Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Richard A. Kranitz
2016 WI 90
Wis.2016Background
- Richard A. Kranitz, admitted in Wisconsin 1969, practiced corporate law and had no prior disciplinary history before a federal securities-related felony conviction.
- In 2013 he was convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud (federal), sentenced to 18 months, served 14; his Wisconsin law license was summarily suspended and later suspended for two years by this Court in 2014 following a stipulation.
- Kranitz petitioned for reinstatement in March 2016; the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) did not oppose. A referee held a public hearing in July 2016 and recommended reinstatement.
- The referee found Kranitz met SCR 22.31(1) standards: moral character, no practice during suspension, compliance with suspension terms, maintained legal competence (CLE), exemplary post-suspension conduct, and fitness to practice. Witnesses (clients and attorneys) strongly supported him.
- Reinstatement was conditioned on compliance with two SEC consent orders barring him from practicing before the SEC, serving as officer/director of public companies, and participating in penny-stock offerings. Costs of $3,142.97 were assessed to Kranitz.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kranitz has the moral character and fitness to resume practicing law under SCR 22.31(1) | Kranitz: demonstrated remorse, candid testimony, strong character evidence, CLE compliance, and rehabilitative conduct | OLR: did not oppose reinstatement (no contest to petitioner’s showing) | Court held Kranitz met the clear, satisfactory, and convincing standard and is fit to resume practice |
| Whether Kranitz complied with suspension terms and refrained from practicing law during suspension | Kranitz: did not practice law; worked as business consultant and completed CLE; complied with SCR 22.26 requirements | OLR: accepted record showing compliance (no opposition) | Court found full compliance with suspension terms and SCR 22.26 |
| Whether Kranitz maintained competence, learning, and understanding of professional standards | Kranitz: obtained required and additional CLE (including ethics) and educated himself on relevant legal issues | OLR: raised no opposition to sufficiency of CLE and learning | Court held he maintained competence and understanding of ethical standards |
| Appropriate conditions on reinstatement and responsibility for costs | Kranitz: agreed to abide by SEC consent orders and to pay costs | OLR: recommended costs be imposed consistent with precedent | Court reinstated license subject to SEC consent-order conditions and assessed costs of $3,142.97 to Kranitz |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jennings, 334 Wis. 2d 335, 801 N.W.2d 304 (2011) (standard of review for referee findings in reinstatement/disciplinary proceedings)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gral, 323 Wis. 2d 280, 779 N.W.2d 168 (2010) (reinstatement evidentiary requirements and review principles)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Webster, 255 Wis. 2d 323, 647 N.W.2d 831 (2002) (practice of assessing full costs against respondent/petitioner)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kranitz, 354 Wis. 2d 710, 848 N.W.2d 292 (2014) (prior suspension of Kranitz’s license for felony conviction)