Professional Responsibility — public reprimand

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Professional Responsibility — public reprimand

Where attorney Robert J. Smead is already suspended and the misconduct is related to the basis for the previous suspension, a public reprimand is appropriate.

“Because they have not been shown to be clearly erroneous, we adopt the referee’s findings of fact. We also agree with the referee’s conclusions of law and his recommendation regarding the appropriate level of discipline. We conclude that a public reprimand is sufficient to achieve the objectives of attorney discipline. We also agree that under the unique facts of this case, no costs should be imposed against Attorney Smead. We note that in its statement of costs, the OLR says it is appropriate to treat this case similar to cases involving stipulations filed under SCR 22.12, in which costs are generally not assessed against a respondent. The OLR points out that Attorney Smead was previously willing to enter into a pre-litigation stipulation to resolve the matter but a referee rejected that agreement because Attorney Smead was unable to pay restitution at that time. The OLR also notes that Attorney Smead continued his willingness to resolve the matter by not contesting a public reprimand and paying restitution to M.R.”

2011AP960-D OLR v. Smead

Per Curiam.

Attorneys: For Complainant: Weigel, William J., Madison; Kluck, Kim M., Sun Prairie; For Respondent: Smead, Robert J., Larsen