|
The Court entered the following order on
this date:
On May 23, 2006, the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) filed a disciplinary
complaint against Attorney Steven W. Van
Liew asking this court to impose reciprocal
discipline identical to that imposed on
Attorney Van Liew by the Minnesota Supreme
Court. That court suspended Attorney Van
Liew's Minnesota law license for 90 days,
effective March 31, 2006. On May 24, 2006,
this court issued an order to show cause
directing Attorney Van Liew to show cause
in writing by June 13, 2006 why the
imposition of the identical discipline
imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court
would be unwarranted. Attorney Van Liew
filed a response noting he does not intend
to defend himself and would enter a no-
contest plea.
Attorney Van Liew was admitted to practice
law in Wisconsin in 1994 and he became
licensed to practice law in Minnesota in
1997.
|
|
The 90-day suspension in Minnesota was
imposed for making false statements to a
tribunal and failure to file an opposition
to a motion on behalf of a client.
|
|
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 should not
accept as final the misconduct finding; or
the misconduct justifies substantially
different discipline here. Neither the OLR
nor Attorney Van Liew contend, nor does
this court find, that any of these three
exceptions exist.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Steven W.
Van Liew to practice law in the State of
Wisconsin be suspended for 90 days,
effective July 25, 2006;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Van
Liew shall comply, if he has not already
done so, with the requirements of SCR 22.26
pertaining to activities following
suspension.
|