|
ATTORNEY disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. This is a reciprocal
discipline matter. We review the
stipulation entered by Attorney Eric Arthur
Forstrom and the Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR) for the imposition of discipline
reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme
Court of California. After reviewing the
matter, we accept the stipulation. By
virtue of having been sanctioned by the
California Supreme Court for violating
California's Business and Professions Code,
Attorney Forstrom is subject to reciprocal
discipline in Wisconsin. Accordingly, we
suspend Attorney Forstrom's license to
practice law in Wisconsin for one year.
¶2 Attorney Forstrom was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin in 2001. He was
admitted to the State Bar of California in
2005.
¶3 On March 23, 2008, Attorney Forstrom
was driving his car when he collided with
another car. Both vehicles were damaged.
Attorney Forstrom remained at the accident
scene for a few minutes, and then walked
away leaving the scene and abandoning his
car. On March 24, 2008, Attorney Forstrom
went to a police station and reported that
his car had been stolen. That same day he
reported to his insurance company that his
car had been stolen and a claim was
initiated.
¶4 The police department investigated
the accident and identified Attorney
Forstrom as the owner of the car involved in
the hit-and-run accident. On May 30, 2008,
Attorney Forstrom's counsel wrote to the
insurance company saying Attorney Forstrom
was withdrawing his theft claim and would
hold the insurance company harmless.
¶5 On April 28, 2009, Attorney Forstrom
entered an initial guilty plea to insurance
fraud, a felony involving moral turpitude.
On December 8, 2009, the charge was reduced
to a misdemeanor and Attorney Forstrom
entered a final plea.
¶6 On February 18, 2011, the Supreme
Court of California suspended Attorney
Forstrom's license to practice law for two
years, staying the execution of the
suspension, placing him on probation for two
years, and suspending his law license for
the first year of the probation, retroactive
to September 29, 2009, the date Attorney
Forstrom was placed on interim suspension
following his conviction.
|
|
¶7 On June 30, 2011, the OLR filed a
complaint and motion for an order to show
cause under SCR 22.22(2)(b) directing
Attorney Forstrom to inform the court in
writing of any claim, predicated upon the
grounds set forth in SCR 22.22(3), that the
imposition of discipline commensurate to
that imposed in California would be
unwarranted, and the factual basis for any
such claim.
|
|
¶8 On July 26, 2011, the parties filed
a stipulation stating that Attorney Forstrom
does not claim any of the potential defenses
articulated in SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c) but asks
that this court consider supplemental
information including the fact that on July
14, 2011, the Superior Court of California
dismissed/expunged Attorney Forstrom's
misdemeanor conviction. In addition,
Attorney Forstrom maintains that he did not
recall being involved in an auto accident at
the time he initiated the insurance claim
that led to his conviction. He asserts he
suffered a concussion/brain trauma caused by
airbag deployment during the automobile
collision which gave rise to the subsequent
charge of knowingly providing false
information in support of an insurance
claim. Attorney Forstrom says after his
memory resurfaced in the weeks following the
accident, he formally withdrew his insurance
claim, and he expresses deep remorse for the
entire incident.
|
|
¶9 The stipulation states its terms
were not bargained for or negotiated between
the parties, and that Attorney Forstrom
admits the facts and misconduct alleged by
the OLR and agrees to the level of
discipline sought by the OLR director.
Attorney Forstrom verifies that he fully
understands the misconduct allegations, the
ramifications should this court impose the
stipulated level of discipline, his right to
contest the matter, his right to consult
with and retain counsel, and that his entry
into the stipulation is made knowingly and
voluntarily.
¶10 The OLR filed a memorandum in
support of the stipulation. It also filed a
statement of costs showing costs in the
amount of $231 as of July 26, 2011. The OLR
director recommends that no costs be
assessed against Attorney Forstrom since the
parties' entry into a comprehensive
stipulation, which was achieved without the
need for the appointment of a referee and
without the attendant expenditure of
significant lawyer regulation system
resources, is a circumstance justifying this
court's deviation from its general policy of
imposing full costs.
¶11 Upon our review of the matter, we
accept the stipulation.
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Eric Arthur Forstrom to practice law in
Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one
year, effective the date of this order.
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Eric
Arthur Forstrom 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.
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs
shall be assessed against Eric Arthur
Forstrom.
|