|
ATTORNEY disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. In this disciplinary
proceeding, we review a stipulation pursuant
to SCR 22.12 between the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Richard A.
Kranitz. In the stipulation, Attorney
Kranitz agrees with the OLR's position that
his misconduct that resulted in a federal
felony conviction for conspiracy to commit
securities fraud warrants the imposition of
a two-year suspension of his license to
practice law in Wisconsin.
¶2 After fully reviewing the
stipulation and the facts of this matter, we
accept the stipulation and impose the two-
year suspension jointly requested by the
parties. Given the OLR's statement that no
funds came into Attorney Kranitz's control
in connection with his misconduct and no
individual victims were directly harmed, we
do not impose any restitution obligation.
Finally, in light of the parties'
stipulation and the fact that no referee
needed to be appointed in this matter, we do
not impose any costs on Attorney Kranitz.
¶3 Attorney Kranitz was admitted to the
practice of law in June 1969. He most
recently practiced in Grafton. He has not
been the subject of professional discipline
prior to the present matter. Following his
federal conviction in 2013, this court
summarily suspended his license to practice
law in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.20. His
law license remains suspended.
¶4 On April 16, 2013, Attorney Kranitz
entered a guilty plea to one count of
conspiracy to commit securities fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1348, 1349, and 2,
in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. United States
v. Kranitz, CR No. 11-10415-NMG. During
the plea hearing, Attorney Kranitz
acknowledged that the federal government
would have been able to produce sufficient
facts at trial to prove that he had
participated in a conspiracy to pay secret
kickbacks to a purported investment fund
representative in exchange for having the
fund pay inflated prices for shares of stock
in a corporation, China Wi-Max
Communications, Inc. (China Wi-Max), for
which Attorney Kranitz served as a director
and attorney. Attorney Kranitz's
involvement in the conspiracy included
drafting agreements and invoices that
facilitated the stock purchase and attempted
to conceal the kickback. Unbeknownst to
Attorney Kranitz and the other co-
conspirators, the purported investment fund
representative was an undercover agent of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Based on the information provided by the
prosecution and Attorney Kranitz's
statements at the plea hearing, the federal
district court accepted Attorney Kranitz's
guilty plea.
¶5 On July 17, 2013, the federal court
sentenced Attorney Kranitz to serve 18
months in prison and one year of supervised
release, as well as levied a fine and
imposed other conditions. As Attorney
Kranitz has noted, while the federal court
did not find that Attorney Kranitz needed to
pay restitution to any individuals, it did
order him and his co-conspirators to repay
$16,000 to the federal government.
|
|
¶6 In the stipulation in this
disciplinary proceeding, Attorney Kranitz
admits that his actions in connection with
the stock purchase and kickback scheme
constituted criminal acts that reflect
adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness,
or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of SCR
20:8.4(b). He further agrees that a two-
year suspension of his license to practice
law in this state would be an appropriate
level of discipline for his misconduct.
|
|
¶7 The stipulation also contains a set
of representations by Attorney Kranitz. He
represents that he fully understands the
misconduct allegations in the OLR's
complaint and that he understands the
ramifications that would follow this court's
acceptance of the stipulation. He further
acknowledges that he understands his right
to contest the allegations in this matter,
but he admits that he engaged in the
misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint.
He recognizes his right to consult with
counsel and states that he has, in fact,
been represented by counsel during the
execution of the stipulation. Attorney
Kranitz avers that his entry into the
stipulation is made knowingly and
voluntarily. In addition, the OLR indicates
that the stipulation was not the result of
plea-bargaining, and that it represents
Attorney Kranitz's assent to the misconduct
charged and the level of discipline sought
by the OLR.
¶8 In its memorandum in support of the
stipulation, the OLR states that it
considered a number of prior cases in
analyzing what sanction it would request.
Ultimately, it concluded that a two-year
suspension was the proper level of
discipline, reasoning that this matter is
analogous to the misconduct found in In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stern,
2013 WI 46, 347 Wis. 2d 552, 830 N.W.2d 674
(two-year suspension imposed where attorney
convicted in federal court of money
laundering and sentenced to one year and one
day of imprisonment); and In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Henningsen, 2004 WI 119, 275 Wis. 2d 285,
685 N.W.2d 523 (two-year suspension imposed
where attorney convicted of four counts of
mail fraud and sentenced to 33 months of
imprisonment). The OLR also sought this
same level of discipline in the disciplinary
case against Attorney Steven Berman, one of
Attorney Kranitz's co-conspirators. See
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Berman, 2014 WI 2, 351 Wis. 2d 771, 841
N.W.2d 50. The OLR further states that in
fashioning its sanction request, it
considered a number of aggravating factors,
including the fact that the conduct involved
intentional dishonesty and fraud for
personal gain. On the other hand, the OLR
notes in mitigation that this is the first
time Attorney Kranitz has received
professional discipline in a legal career
that has spanned more than four decades.
¶9 As briefly mentioned above, the OLR
is not seeking a restitution award in this
matter. It states that Attorney Kranitz's
misconduct was discovered in the course of
an FBI "sting" operation, and therefore no
individuals were directly harmed by Attorney
Kranitz's misconduct. Moreover, Attorney
Kranitz did not take into his possession
funds belonging to others.
¶10 After closely reviewing this matter,
we accept the stipulation and determine that
Attorney Kranitz did engage in criminal acts
in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b). We determine
that a two-year suspension of his license to
practice law in this state is an appropriate
level of discipline to impose in light of
the nature of the misconduct and the other
factors present in this case. We have
already determined that a two-year
suspension was the proper level of
discipline to be imposed on Attorney Berman,
and we do not see a significant distinction
between their situations. Although they
played different roles, they were both co-
conspirators in the same illegal scheme.
¶11 We further conclude that the
suspension should be made effective as of
the date on which we summarily suspended
Attorney Kranitz's license, August 9, 2013.
This is consistent with our practice in
previous disciplinary proceedings involving
a prior summary suspension following a
criminal conviction. See, e.g., In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hughes,
2008 WI 120, ¶13, 314 Wis. 2d 270, 756
N.W.2d 567; In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against George, 2008 WI 21, ¶31, 308 Wis.
2d 50, 746 N.W.2d 236; In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Burke, 2007 WI 46,
¶16, 300 Wis. 2d 198, 730 N.W.2d 651.
¶12 We do not impose any restitution
award under the particular facts of this
case. We note, however, that any attorney
petitioning for reinstatement from a
disciplinary suspension of six months or
more is required to allege and demonstrate
that the attorney "has made restitution to
or settled all claims of persons injured or
harmed by [the attorney's]
misconduct . . . , or, if not, the
[attorney's] explanation of the failure or
inability to do so." SCR 22.29(4m).
¶13 Finally, since this matter was
brought to the court in the context of an
SCR 22.12 stipulation without the
appointment of a referee, we do not impose
any costs on Attorney Kranitz.
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Richard A. Kranitz to practice law in
Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two
years, effective August 9, 2013.
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richard
A. Kranitz 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.
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
compliance with all conditions of this order
is required for reinstatement. See SCR
22.29(4)(c).
|