2014 WI 47
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: July 1, 2014
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2014 WI 47
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,
JUL 1, 2014
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Richard A. Kranitz,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. In this disciplinary proceeding, we
review a stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.121 between the Office of
1
SCR 22.12 provides: Stipulation.
(1) The director may file with the complaint a
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and
discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may
consider the complaint and stipulation without the
appointment of a referee.
No. 2013AP2128-D
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Richard A. Kranitz. In the
stipulation, Attorney Kranitz agrees with the OLR's position
that his misconduct that resulted in a federal felony conviction
for conspiracy to commit securities fraud warrants the
imposition of a two-year suspension of his license to practice
law in Wisconsin.
¶2 After fully reviewing the stipulation and the facts of
this matter, we accept the stipulation and impose the two-year
suspension jointly requested by the parties. Given the OLR's
statement that no funds came into Attorney Kranitz's control in
connection with his misconduct and no individual victims were
directly harmed, we do not impose any restitution obligation.
Finally, in light of the parties' stipulation and the fact that
no referee needed to be appointed in this matter, we do not
impose any costs on Attorney Kranitz.
¶3 Attorney Kranitz was admitted to the practice of law
in June 1969. He most recently practiced in Grafton. He has
not been the subject of professional discipline prior to the
present matter. Following his federal conviction in 2013, this
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation,
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of
law and impose the stipulated discipline.
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation,
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation.
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the
prosecution of the complaint.
2
No. 2013AP2128-D
court summarily suspended his license to practice law in
Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.20. His law license remains
suspended.
¶4 On April 16, 2013, Attorney Kranitz entered a guilty
plea to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1348, 1349, and 2, in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. United
States v. Kranitz, CR No. 11-10415-NMG. During the plea
hearing, Attorney Kranitz acknowledged that the federal
government would have been able to produce sufficient facts at
trial to prove that he had participated in a conspiracy to pay
secret kickbacks to a purported investment fund representative
in exchange for having the fund pay inflated prices for shares
of stock in a corporation, China Wi-Max Communications, Inc.
(China Wi-Max), for which Attorney Kranitz served as a director
and attorney.2 Attorney Kranitz's involvement in the conspiracy
included drafting agreements and invoices that facilitated the
stock purchase and attempted to conceal the kickback.
Unbeknownst to Attorney Kranitz and the other co-conspirators,
the purported investment fund representative was an undercover
agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Based on
2
Attorney Steven T. Berman, who was also licensed to
practice law in Wisconsin, was the chief executive officer of
China Wi-Max and was also convicted of conspiracy to commit
securities fraud for the same kickback scheme. In the
disciplinary proceeding involving Attorney Berman, we suspended
his license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of two
years. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Berman, 2014
WI 2, 351 Wis. 2d 771, 841 N.W.2d 50.
3
No. 2013AP2128-D
the information provided by the prosecution and Attorney
Kranitz's statements at the plea hearing, the federal district
court accepted Attorney Kranitz's guilty plea.
¶5 On July 17, 2013, the federal court sentenced Attorney
Kranitz to serve 18 months in prison and one year of supervised
release, as well as levied a fine and imposed other conditions.
As Attorney Kranitz has noted, while the federal court did not
find that Attorney Kranitz needed to pay restitution to any
individuals, it did order him and his co-conspirators to repay
$16,000 to the federal government.
¶6 In the stipulation in this disciplinary proceeding,
Attorney Kranitz admits that his actions in connection with the
stock purchase and kickback scheme constituted criminal acts
that reflect adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or
fitness as a lawyer, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).3 He further
agrees that a two-year suspension of his license to practice law
in this state would be an appropriate level of discipline for
his misconduct.
¶7 The stipulation also contains a set of representations
by Attorney Kranitz. He represents that he fully understands
the misconduct allegations in the OLR's complaint and that he
understands the ramifications that would follow this court's
acceptance of the stipulation. He further acknowledges that he
3
SCR 20:8.4(b) states it is professional misconduct for a
lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in
other respects; . . . ."
