Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Edward W. Matchett , 368 Wis. 2d 135 ( 2016 )

2016 WI 33SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2016AP318-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Edward W. Matchett, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Edward W. Matchett,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MATCHETT
OPINION FILED: May 10, 2016
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2016 WI 33NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2016AP318-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Edward W. Matchett, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
MAY 10, 2016
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Edward W. Matchett,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly
reprimanded.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a stipulation pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 between the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Edward W. Matchett. In the
stipulation, Attorney Matchett agrees with the OLR's position
that his misconduct warrants the imposition of a public
reprimand as discipline reciprocal to that imposed on him in
Arizona.
No. 2016AP318-D
¶2 After fully reviewing the stipulation and the facts of
this matter, we accept the stipulation and impose the public
reprimand jointly requested by the parties.
¶3 Attorney Matchett was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1989. Attorney Matchett's Wisconsin disciplinary
history consists of a 2007 private reprimand for a lack of
diligence and communication in a criminal matter, as reciprocal
discipline from another state. OLR Private Reprimand 2007-21.
Attorney Matchett is also admitted to practice law in Arizona
and practices in Douglas, Arizona.
¶4 On December 23, 2014, the Attorney Discipline Probable
Cause Committee of the Supreme Court of Arizona admonished
Attorney Matchett for failing to file a notice of appearance in
a probate matter, failing to check the legal status of a
client's claim, failing to ask the Personal Representative's
attorney to copy him on documents, and failing to find and cite
a specific dispositive case to the court, resulting in
unnecessary motions and an appeal. The Arizona Supreme Court
found these acts violated ERs 1.31 (diligence) and 8.4(d)2
1
Arizona Supreme Court Rule 42, ER 8.4 states that "A
lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client."
2
No. 2016AP318-D
(conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the
Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 42, Ariz.R.Sup.Ct.
Attorney Matchett failed to notify the OLR of the Arizona
admonition within 20 days of its effective date.
¶5 On February 15, 2016, the OLR filed a complaint
alleging that, by virtue of the Arizona admonition, Attorney
Matchett is subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin
pursuant to SCR 22.22.3 The complaint further alleged that by
2
Arizona Supreme Court Rule 42, ER 8.4 states in relevant
part: "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . (d)
engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice."
3
SCR 22.22 provides that:
(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for
misconduct or a license suspension for medical
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the
effective date of the order or judgment of the other
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a
judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for
medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the
practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in
this state, the director may file a complaint in the
supreme court containing all of the following:
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order
from the other jurisdiction.
(continued)
3
No. 2016AP318-D
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the
grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of
the identical discipline or license suspension by the
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual
basis for the claim.
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of
the following is present:
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to
constitute a deprivation of due process.
(b) There was such an infirmity of proof
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that
the supreme court could not accept as final the
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical
incapacity.
(c) The misconduct justifies substantially
different discipline in this state.
(4) Except as provided in sub.(3), a final
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity
shall be conclusive evidence of the attorney's
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a
proceeding under this rule.
(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint filed
under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a report
and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16. At the
hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the
imposition of discipline or license suspension
different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction
to demonstrate that the imposition of identical
discipline or license suspension by the supreme court
is unwarranted.
(continued)
4
No. 2016AP318-D
failing to notify the OLR of his admonition in Arizona for
professional misconduct within 20 days of the effective date of
its imposition, Attorney Matchett violated SCR 22.22(1). The OLR
asked this court to issue an order directing Attorney Matchett
to inform the court of any claim by him predicated upon the
grounds set forth in SCR 22.22(3) that imposition of discipline
reciprocal to that imposed in Arizona would be unwarranted.
¶6 On March 18, 2016, the parties filed a jointly
executed stipulation whereby Attorney Matchett agrees that by
virtue of the Arizona admonition, he is subject to reciprocal
discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22. He agrees that
the factual allegations contained in the OLR's complaint are
accurate and that he committed the professional misconduct
charged in the complaint. The stipulation states that Attorney
Matchett does not claim any of the defenses set forth in SCR
22.22(3)(a)-(c). The stipulation states that Attorney Matchett
fully understands the nature of the misconduct allegations
against him, his right to contest those allegations, and the
ramifications that would follow from this court's imposition of
(6) If the discipline or license suspension
imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any
reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by
the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the
stay expires.
5
No. 2016AP318-D
the stipulated level of discipline. The stipulation indicates
that Attorney Matchett understands his right to counsel and
verifies that he is entering into the stipulation knowingly and
voluntarily and that his entry into the stipulation represents
his decision not to contest this matter. He agrees that it would
be appropriate for this court to publicly reprimand him.
¶7 Having carefully considered this matter, we approve
the stipulation, adopt the stipulated facts and legal
conclusions of professional misconduct, and we publicly
reprimand Attorney Matchett. Because Attorney Matchett entered
into a comprehensive stipulation under SCR 22.12 and no referee
was needed, we do not impose any costs in this matter.
¶8 IT IS ORDERED that Edward W. Matchett is publicly
reprimanded.
6
No. 2016AP318-D
1