|
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.
Attorney publicly reprimanded.
|
|
1 PER CURIAM. We review the
stipulation filed by Attorney Joseph Engl
and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR)
pursuant to SCR 22.12 concerning Attorney
Engl's professional misconduct in using a
computer to facilitate a child sex crime.
The parties stipulated that the appropriate
discipline to impose for that professional
misconduct is a public reprimand.
2 We approve the stipulation and adopt
the stipulated findings of fact and
conclusions of law. We also accept the
parties' stipulation that a public reprimand
is the appropriate discipline for Attorney
Engl's misconduct.
3 Attorney Engl was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin in 2002 and lives
in Milwaukee. He has not previously been
disciplined. In April 2004, while working
at his former law firm, Attorney Engl
entered an internet chat room where he
engaged in a conversation with a detective
who was posing as a fourteen-year-old girl.
Attorney Engl expressed interest in having
sex with the girl and arranged to meet her
that evening. When he arrived at the
prearranged meeting site, Attorney Engl was
arrested. He was charged with one count of
using a computer to facilitate a child sex
crime, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.075
(1) (2003-04), a Class D felony. He entered
a guilty plea to the charge and was
convicted. The trial court withheld its
sentence and placed Attorney Engl on four
years probation with conditions that he
undergo counseling and evaluation for sex
offender treatment; that he have no
unsupervised conduct with females under the
age of 18 except for relatives; that he not
visit chat rooms or sexual websites; that he
not engage in instant messaging; that he
submit a DNA sample; that he not possess
firearms; and that he be assessed costs.
Attorney Engl's former law firm terminated
his employment when the criminal charge was
filed.
|
|
4 Attorney Engl and the OLR have
stipulated that by using a computer to
facilitate a child sex crime, Attorney Engl
violated SCR 20:8.4(b). The stipulation
states that the parties agree that an
appropriate level of discipline to impose in
response to the misconduct is a public
reprimand. In explaining why a public
reprimand, rather than a more serious
sanction, is appropriate the stipulation
points to a number of mitigating factors:
Attorney Engl had no prior disciplinary
history; at the time the incident occurred
he was experiencing extreme stress, was
working excessively long hours, and his
mother had recently died; he cooperated with
criminal investigators and with the OLR and
is remorseful; the arrest resulted in media
coverage; he was convicted of a felony and
placed on four years probation with various
conditions; he was fired from his job; and
he provided reports from three therapists
who evaluated him and gave the opinion that
he is unlikely to re-offend.
|
|
5 Attorney Engl represents that he
understands the misconduct allegations and
the ramifications if the court should impose
the stipulated level of discipline. He
indicates that he fully understands his
right to contest the matter and his right to
consult with counsel. He states he is
represented by counsel in the matter and
that he entered into the stipulation
knowingly and voluntarily. Attorney Engl
states that he admits the misconduct and
assents to the level and type of discipline
sought by the OLR director. The stipulation
further indicates that neither the
misconduct charged nor the level of
discipline sought is the result of plea
bargaining.
6 We adopt the findings of fact and
conclusions of law to which the parties have
stipulated concerning Attorney Engl's
professional misconduct. After considering
the seriousness of the misconduct and the
various mitigating factors presented in this
case, we conclude that it is appropriate to
impose a public reprimand.
7 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Joseph
Engl is hereby publicly reprimanded.
|