915 N.W.2d 176
Wis.2018Background
- Stephanie C. Stoltman, admitted in WI (1984) and AZ (2001), has been administratively suspended in Wisconsin since 2005 for failure to pay dues; she has practiced in Arizona.
- Arizona imposed two disciplinary actions: a 2010 censure (based on trust-account recordkeeping errors and negligent improper disbursements causing a ~$1,000 shortfall) with one year probation, and a 2017 admonition (for failing to issue an arbitration decision and not appearing at a show-cause hearing) with 18 months probation.
- OLR charged Stoltman under SCR 22.22 with (1) subjecting herself to reciprocal discipline based on the Arizona sanctions and (2) failing to notify OLR of the Arizona discipline within the required time.
- The parties filed a stipulation under SCR 22.12: Stoltman admitted the facts and misconduct, did not invoke exceptions to SCR 22.22(3), and agreed a public reprimand was appropriate reciprocal discipline.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the stipulation, imposed a public reprimand (encompassing both Arizona matters), and ordered Stoltman to comply with the unexpired terms of the Arizona August 30, 2017 Order of Admonition and Probation.
- Because the matter was resolved by stipulation without a referee or contested litigation and OLR did not seek costs, the court declined to assess costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stoltman is subject to reciprocal discipline in WI for Arizona censure and admonition under SCR 22.22 | OLR: Arizona final orders establish misconduct; reciprocal identical discipline is required | Stoltman: stipulated she would not invoke SCR 22.22(3) exceptions (no contest) | Court: Reciprocal discipline appropriate; imposed a public reprimand encompassing both Arizona actions |
| Whether Stoltman violated SCR 22.22(1) by failing to notify OLR of out-of-state discipline | OLR: failure to timely notify constitutes separate misconduct | Stoltman: admitted the failure to notify in stipulation | Court: Accepted stipulation; misconduct admitted and part of basis for discipline |
| Whether Wisconsin must impose identical foreign terms like probation when the other jurisdiction imposed probation | OLR: probation terms may be imposed when still in effect | Stoltman: agreed she is subject to reciprocal discipline and to compliance | Court: Ordered compliance with the unexpired 18-month Arizona probation terms; did not order compliance with expired probation from 2010 |
| Whether costs should be imposed where matter resolved by stipulation without a referee | OLR: did not seek costs | Stoltman: stipulation avoided referee and litigation | Court: Declined to assess costs due to stipulation and OLR's non-request |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Omdahl, 2010 WI 3 (reciprocal public reprimands imposed for multiple out-of-state reprimands)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 2012 WI 18 (declining to enforce expired out-of-state probation conditions)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gillette, 2017 WI 48 (ordering compliance with unexpired out-of-state disciplinary probation terms)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hooker, 2010 WI 13 (ordering enforcement of certain out-of-state discipline conditions)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moree, 2004 WI 118 (same principle: require compliance with out-of-state disciplinary conditions when appropriate)