: July 24, 2018
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2018 WI 91
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2018AP810-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Stephanie C. Stoltman,
Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant, JUL 24, 2018
v. Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Supreme Court
Stephanie C. Stoltman,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly
reprimanded.
¶1 PER CURIAM. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR)
and Attorney Stephanie C. Stoltman have filed a stipulation
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 that Attorney
Stoltman should 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. Given the
comprehensive stipulation, which avoided the need to litigate
No. 2018AP810-D
this matter and to appoint a referee, we do not impose any costs
in this proceeding.
¶2 Attorney Stoltman was admitted to the practice of law
in Wisconsin in 1984 and in Arizona in 2001. Her Wisconsin
license has been administratively suspended since October 31,
2005, for failure to pay bar dues and assessments. She has most
recently practiced law in Arizona.
¶3 The OLR filed a complaint and order to answer in this
matter on May 1, 2018. The complaint alleged two counts of
professional misconduct: (1) that by virtue of a 2010 censure
and a 2017 admonition imposed by the disciplinary authorities in
Arizona, Attorney Stoltman was subject to reciprocal discipline
in this state, pursuant to SCR 22.22(3), and (2) that Attorney
Stoltman had failed to notify the OLR of either Arizona
discipline within the required time, in violation of
SCR 22.22(1).
¶4 On May 24, 2018, before a referee was appointed, the
OLR and Attorney Stoltman filed a stipulation, in which Attorney
Stoltman stipulated to the two counts set forth in the OLR's
complaint. The OLR filed a memorandum in support of the
stipulation.
¶5 The parties assert that the stipulation was not the
result of plea bargaining. In the stipulation Attorney Stoltman
states that she does not contest the factual assertions and
misconduct charges alleged by the OLR nor does she contest the
discipline requested by the OLR, namely a public reprimand. She
represents that she fully understands the allegations of
2
No. 2018AP810-D
misconduct alleged by the OLR; that she understands the
ramifications of the stipulated level of discipline; that she
understands her right to contest the allegations of misconduct
and her right to consult counsel regarding those allegations;
and that she enters the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily.
¶6 In reciprocal discipline situations, SCR 22.221
mandates that this court impose discipline identical to that
1
SCR 22.22 provides:
(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for
misconduct or a license suspension for medical
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the
effective date of the order or judgment of the other
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a
judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for
medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the
practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in
this state, the director may file a complaint in the
supreme court containing all of the following:
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order
from the other jurisdiction.
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the
grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of
the identical discipline or license suspension by the
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual
basis for the claim.
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of
the following is present:
(continued)
3
No. 2018AP810-D
imposed by the other jurisdiction, unless one or more of three
exceptions apply. In the stipulation Attorney Stoltman states
that she is not claiming that any exception in SCR 22.22(3)
applies to this matter.
(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.
(4) Except as provided in sub. (3), a final
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity
shall be conclusive evidence of the attorney's
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a
proceeding under this rule.
(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint filed
under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a report
and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16. At the
hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the
imposition of discipline or license suspension
different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction
to demonstrate that the imposition of identical
discipline or license suspension by the supreme court
is unwarranted.
(6) If the discipline or license suspension
imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any
reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by
the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the
stay expires.
4
No. 2018AP810-D
¶7 We turn now to the substance of the misconduct and the
discipline imposed in the State of Arizona. This reciprocal
disciplinary proceeding relates to two instances where
discipline was imposed on Attorney Stoltman in Arizona.
¶8 The first instance of discipline was a censure2 imposed
by the Supreme Court of Arizona in January 2010, based on
Attorney Stoltman's stipulation. The conduct underlying this
discipline involved Attorney Stoltman's improper handling of her
client trust account. The disciplinary authorities determined
that she had failed to maintain proper trust account records and
that she had made a number of improper disbursements in excess
of the funds in her trust account for particular clients,
resulting in the conversion of funds belonging to other clients,
in violation of ER 1.15 of the Arizona Rules of Professional
Conduct. The improper disbursements resulted in a shortfall of
slightly more than $1,000 in her client trust account. The
disciplinary authorities, however, determined that the improper
disbursements and accounting errors had been negligent, not
intentional, and that Attorney Stoltman had not intended to keep
funds that did not belong to her. In addition to censuring
2
Under the rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona at the
time of this discipline, there were two forms of discipline that
did not involve the suspension or revocation of an attorney's
license: "censure" and "informal reprimand." Effective
January 1, 2011, the Supreme Court of Arizona amended its rule,
whereby "censures" were renamed "reprimands" and "informal
reprimands" were renamed "admonitions." Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order
No. R-09-0044 (June 30, 2010).
5
No. 2018AP810-D
Attorney Stoltman for her misconduct, the Supreme Court of
Arizona also placed her on probation with a series of conditions
for a period of one year (from January 2010 to January 2011).