4
No. 2013AP2128-D
understands his right to contest the allegations in this matter,
but he admits that he engaged in the misconduct alleged in the
OLR's complaint. He recognizes his right to consult with
counsel and states that he has, in fact, been represented by
counsel during the execution of the stipulation. Attorney
Kranitz avers that his entry into the stipulation is made
knowingly and voluntarily. In addition, the OLR indicates that
the stipulation was not the result of plea-bargaining, and that
it represents Attorney Kranitz's assent to the misconduct
charged and the level of discipline sought by the OLR.
¶8 In its memorandum in support of the stipulation, the
OLR states that it considered a number of prior cases in
analyzing what sanction it would request. Ultimately, it
concluded that a two-year suspension was the proper level of
discipline, reasoning that this matter is analogous to the
misconduct found in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Stern, 2013 WI 46, 347 Wis. 2d 552, 830 N.W.2d 674 (two-year
suspension imposed where attorney convicted in federal court of
money laundering and sentenced to one year and one day of
imprisonment); and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Henningsen, 2004 WI 119, 275 Wis. 2d 285, 685 N.W.2d 523 (two-
year suspension imposed where attorney convicted of four counts
of mail fraud and sentenced to 33 months of imprisonment). The
OLR also sought this same level of discipline in the
disciplinary case against Attorney Steven Berman, one of
Attorney Kranitz's co-conspirators. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Berman, 2014 WI 2, 351 Wis. 2d 771, 841
5
No. 2013AP2128-D
N.W.2d 50. The OLR further states that in fashioning its
sanction request, it considered a number of aggravating factors,
including the fact that the conduct involved intentional
dishonesty and fraud for personal gain. On the other hand, the
OLR notes in mitigation that this is the first time Attorney
Kranitz has received professional discipline in a legal career
that has spanned more than four decades.
¶9 As briefly mentioned above, the OLR is not seeking a
restitution award in this matter. It states that Attorney
Kranitz's misconduct was discovered in the course of an FBI
"sting" operation, and therefore no individuals were directly
harmed by Attorney Kranitz's misconduct. Moreover, Attorney
Kranitz did not take into his possession funds belonging to
others.
¶10 After closely reviewing this matter, we accept the
stipulation and determine that Attorney Kranitz did engage in
criminal acts in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b). We determine that
a two-year suspension of his license to practice law in this
state is an appropriate level of discipline to impose in light
of the nature of the misconduct and the other factors present in
this case. We have already determined that a two-year
suspension was the proper level of discipline to be imposed on
Attorney Berman, and we do not see a significant distinction
between their situations. Although they played different roles,
they were both co-conspirators in the same illegal scheme.
¶11 We further conclude that the suspension should be made
effective as of the date on which we summarily suspended
6
No. 2013AP2128-D
Attorney Kranitz's license, August 9, 2013. This is consistent
with our practice in previous disciplinary proceedings involving
a prior summary suspension following a criminal conviction.
See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hughes, 2008
WI 120, ¶13, 314 Wis. 2d 270, 756 N.W.2d 567; In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against George, 2008 WI 21, ¶31, 308 Wis. 2d 50, 746
N.W.2d 236; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Burke, 2007
WI 46, ¶16, 300 Wis. 2d 198, 730 N.W.2d 651.
¶12 We do not impose any restitution award under the
particular facts of this case. We note, however, that any
attorney petitioning for reinstatement from a disciplinary
suspension of six months or more is required to allege and
demonstrate that the attorney "has made restitution to or
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by [the
attorney's] misconduct . . . , or, if not, the [attorney's]
explanation of the failure or inability to do so."
SCR 22.29(4m).
¶13 Finally, since this matter was brought to the court in
the context of an SCR 22.12 stipulation without the appointment
of a referee, we do not impose any costs on Attorney Kranitz.
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Richard A. Kranitz
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two
years, effective August 9, 2013.
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richard A. Kranitz 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.
7
No. 2013AP2128-D
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See
SCR 22.29(4)(c).
8
No. 2013AP2128-D
1