Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Eric L. Crandall
2015 WI 111
Wis.2015Background
- Attorney Eric L. Crandall, admitted in Wisconsin in 1991 and also licensed in Minnesota, has an extensive prior disciplinary history (multiple suspensions and a prior public reprimand between 2006–2011).
- The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a five-count complaint alleging Crandall failed to comply with SCR 22.26 notification duties following a 2011 five-month suspension and failed to cooperate with an OLR investigation.
- The parties stipulated to the facts and misconduct; the referee found Crandall committed five violations: failing to notify clients and the Court of Appeals in multiple pending appeals of his suspension (SCR 22.26(l)(a),(b),(c)) and failing to timely respond to OLR (SCR 22.03(2),(6) enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h)).
- The parties also stipulated that a public reprimand would be the appropriate sanction, and the referee recommended adoption of the stipulation and assessment of full costs ($4,182.17).
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted the referee’s findings and conclusions, accepted the stipulated sanction of a public reprimand, and ordered Crandall to pay the full costs within 60 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Crandall violate SCR 22.26 by failing to notify clients of his suspension? | OLR: Crandall failed to send certified written notice to clients on or before the suspension effective date in multiple appeals. | Crandall admitted the facts in stipulation (no defense contested at merits). | Yes; referee and court found violations of SCR 22.26(l)(a),(b). |
| Did Crandall fail to notify the Court of Appeals of his suspension in pending appeals? | OLR: Crandall failed to notify the Court of Appeals in the certified appeals on or before the suspension effective date. | Crandall stipulated to the facts; no contrary claim. | Yes; violations of SCR 22.26(l)(c) were found. |
| Did Crandall fail to cooperate with OLR’s investigation? | OLR: Crandall did not timely respond to the OLR request and only did so after court order. | Crandall admitted the delay in his stipulation. | Yes; violations of SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). |
| What discipline is appropriate given the misconduct and Crandall’s disciplinary history? | OLR: Public reprimand is appropriate (parties stipulated); costs should be assessed. | Crandall agreed to the stipulated sanction. | Court accepted the referee’s recommendation: public reprimand and payment of full costs ($4,182.17); dissenting justices argued the reprimand was too lenient given repeated misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 287 Wis. 2d 102 (reciprocal discipline and three‑month suspension) (historical disciplinary background relied on)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 307 Wis. 2d 536 (public reprimand) (prior public reprimand referenced for history)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 332 Wis. 2d 698 (suspension) (prior suspension for trust and cooperation violations)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan, 290 Wis. 2d 30 (discipline factors) (lists factors for assessing sanction)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nussberger, 296 Wis. 2d 47 (progressive discipline) (discusses progressive discipline concept)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mulligan, 315 Wis. 2d 605 (public reprimand with prior reprimands) (comparable sanction analysis)
- OLR v. Boyle, 365 Wis. 2d 649 (suspension) (cited by dissent to contrast harsher discipline in a different case)