¶9 The second instance of discipline was an admonition
imposed on Attorney Stoltman in August 2017 by the Arizona
Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee (the Arizona
Discipline Committee). This admonition arose from Attorney
Stoltman's conduct as a court-appointed arbitrator in a
particular matter. Attorney Stoltman conducted an arbitration
hearing, but she failed to prepare a decision and order based on
the hearing. The appointing court ordered her to show cause why
she had failed to prepare a decision and order, but she did not
appear at the hearing. The Arizona Discipline Committee
concluded that her failure to perform her duties as an
arbitrator had violated ER 8.4(d) of the Arizona Rules of
Professional Conduct, which prohibits an attorney from engaging
in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. In
addition to imposing the admonition, the Arizona Discipline
Committee placed Attorney Stoltman on probation for a period of
18 months, beginning in August or September 2017 (starting at
the time the order of admonition was served on Attorney
Stoltman).
¶10 In the parties' stipulation in this court and the
supporting memorandum filed by the OLR, the parties acknowledge
that Attorney Stoltman is subject to the imposition of
reciprocal discipline in this state by virtue of the two
instances of discipline imposed in Arizona. The OLR asks this
6
No. 2018AP810-D
court to impose a public reprimand as the appropriate reciprocal
discipline. It contends that the Arizona censure is analogous
to a public reprimand in this state and that the admonition is
analogous to a private reprimand.3 It correctly notes that in a
similar situation where this court became aware of two public
reprimands in another jurisdiction well after they had been
imposed, this court publicly reprimanded the attorney in a
single proceeding, while noting that there had been two
reprimands in the other jurisdiction. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Omdahl, 2010 WI 3, 322 Wis. 2d 92, 777
N.W.2d 634, reconsideration denied, 2010 WI 18, 324 Wis. 2d 1,
781 N.W.2d 228 (publicly reprimanding Attorney Omdahl as
reciprocal discipline for two public reprimands imposed by the
Michigan Attorney Discipline Board). We agree that the proper
way to effectuate the reciprocal discipline mandate of
SCR 22.22(3) in this instance is to impose a single public
reprimand of Attorney Stoltman that encompasses both of the
Arizona disciplinary actions.
¶11 There is another matter beyond the imposition of a
public reprimand that must be addressed. In both instances of
discipline, the Arizona disciplinary orders placed Attorney
Stoltman on probation and required her to comply with certain
3
Unlike a private reprimand in Wisconsin, however, the
order of admonition issued to Attorney Stoltman indicates that
it is not confidential. Thus, it appears that in Arizona a
censure (or now a reprimand) and an admonition (or previously an
informal reprimand) are two forms of public reprimands.
7
No. 2018AP810-D
terms of probation. The one-year period of probation imposed by
the 2010 order of the Supreme Court of Arizona has long since
expired so we do not address that here. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 2012 WI 18, ¶10 n.3, 338
Wis. 2d 753, 809 N.W.2d 379 (declining to order attorney to
comply with portion of disciplinary order in other jurisdiction
that imposed period of probation because the probationary period
had already expired). The 18-month period of probation imposed
by the 2017 order of admonition imposed by the Arizona
Discipline Committee, however, remains in effect as of the date
of this decision. In similar situations, where the other
jurisdiction has imposed a form of discipline that this court
does not impose, such as probation, we have ordered the
respondent attorney to comply with the terms and conditions of
the disciplinary order in the other jurisdiction. See, e.g., In
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gillette, 2017 WI 48, ¶¶14-
17, 375 Wis. 2d 112, 895 N.W.2d 1; In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Hooker, 2010 WI 13, ¶11, 322 Wis. 2d 552,
779 N.W.2d 419; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moree,
2004 WI 118, 275 Wis. 2d 279, 684 N.W.2d 667. We will do so
again here.4
4
The stipulation does state that Attorney Stoltman agrees
that it would be appropriate to impose a public reprimand, as
sought by the OLR Director, but it also states that Attorney
Stoltman agrees that, by virtue of the Arizona censure and
admonition, she is subject to reciprocal discipline pursuant to
SCR 22.22. Subsection (3) of that rule requires this court to
impose "the identical discipline." Merely imposing a public
reprimand when the other jurisdiction has imposed additional
(continued)
8
No. 2018AP810-D
¶12 Finally, because this matter has been resolved through
a stipulation without the appointment of a referee or the
expense of litigation and because the OLR does not request the
imposition of costs, we do not impose them in this proceeding.
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Stephanie C. Stoltman is
publicly reprimanded for her professional misconduct, as
reciprocal discipline for the censure and admonition imposed by
the Arizona attorney disciplinary authorities.5
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Stephanie C. Stoltman shall
comply with all of the terms and conditions set forth in the
August 30, 2017 Order of Admonition, Probation, (LOMAP and
Costs), and Costs issued by the Attorney Discipline Probable
Cause Committee of the Supreme Court of Arizona.
forms of discipline would not constitute the imposition of "the
identical discipline." By stipulating that she is subject to
reciprocal discipline under SCR 22.22, Attorney Stoltman is
acknowledging that this court may order her to comply with the
order of probation imposed by the Arizona Attorney Discipline
Probable Cause Committee.
5
This public reprimand does not affect the administrative
suspension of Attorney Stoltman's license to practice law in
Wisconsin. In order for Attorney Stoltman to practice law in
Wisconsin once more, she will need to complete the process for
reinstatement from an administrative suspension for failure to
pay bar dues and assessments.
9
No. 2018AP810-D
1