Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Richard A. Kranitz ( 2016 )

2016 WI 90
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2013AP2128-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Richard A. Kranitz, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Richard A. Kranitz,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KRANITZ
OPINION FILED: November 8, 2016
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2016 WI 90
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2013AP2128-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Richard A. Kranitz, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant, NOV 8, 2016
v. Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Richard A. Kranitz,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted
upon conditions.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review, pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule (SCR) 22.33(3),1 a report filed by Referee James W. Mohr,
Jr., recommending that the court reinstate the license of
1
SCR 22.33(3) provides that "[i]f no appeal is timely
filed, the supreme court shall review the referee's report,
order reinstatement, with or without conditions, deny
reinstatement, or order the parties to file briefs in the
matter."
No. 2013AP2128-D
Richard A. Kranitz to practice law in Wisconsin. Upon careful
review of the matter, we agree that Attorney Kranitz's license
should be reinstated, with the conditions described herein. We
agree that Attorney Kranitz should be responsible for the costs
of this proceeding, which total $3,142.97.
¶2 Attorney Kranitz was licensed to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1969. He practiced corporate law in the Milwaukee
and Grafton areas. He had no disciplinary history until the
matter giving rise to this proceeding.
¶3 In 2013, Attorney Kranitz was convicted of one count
of conspiracy to commit securities fraud in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1348, 1349, and 2. See United States v. Kranitz, CR
No. 11-10415-NMG (D. Mass.). He was sentenced to 18 months at a
federal prison camp in Duluth, Minnesota, and served 14 of the
18 months, receiving time off for good behavior.
¶4 The conviction resulted in the summary suspension of
his license to practice law pursuant to SCR 22.20.2 Thereafter,
this court accepted a stipulation executed by Attorney Kranitz
and the OLR, and suspended Attorney Kranitz's license to
2
SCR 22.20 provides as follows:
(1) Upon receiving satisfactory proof that an
attorney has been found guilty or convicted of a
serious crime, the supreme court may summarily suspend
the attorney's license to practice law pending final
disposition of a disciplinary proceeding, whether the
finding of guilt or the conviction resulted from a
plea of guilty or no contest or from a verdict after
trial and regardless of the pendency of an appeal.
2
No. 2013AP2128-D
practice law for two years for the professional misconduct
giving rise to the federal felony conviction. In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kranitz, 2014 WI 47,
354 Wis. 2d 710, 848 N.W.2d 292.
¶5 In March 2016, Attorney Kranitz filed a petition
seeking reinstatement of his law license. In June 2016, the OLR
filed a response stating it did not oppose the reinstatement
petition. The referee conducted a public hearing in July 2016.
At the hearing, Attorney Kranitz testified on his own behalf and
called several witnesses, including several business associates,
attorneys, and clients who knew, worked, or practiced law with
him. The referee filed his report and recommendation in August
2016, recommending reinstatement. No appeal was filed.
¶6 SCR 22.31(1)3 provides the standards to be met for
reinstatement. Specifically, the petitioner must show by clear,
3
SCR 22.31(1) provides:
(1) The petitioner has the burden of
demonstrating, by clear, satisfactory, and convincing
evidence, all of the following:
(a) That he or she has the moral character to
practice law in Wisconsin.
(b) That his or her resumption of the practice of
law will not be detrimental to the administration of
justice or subversive of the public interest.
(c) That his or her representations in the
petition, including the representations required by
SCR 22.29(4)(a) to (m) and 22.29(5), are
substantiated.
(continued)
3
No. 2013AP2128-D
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or she has the
moral character to practice law, that his or her resumption of
the practice of law will not be detrimental to the
administration of justice or subversive to the public interest,
and that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of
the order of suspension. In addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c)
incorporates the statements that a petition for reinstatement
must contain pursuant to SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m).4 Thus, the
(d) That he or she has complied fully with the
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and
with the requirements of SCR 22.26.
4
SCR 22.29(4)(a) through (4m) provides that a petition for
reinstatement must show all of the following:
(a) The petitioner desires to have the
petitioner's license reinstated.
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during
the period of suspension or revocation.
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and
will continue to comply with them until the
petitioner's license is reinstated.
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and
learning in the law by attendance at identified
educational activities.
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension
or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach.
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of
and attitude toward the standards that are imposed
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity
with the standards.
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to
the legal profession, the courts and the public as a
(continued)
4
No. 2013AP2128-D
petitioning attorney must demonstrate that the required
representations in the reinstatement petition are substantiated.
¶7 When reviewing referee reports in reinstatement
proceedings, we utilize standards of review similar to those we
use for reviewing referee reports in disciplinary proceedings.
We do not overturn a referee's findings of fact unless they are
clearly erroneous. On the other hand, we review a referee's
legal conclusions, including whether the attorney has satisfied
the criteria for reinstatement, on a de novo basis. In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jennings, 2011 WI 45, ¶39,
person fit to be consulted by others and to represent
them and otherwise act in matters of trust and
confidence and in general to aid in the administration
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of
the courts.
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26.
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license
if reinstated.
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's
business activities during the period of suspension or
revocation.
(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by
petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to
the Wisconsin lawyers’ fund for client protection for
all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability
to do so.
5
No. 2013AP2128-D
334 Wis. 2d 335, 801 N.W.2d 304; In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Gral, 2010 WI 14, ¶22, 323 Wis. 2d 280, 779 N.W.2d 168.
¶8 The referee found that Attorney Kranitz demonstrated
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence all of the
requirements for reinstatement of his Wisconsin law license.
