By: Derek Hawkins//January 30, 2018//
WI Supreme Court
Case Name: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael Leslie Cummings
Case No.: 2018 WI 8
Focus: Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings
In this disciplinary matter we are asked to determine whether Attorney Michael Leslie Cummings’ license to practice law in Wisconsin should be suspended for a period of six months, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois.
After reviewing this matter, we conclude that Attorney Cummings’ license to practice law in this state should be suspended for a period of six months. In light of the fact that Attorney Cummings has not contested the OLR’s complaint and there has not been a need for the appointment of a referee, we do not impose the costs of this proceeding on Attorney Cummings.
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) initiated this proceeding by filing a complaint, an order to answer, and a motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22(3), requesting the court to order Attorney Cummings to show cause, in writing, why the imposition of discipline identical to that imposed in Illinois would be unwarranted. The OLR’s complaint contained two counts: (1) that Attorney Cummings is subject to discipline reciprocal to a six-month suspension in Illinois and (2) that Attorney Cummings had violated SCR 22.22(1) by failing to notify the OLR of the Illinois suspension. This court issued the requested order to show cause, but Attorney Cummings did not file a response. He also has not filed an answer or other response to the OLR’s complaint. Accordingly, we proceed with the resolution of this matter pursuant to SCR 22.22(3).
Affirmed
Concur:
Dissent: