Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Adam A. Gillette
375 Wis. 2d 112
| Wis. | 2017Background
- Adam A. Gillette, admitted in Minnesota (2003) and Wisconsin (2009), faced reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin based on a Minnesota disciplinary order.
- Minnesota found Gillette committed ethical violations (neglect, lack of communication, false statements, and professional misconduct) in two client matters; statute-of-limitations prejudice occurred in both matters.
- Minnesota imposed a 60-day suspension, required passing a professional responsibility exam, and imposed two years' probation with conditions; Minnesota noted mitigation (untreated mental-health issue later treated, remorse).
- OLR filed a complaint for reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin and Gillette stipulated under SCR 22.12 to a 60-day Wisconsin suspension and that the facts supported that discipline.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the stipulation, imposed the 60-day suspension effective May 31, 2017, and ordered Gillette to comply with the additional Minnesota conditions (exam and two-year probation) to make the discipline identical under SCR 22.22(3).
- The Court did not assess costs; Justice Abrahamson concurred in part but dissented from imposing Minnesota-only conditions because the stipulation only expressly sought a 60-day suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wisconsin should impose identical reciprocal discipline under SCR 22.22(3) | OLR: impose identical discipline (60-day suspension) and require compliance with Minnesota order to make discipline truly identical | Gillette: stipulated only to a 60-day suspension in Wisconsin; did not agree to Minnesota-only conditions | Court: accepted stipulation, imposed 60-day suspension and ordered compliance with Minnesota conditions to make discipline identical |
| Whether exceptions to SCR 22.22(3) apply to avoid imposing identical discipline | OLR: no exceptions apply; discipline should mirror Minnesota | Gillette: did not invoke exceptions in stipulation (argues court extended stipulation beyond its terms) | Court: no exceptions claimed; imposed identical discipline per rule |
| Whether the court may add the other-jurisdiction conditions when Wisconsin typically does not impose them | OLR: when other-jurisdiction order includes conditions not typical in WI, require compliance to achieve identical discipline | Gillette/Abrahamson: court exceeded stipulation and transformed its scope without proper notice or opportunity to be heard | Court: follows prior practice (e.g., Moree, Hooker) and orders compliance with Minnesota conditions; Justice Abrahamson dissents on this point |
| Whether costs should be imposed | OLR filed statement of costs but recommended none due to stipulation avoiding referee appointment | Gillette: implicit acceptance of no costs | Court: did not impose costs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Action Against Gillette, 886 N.W.2d 214 (Minn. 2016) (Minnesota disciplinary order imposing 60-day suspension, exam requirement, and two-year probation)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moree, 275 Wis. 2d 279 (Wis. 2004) (Wisconsin ordered compliance with other-state conditions where parties had stipulated)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hooker, 322 Wis. 2d 552 (Wis. 2010) (Wisconsin imposed other-state conditions after respondent failed to respond to show-cause order)
- Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Curtin, 357 Wis. 2d 247 (Wis. 2014) (Wisconsin declined to impose nontraditional out-of-state conditions when stipulation sought only a public reprimand)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Milos, 338 Wis. 2d 316 (Wis. 2012) (Wisconsin ordered compliance with Illinois conditions where parties had stipulated)