|
The Court entered the following order on
this date:
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has
filed a complaint asking this court,
pursuant to SCR 22.22, to suspend Attorney
Eric Leighton Crandall’s license to
practice law in Wisconsin for a period of
90 days as discipline reciprocal to that
imposed upon Attorney Crandall in Minnesota.
Attorney Crandall was admitted to practice
law in Wisconsin in 1991. He was admitted
to practice law in Minnesota in 1988.
|
|
On July 28, 2005, the Minnesota Supreme
Court ordered that Attorney Crandall be
indefinitely suspended from the practice of
law, with the right to seek reinstatement
after three months, for professional
misconduct consisting of neglecting client
matters, failing to appear at his clients’
court hearings, failing to comply with the
rules of discovery, and failing to
cooperate fully with the Director of the
Office of Lawyers Professional
Responsibility. The OLR’s complaint
alleges that by virtue of having received
public discipline imposed by the Minnesota
Supreme Court for his violation of the
Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct,
Attorney Crandall is subject to reciprocal
discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR
22.22. The complaint also alleges that by
failing to notify the OLR of the suspension
of his Minnesota law license within 20 days
of the effective date of that
jurisdiction’s imposition of a suspension
for professional misconduct, Attorney
Crandall violated SCR 22.22(1).
|
|
SCR 22.22(3) provides that this court shall
impose the identical discipline or license
suspension unless the procedure in the
other jurisdiction was so lacking in notice
or opportunity to be heard as to constitute
a due process violation; there was such an
infirmity of proof establishing the
misconduct that this court could not accept
as final the misconduct finding; or the
misconduct justifies substantially
different discipline here.
Attorney Crandall filed a letter response
to the OLR’s complaint on November 29, 2005
stating two reasons why he believes
reciprocal discipline to be inappropriate.
First, he says the punishment imposed by
the Minnesota Supreme Court exceeds the
punishment that the court would impose
under similar circumstances. He
says, “Three months suspension for
essentially missing three court appearances
is excessive. Additionally two of the
seven Minnesota Supreme Court Justices
disagreed with the length of the
suspension.” (Two justices would have
allowed Attorney Crandall to seek
reinstatement after two months.) Second,
Attorney Crandall says he does not believe
it is appropriate for this court to impose
discipline for acts or omissions outside
the state’s borders.
None of the three exceptions set forth in
SCR 22.22(3) for imposing reciprocal
discipline exists here. The documents
relating to the Minnesota disciplinary
action that are attached to the OLR’s
complaint indicate that Attorney Crandall
had the opportunity to be heard in the
Minnesota action. There is no showing that
there was such an infirmity of proof
establishing the misconduct that this court
could not accept as final the misconduct
findings made by the Minnesota Supreme
court. While Attorney Crandall argues that
the misconduct justifies substantially
different discipline in Wisconsin, it
appears that a 90-day suspension of an
attorney’s license is consistent with what
would be imposed on Wisconsin lawyers for
similar misconduct. We conclude that it is
appropriate to impose reciprocal discipline
to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme
Court.
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney
Eric Leighton Crandall to practice law in
Wisconsin is suspended for three months,
effective February 20, 2006, and until the
further order of this court;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney
Crandall shall comply with the provisions
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a
person whose license to practice law in
Wisconsin has been suspended.
|