|
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.
Attorney publicly reprimanded.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a
stipulation filed by the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney John M. Curtin
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12.
The stipulation requests this court to
publicly reprimand Attorney Curtin as
reciprocal discipline identical to that
imposed by the Arizona Supreme Court.
¶2 Attorney Curtin was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin in 1987. His
Wisconsin license is currently in good
standing but inactive. Attorney Curtin is
also admitted to practice law in Arizona.
¶3 According to the stipulation, on May
13, 2013, the Arizona Supreme Court
reprimanded Attorney Curtin for failing to
maintain adequate trust account records and
failing to meet required standards for
performance regarding trust account control
and supervision after the staff member who
maintained Attorney Curtin's trust account
records falsified, destroyed, and stopped
maintaining some trust account records to
enable substantial theft from Attorney
Curtin's trust account. The Arizona Supreme
Court found that Attorney Curtin violated ER
1.15(a) of the Arizona Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rule 42, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct., and
Rules 43(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)-(C), and (b)(2)(A)-
(D). Attorney Curtin admitted the
allegations and agreed that a reprimand and
a year of probation and participation in a
trust account ethics program was
appropriate. Attorney Curtin did not notify
the OLR of the Arizona reprimand within 20
days of its effective date. The OLR did
receive notice from Attorney Curtin on
December 11, 2013.
¶4 On December 10, 2013, the OLR filed
a complaint alleging two counts of
misconduct:
|
|
[Count One] By virtue of the Arizona
reprimand, Curtin is subject to reciprocal
discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR
22.22.
|
|
[Count Two] By failing to notify OLR of his
reprimand in Arizona for professional
misconduct within 20 days of the effective
date of its imposition, Curtin violated SCR
22.22(1).
¶5 On February 11, 2014, the parties
entered into a stipulation whereby Attorney
Curtin agreed that it would be appropriate
for this court to impose a public reprimand
as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by
the Arizona Supreme Court. The stipulation
properly provides that it did not result
from plea bargaining. Attorney Curtin says
he does not contest the facts of misconduct
alleged by the OLR or the discipline that
the OLR's director is seeking in this
matter. Attorney Curtin further states that
he fully understands the misconduct
allegations and the ramifications should
this court impose the stipulated level of
discipline. He also states that he fully
understands his right to contest the matter
and he understands his right to consult with
counsel. Attorney Curtin states that his
entry into the stipulation is made knowingly
and voluntarily and represents his decision
not to contest the misconduct alleged in the
OLR's complaint or the level and type of
discipline sought by the OLR director.
¶6 Based upon our independent review of
the matter, we conclude that the SCR 22.12
stipulation should be accepted and that
Attorney Curtin should be publicly
reprimanded as discipline identical to that
imposed by the Arizona Supreme Court. Since
Attorney Curtin entered into a stipulation
with the OLR and there was no need to
appoint a referee, we conclude that no costs
should be assessed.
¶7 IT IS ORDERED that John M. Curtin is
publicly reprimanded.
|