Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Bradford A. Borman , 367 Wis. 2d 543 ( 2016 )

2016 WI 25
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2016AP217-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Bradford A. Borman, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Bradford A. Borman,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BORMAN
OPINION FILED: April 15, 2016
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2016 WI 25
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2016AP217-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Bradford A. Borman, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
APR 15, 2016
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Bradford A. Borman,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly
reprimanded.
¶1 PER CURIAM. This is reciprocal discipline matter.
On January 29, 2016, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed
a complaint against Attorney Bradford A. Borman, seeking the
imposition of discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Maine
Board of Overseers of the Bar. On October 8, 2015, the Maine
Board of Overseers of the Bar publicly reprimanded Attorney
Borman based on two counts of misconduct.
No. 2016AP217-D
¶2 Attorney Borman was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 2001. He was admitted to practice law in Maine in
2007. His Wisconsin law license was administratively suspended
in 2008, for failure to comply with continuing legal education
(CLE) requirements. His Wisconsin license remains suspended.
¶3 On February 24, 2016, Attorney Borman and the OLR
entered into a stipulation whereby Attorney Borman agrees it
would be appropriate for this court to impose the level of
discipline sought by the OLR director, namely, a public
reprimand. The stipulation notes that Attorney Borman's
misconduct in Maine consisted of his failure to file an
affidavit demonstrating that he notified relevant parties of the
administrative suspension of his Maine law license and his
failure to respond to Maine disciplinary authorities. A Bar
Grievance Commission panel of the Maine Board of Overseers of
the Bar found that Attorney Borman violated Maine Bar Rules by:
(a) failing to file an affidavit certifying that he
provided notice to certain parties after an
administrative suspension, in violation of Rule
7.3(i)(2)(B) of the Maine Rules; and
(b) failing to respond to Bar Counsel during their
investigation of his misconduct, in violation of Rules
8.1(b) and 8.4(a)(d) of the Maine Rules.
¶4 Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22(3) states as follows:
The supreme court shall impose the identical
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of
the following is present:
2
No. 2016AP217-D
(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.
¶5 Attorney Borman does not claim that any of the
defenses found in SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c) apply. Attorney Borman
further states that his entry into the stipulation did not
result from plea bargaining. He represents that he fully
understands the misconduct allegations; he fully understands the
ramifications should this court impose the stipulated level of
discipline; he fully understands his right to contest this
matter; he fully understands his right to consult with counsel;
and 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 After fully reviewing the matter, we accept the
parties' stipulation. We agree that it is appropriate to impose
the discipline identical to that imposed by the Maine Board of
Overseers of the Bar, namely, a public reprimand. Since this
matter was resolved by means of a stipulation, the OLR has not
sought the imposition of costs and we do not assess any costs.
¶7 IT IS ORDERED that Bradford A. Borman is publicly
reprimanded.
3
No. 2016AP217-D
¶8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative
suspension of Bradford A. Borman's Wisconsin law license for
failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements
remains in effect.
4
No. 2016AP217-D
1