Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ruppelt v. Ruppelt, 2017 WI 80

Attorney Mark Ruppelt, admitted 1994, entered a stipulation admitting 16 counts of misconduct involving one client (S.J.), including improper use of trust funds, dishonest billing, falsified records, and misleading statements to the court and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).
Core misconduct: temporary conversion of $50,000 from the firm's trust account for personal use (later repaid) and premature/unauthorized disbursements and accounting failures involving over $100,000 in advanced fees.
Ruppelt previously received a public reprimand in 2014 for sexual relations with a client and providing false information to the OLR.
The parties jointly recommended a one-year suspension; the referee accepted the stipulated facts but recommended a 15-month suspension citing aggravating factors (premeditation, concealment, exploitation of a vulnerable client).
The Supreme Court reviewed de novo and imposed a 15-month suspension, assessed full costs, and remanded for supplemental proceedings to determine restitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate length of suspension	OLR (and parties) proposed one-year suspension based on analogous cases	Ruppelt argued one year is reasonable; referee's 15-month recommendation is excessive	Court imposed 15-month suspension; one year insufficient given severity, concealment, and exploitation
Deference to stipulations	Ruppelt urged a policy of deference to joint disciplinary stipulations	OLR supported stipulated sanction	Court declined to adopt deference policy; retains final authority to set discipline
Referee making findings beyond stipulation	Ruppelt argued referee relied on conjecture and facts not expressly in stipulation	Referee drew reasonable inferences from stipulated facts	Court upheld referee’s inferences as permissible factfinding
Restitution determination	Parties stated no ascertainable restitution; OLR did not request restitution	Ruppelt contended fees justified the amounts collected	Court remanded to referee for supplemental factfinding on restitution within 120 days

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 305 Wis. 2d 71 (2007) (standard for review of referee findings and law in disciplinary appeals)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 261 Wis. 2d 45 (2003) (court independently determines appropriate discipline)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Biester, 350 Wis. 2d 707 (2013) (one-year suspension for multiple trust-account and related violations)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Raneda, 340 Wis. 2d 273 (2012) (one-year suspension for trust-account violations and lack of candor)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Schreier, 347 Wis. 2d 92 (2013) (court rejected stipulated discipline and imposed greater suspension)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Edgar, 230 Wis. 2d 205 (1999) (two-year suspension for conversion and misrepresentations)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Siderits, 345 Wis. 2d 89 (2013) (discipline is not an exact science; appellate discretion acknowledged)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Roitburd, 368 Wis. 2d 595 (2016) (court reiterates ultimate responsibility to determine discipline)
Cogswell v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 87 Wis. 2d 243 (1979) (trial judge may draw reasonable inferences from credible evidence)