Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Marc G. Kurzman , 368 Wis. 2d 130 ( 2016 )

2016 WI 32SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2016AP307-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Marc G. Kurzman, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Marc G. Kurzman,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KURZMAN
OPINION FILED: May 10, 2016
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2016 WI 32NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2016AP307-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Marc G. Kurzman, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
MAY 10, 2016
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Marc G. Kurzman,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a stipulation pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 between the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Marc G. Kurzman. In the
stipulation, Attorney Kurzman agrees with the OLR's position
that his misconduct warrants the imposition of a 60-day
suspension as discipline reciprocal to that imposed on him in
Minnesota.
No. 2016AP307-D
¶2 After fully reviewing the stipulation and the facts of
this matter, we accept the stipulation and impose the 60-day
suspension jointly requested by the parties.
¶3 Attorney Kurzman was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 2003. Attorney Kurzman's Wisconsin disciplinary
history consists of public reprimand for trust account
anomalies. Public Reprimand of Marc G. Kurzman, 2012-OLR-12.
He was admitted to practice law in Minnesota on October 20,
1972. He practices in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
¶4 On November 25, 2015, the Minnesota Supreme Court
issued a 60-day suspension of Attorney Kurzman's license based
on two counts of misconduct alleging five rule violations for
inappropriately questioning a witness during a deposition,
failing to provide two different clients with their files within
a reasonable period of time, failing to submit records to the
court as directed, and providing confidential materials from
multiple clients to another of his clients.
¶5 The Minnesota Supreme Court found these acts violated
Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 4.4(a), Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d),
Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d), Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1,
Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, and Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6(a).
Attorney Kurzman failed to notify OLR of the Minnesota
discipline within 20 days of its effective date.
2
No. 2016AP307-D
¶6 On February 11, 2016, the OLR filed a complaint
alleging that, by virtue of the Minnesota discipline, Attorney
Kurzman is subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin
pursuant to SCR 22.22.1 The complaint further alleged that by
1
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.
(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.
(continued)
3
No. 2016AP307-D
failing to notify OLR of his Minnesota discipline for
professional misconduct within 20 days of the effective date of
its imposition, Attorney Kurzman violated SCR 22.22(1). The OLR
asked this court to issue an order directing Attorney Kurzman 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 Minnesota would be unwarranted.
(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.
(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.
4
No. 2016AP307-D
¶7 On March 31, 2016, the parties filed a jointly
executed stipulation whereby Attorney Kurzman agrees that by
virtue of the Minnesota suspension, 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
Kurzman does not claim any of the defenses set forth in SCR
22.22(3)(a)-(c). The stipulation states that Attorney Kurzman
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
the stipulated level of discipline. The stipulation indicates
that Attorney Kurzman 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 suspend his license to practice
law for a period of 60 days.
¶8 Having carefully considered this matter, we approve
the stipulation, adopt the stipulated facts and legal
conclusions of professional misconduct, and we suspend Attorney
Kurzman's license to practice law for a period of 60 days.
Because Attorney Kurzman entered into a comprehensive
5
No. 2016AP307-D
stipulation under SCR 22.12 and no referee was needed, we do not
impose any costs in this matter.
¶9 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Marc G. Kurzman to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days,
effective the date of this order.
¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if he has not already done
so, Marc G. Kurzman shall comply with the provisions of SCR
22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license to
practice law has been suspended.
6
No. 2016AP307-D
1