By: Derek Hawkins//July 15, 2015//
By: Derek Hawkins//July 15, 2015//
Civil
Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Disciplinary Proceedings – Attorney Misconduct – License Suspension
2012-AP-1845 Office of Lawyer Regulation v. David J. Winkel
A public reprimand would be a disservice to the public interest and minimalize the severity of misconduct where there is a vast disciplinary history of professional misconduct.
“We must impose the discipline needed to protect the public, the courts, and the legal system from Attorney Winkel’s repetition of misconduct, to impress upon him the seriousness of his misconduct, and to deter other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910. We also must bear in mind that discipline is generally progressive in nature. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nussberger, 2006 WI 111, 296 Wis.2d 47, 719 N.W.2d 501. Considering these factors, we conclude that more than a public reprimand is required. This is the third time the court has had occasion to discipline Attorney Winkel for professional misconduct. Clearly, his two previous public reprimands have not sufficiently impressed upon him the need to scrupulously adhere to the rules of professional conduct for attorneys. His course of conduct requires a license suspension. We further conclude that a suspension greater than the 60-day minimum suspension is in order.”
Per Curiam
Concurring: ABRAHAMSON, J
Dissenting: ROGGENSACK, C. J., joined by ZIEGLER, J. dissent (Opinion filed). GABLEMAN, J. dissents (Opinion filed).