The referee found that Attorney Kranitz has not practiced law
during the period of his suspension;5 that he has complied fully
with the terms of the order of suspension and will continue to
do so until his license is reinstated; that he has maintained
competence and learning in the law;6 that his conduct since the
suspension has been exemplary and above reproach; that he has a
proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that
are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity
with those standards; and that he can be safely recommended to
the legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit
to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise
act in matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in
the administration of justice as a member of the bar and an
officer of the courts.
5
During his suspension, Attorney Kranitz was a business
consultant from December 15, 2014, following the period of
incarceration and home confinement, and from April 2015 to the
present he was a business consultant adviser and coach with
Advicoach, a national business coaching service. He also
manages a private charitable foundation in the Village of
Grafton, Wisconsin.
6
On March 29, 2016, the Board of Bar Examiners filed a
memorandum indicating that Attorney Kranitz is currently in
compliance with continuing legal education requirements.
6
No. 2013AP2128-D
¶9 The referee urged reinstatement of Attorney Kranitz's
license to practice law, conditioned upon his compliance with
the terms of two consent orders issued by the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission that are included in the
record in this matter. See In re Richard Kranitz, Securities &
Exch. Comm'n, No. 3-16149 (Sec. Exch. Act of 1934, Release No.
73169, Sept. 22, 2014) (https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/201
4/34-73169.pdf); In re Richard Kranitz, Securities & Exch.
Comm'n, No. 3-16149 (Sec. Exch. Act of 1934, Release No. 73170,
Sept. 22, 2014) (https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2014/34-
73170.pdf). The consent orders provide that Attorney Kranitz is
suspended from appearing or practicing before the Securities and
Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 102(e)(2) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice, and is barred from acting as an
officer or director of any public corporation registered under
the Exchange Act, and barred from participating in any capacity
in any offerings of penny stocks. The referee noted that
Attorney Kranitz is aware of both of those consent orders and
has stated he will abide by them.
¶10 In rendering his recommendation, the referee noted
that Attorney Kranitz was sincere, forthright, credible, and
entirely candid in his testimony. Attorney Kranitz affirmed
that he will not do any further securities work, but stated that
he would like to train clients and others in various types of
financing transactions; and to do contract, estate planning,
mergers and acquisitions, and other family corporation type
transactions. The referee noted that Attorney Kranitz is "more
7
No. 2013AP2128-D
than current" in all of his continuing legal education
requirements, having taken more ethics credits than were
required and has educated himself regarding the variety of
criminal law issues involved in securities and corporate law
practice.
¶11 The referee noted that several witnesses appeared on
behalf of Attorney Kranitz, including attorneys who have known
Attorney Kranitz for a long time, and former clients. The
referee was particularly impressed by the clients' testimony.
They described the extremely high ethical, moral and character
standards that Attorney Kranitz adhered to prior to the
indictment. Although each of them was very surprised to hear of
the indictment, they all testified that their exceedingly high
opinion of Attorney Kranitz's character had not decreased and
that they would still use him as their attorney, and would refer
other clients to him. They described him as an exceptionally
qualified attorney who can render a valuable service to the
small business community in Wisconsin. The two attorneys who
testified in support of Attorney Kranitz's reinstatement were
equally laudatory in their testimony. They support his
reinstatement petition and praised his extensive knowledge base,
which they deem an asset to small businesses in this state.
¶12 Upon review of the record, we agree that Attorney
Kranitz has established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing
evidence that he has satisfied all the criteria necessary for
reinstatement. Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of
fact and conclusions of law and we accept the referee's
8
No. 2013AP2128-D
recommendation that we reinstate Attorney Kranitz's license to
practice law in Wisconsin, subject to the conditions imposed by
the consent orders described herein.
¶13 The referee recommended that Attorney Kranitz should
pay the costs associated with this reinstatement proceeding,
which total $3,142.97 as of August 17, 2016. Our general
practice is to assess full costs against the respondent in a
disciplinary proceeding, or against the petitioner in a
reinstatement proceeding. See generally SCR 22.24(1), (1m); see
also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Webster, 2002 WI
100, ¶¶51-52, 255 Wis. 2d 323, 647 N.W.2d 831. We see no reason
to deviate from our standard policy here and we impose the costs
of this proceeding on Attorney Kranitz.
¶14 Finally, we note that Attorney Kranitz, whose license
is suspended, has assumed inactive membership status with the
State Bar of Wisconsin. Although his license to practice law is
reinstated, effective the date of this order, Attorney Kranitz
is reminded that he must make arrangements with the State Bar of
Wisconsin to resume active or emeritus status before he resumes
the active practice of law.
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Richard A. Kranitz
to practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date
of this order.
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of his
reinstatement and as a condition of his continued practice of
law, Attorney Kranitz is subject to the terms of two consent
orders, the terms of which bar him from appearing or practicing
9
No. 2013AP2128-D
before the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule
102(e)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, bar him from
acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class
of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the
Securities and Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 781, or that is
required to file reports pursuant to Section 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 78o(d), and bar him
from participating in any offering of a penny stock, including:
acting as a promoter, finder, consultant, agent, or other person
who engages in activities with a broker, dealer or issuer for
purposes of the issuance or trading in any penny stock, or
inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any
penny stock.
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richard A. Kranitz shall
promptly advise the Office of Lawyer Regulation of any change to
the terms of the consent orders referenced in this opinion.
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Richard A. Kranitz shall pay to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation costs in the amount of $3,142.97.
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the
terms of this order remain a condition of Richard A. Kranitz's
license to practice law in Wisconsin.
10
No. 2013AP2128-D
1