Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Professional Responsibility — revocation

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 5, 2011//

Professional Responsibility — revocation

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 5, 2011//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Professional Responsibility — revocation

Where attorney Craig M. Hunt’s law license was revoked in California, reciprocal discipline is ordered.

On or about Nov. 4, 2007, the Supreme Court of California ordered that Attorney Hunt be disbarred from the practice of law in California. Attorney Hunt’s misconduct upon which his California disbarment consisted of multiple acts of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, moral turpitude, and violations of the conditions of his probation related to prior discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of California. In re Craig M. Hunt on Discipline, State Bar Court of California Case No. 02-O-14794 (02-O-15949; 03-O-311; 03‑O‑1352; 03-O-02422); 04-N-11190 Cons. Attorney Hunt failed to notify the OLR of the Supreme Court of California’s imposition of public discipline within 20 days of the effective date of the California discipline.”

“Attorney Hunt and the OLR stipulate to the revocation of Attorney Hunt’s license to practice law in Wisconsin, reciprocal to the discipline imposed in California. The parties stipulate that the terms of the stipulation were not bargained for nor negotiated between the parties. The stipulation consists of Attorney Hunt’s admission to the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR and Attorney Hunt’s agreement to the level of discipline that the OLR Director is seeking in this matter. Attorney Hunt represents and verifies that he fully understands the misconduct allegations, he fully understands the ramifications should the court impose the stipulated level of discipline, he fully understands his right to contest this matter, he fully understands his right to consult with and retain counsel, and in fact he is represented in this matter, and that his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily. Attorney Hunt also stipulates that he does not claim any of the potential defenses articulated in SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c).”

2011AP1139-D OLR v. Hunt

Per Curiam.

Attorneys: For Complainant: MacArthur, Anne, Madison; For Respondent: Hunt, Craig M. Sausalito, Calif.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests