|
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.
Attorney's license suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a
stipulation filed pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule (SCR) 22.12 between the Office of
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Amie B.
Trupke. The stipulation provides that
Attorney Trupke committed two counts of
professional misconduct and requests that
the court suspend Attorney Trupke's license
to practice law in this state for one year.
¶2 After carefully reviewing this
matter, we accept the stipulation and impose
the requested discipline. We do not order
any restitution, as none was requested by
the OLR. Because this matter has been
resolved by a stipulation under SCR 22.12
without the need for the appointment of a
referee, we impose no costs on Attorney
Trupke.
¶3 Attorney Trupke was admitted to the
practice of law in Wisconsin in 2002. She
resides in Oregon, Wisconsin. Attorney
Trupke has not previously been the subject
of professional discipline. At the times of
the events giving rise to this proceeding,
Attorney Trupke was a partner in a Madison
law firm.
¶4 On July 28, 2017, the OLR filed a
disciplinary complaint against Attorney
Trupke alleging two counts of professional
misconduct and seeking a one-year
suspension. Attorney Trupke retained
counsel and responded to the complaint.
¶5 The facts set forth in the complaint
are as follows: In 2013, Attorney Trupke
began serving as an independent reviewer for
the Center for Copyright Information (CCI).
CCI is a service offered through the
American Arbitration Association (AAA) in
which an independent reviewer is appointed
to consider whether an individual may be
violating copyright law or has a valid
defense. Once a CCI reviewer or AAA
arbitrator completes a matter, the parties
pay a fee to AAA, which in turn pays the
reviewer or arbitrator.
¶6 Between January 2013 and June 2016,
AAA paid Attorney Trupke $73,025 for her
work as a CCI reviewer. Attorney Trupke did
not report the $73,025 in CCI fees to her
firm or to her partners.
¶7 In 2013, Attorney Trupke opened a
file at the firm for an AAA matter. After
working 28.10 hours on the matter, she
directed the firm's accounting department to
write the time off. She subsequently sent a
personal invoice to AAA, requesting that AAA
send payment to her home. In March 2016,
Attorney Trupke gave misleading information
to the firm's managing partner about her
work and income from CCI and AAA.
¶8 Attorney Trupke resigned from the
firm in May 2016. In June 2016, Attorney
Trupke and the firm entered into a
reimbursement agreement in which Attorney
Trupke waived certain post resignation
benefits to offset payments she owed to the
firm.
|
|
¶9 On January 2, 2018, the OLR and
Attorney Trupke filed a stipulation whereby
Attorney Trupke withdrew her answer and
stipulated that she did not contest the
alleged misconduct. Specifically, Attorney
Trupke stipulated that converting fees
belonging to the firm from 2013 through 2016
constitutes a violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).
Attorney Trupke stipulated further that by
converting fees owed to her law firm from
2013 through 2016, by misrepresenting to the
firm the amount of fees she had earned from
2013 through 2016, and in taking steps to
ensure that fees owed to the firm were paid
directly to her instead of the firm, she
breached fiduciary duties owed to her firm
and her duty of honesty in her professional
dealings with the firm, thereby violating
SCR 20:8.4(f).
¶10 In the stipulation, Attorney Trupke
stated that she believed that her work as a
CCI reviewer was educational in nature,
similar to educational services that law
partners performed for the law school,
whereby partners were allowed to retain some
compensation under a firm honoraria policy.
¶11 Attorney Trupke added that all
checks from the AAA were sent to the firm's
address, and her 1099s for 2014 and 2015
from the AAA were sent to the firm's address
and were received by the firm's accounting
department. Attorney Trupke stated that she
was under the impression that the firm was
aware of her work for the CCI and AAA.
¶12 The OLR maintained that the firm was
not aware of Attorney Trupke's work as a CCI
reviewer, nor her compensation for it, and
that Attorney Trupke's work as a CCI
reviewer did not fall within the firm's
policy regarding honoraria.
¶13 The court directed the OLR to file a
memorandum in support of the stipulation
with some additional information. The OLR's
subsequent memorandum and Attorney Trupke's
memorandum in response to the OLR's memo
clarified that Attorney Trupke fully
intended to withdraw her response to the
complaint and that the recommended
suspension was agreed upon based on
precedent and Attorney Trupke's desire to
avoid a disciplinary hearing. We accede to
the parties' request to consider this
stipulation without appointment of a
referee.
|
|
¶14 In the stipulation, Attorney Trupke
affirms that the stipulation did not result
from plea bargaining; she fully understands
the misconduct allegations; she fully
understands her right to contest this
matter; she fully understands her right to
consult with counsel; her entry into this
stipulation is made knowingly and
voluntarily; her entry into this stipulation
represents her decision not to contest the
misconduct alleged in the complaint; and she
assents to the level of discipline requested
by the OLR.
¶15 The stipulation requests that the
court suspend Attorney Trupke's license to
practice law in Wisconsin for a period of
one year, which was the level of discipline
originally sought by the OLR in its
complaint.
¶16 Acknowledging that the imposition of
discipline in attorney disciplinary cases is
not an exact science, we conclude that a
one-year suspension is consistent with the
level of discipline imposed in somewhat
similar cases. In considering the
appropriate sanction, we deem In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brown,
2005
WI 49, 280 Wis. 2d 44, 695 N.W.2d 295,
instructive. There, Attorney Brown was
suspended for 18 months for, inter alia,
accepting fees from clients totaling some
$16,000 while advising his firm that he was
acting pro bono. The nature of the
misconduct in Brown was more serious
than
here, and various mitigating factors support
a lesser suspension than he received. See
also In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Elverman, 2008 WI 28, 308 Wis. 2d 524, 746
N.W.2d 793 (imposing nine-month suspension
on attorney for failing to report
substantial co-trustee fees to his firm).
These cases are sufficiently analogous to
support the imposition of a one-year
suspension here.
¶17 Accordingly, we accept the
stipulation and impose the requested one-
year suspension. The OLR has not requested
restitution in light of the fact that
Attorney Trupke made arrangements to refund
the firm. Accordingly, we do not order any
restitution. Finally, because the
stipulation was filed at the outset of this
proceeding, thereby avoiding litigation
costs and the need to appoint a referee, we
impose no costs on Attorney Trupke.
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Amie B. Trupke to practice law in Wisconsin
is suspended for a period of one year,
effective June 5, 2018.
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Amie B.
Trupke 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.
|