2014 WI 120
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2012AP967-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Arik J. Guenther, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Arik J. Guenther,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GUENTHER
OPINION FILED: November 7, 2014
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2014 WI 120
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2012AP967-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Arik J. Guenther, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
NOV 7, 2014
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Arik J. Guenther,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. This is the ninth disciplinary
proceeding against Attorney Arik J. Guenther and the fifth to
result in a full disciplinary opinion and order from this court.
In this proceeding, we review the report of the referee,
Attorney Christine Harris Taylor, finding that Attorney Guenther
committed professional misconduct as alleged in the 18 counts of
the complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and
recommending that (1) the court suspend Attorney Guenther's
No. 2012AP967-D
license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of one year
and (2) the court impose the full costs of this disciplinary
proceeding on Attorney Guenther.
¶2 Because no appeal has been filed from the referee's
report and recommendation, we review the matter pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1 After considering the
referee's report and the record in this matter, we adopt the
referee's findings of fact and agree that Attorney Guenther
committed the acts of professional misconduct alleged in the 18
counts of the complaint. Due in large part to Attorney
Guenther's disciplinary history and the seriousness of his
misconduct, we further agree with the referee that the proper
level of discipline to be imposed is a one-year suspension of
Attorney Guenther's license to practice law in this state,
effective the date of this opinion and order. Finally, we see
no reason to depart in this case from our general practice of
imposing full costs on attorneys found to have engaged in
misconduct, and we require Attorney Guenther to pay the full
costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which were $2,070.35 as
of September 18, 2013.
1
SCR 22.17(2) states:
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or
remand the matter to the referee for additional
findings; and determine and impose appropriate
discipline. The court, on its own motion, may order
the parties to file briefs in the matter.
2
No. 2012AP967-D
¶3 Attorney Guenther was admitted to the practice of law
in Wisconsin in September 1981. His license was initially
suspended for disciplinary reasons in August 2005. Attorney
Guenther filed petitions for reinstatement in 2006, 2008, and
2010, but all of those petitions were dismissed before a
reinstatement hearing was held. His license therefore remains
suspended as of the date of this opinion.
¶4 Attorney Guenther has a lengthy and troubling
disciplinary history, with three consensual private reprimands,
one consensual public reprimand, and four previous suspensions.
It can be summarized as follows:
Private Reprimand No. 1989-13 (imposed with consent in
May 1989);
Private Reprimand No. 2001-04 (imposed with consent in
June 2001);
Private Reprimand No. 2002-05 (imposed with consent in
February 2002);
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Guenther,
2005 WI 133, 285 Wis. 2d 587, 700 N.W.2d 260 (eight-
month suspension imposed, effective August 30, 2005)
("Guenther I");
Public Reprimand of Arik J. Guenther, No. 2007-3
(imposed with consent in April 2007);
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Guenther,
2009 WI 25, 316 Wis. 2d 34, 762 N.W.2d 371 (nine-month
suspension imposed, effective March 24, 2009)
("Guenther II");
3
No. 2012AP967-D
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Guenther,
2012 WI 10, 338 Wis. 2d 542, 808 N.W.2d 921 (90-day
suspension imposed, effective February 10, 2012)
("Guenther III"); and
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Guenther,
2012 WI 116, 344 Wis. 2d 528, 823 N.W.2d 266 (60-day
suspension imposed, effective November 21, 2012)
("Guenther IV")
¶5 The Guenther III matter merits some further
discussion, as several of Attorney Guenther's actions at issue
there are relevant to the facts underlying the current
disciplinary proceeding and the level of discipline to be
imposed. Several of the counts of misconduct in Guenther III
related to Attorney Guenther's improper conduct toward his now-
former wife, R.G., and to his improper ingestion or abuse of
alcohol. Specifically, Attorney Guenther was ultimately
convicted of disorderly conduct, with a domestic abuse modifier,
for an altercation that he had with R.G. in their home on
February 24, 2007. 338 Wis. 2d 524, ¶¶11, 19, & 29. While
subject to a bond that required no violent contact with R.G., on
February 20, 2009, Attorney Guenther forcibly broke into R.G.'s
residence, stole her laptop computer, and left a threatening
4
No. 2012AP967-D
written note.2 This conduct resulted in a conviction for
misdemeanor bail jumping. Id., ¶¶12, 25.
¶6 Several other counts of misconduct in Guenther III
related to Attorney Guenther's improper ingestion of alcohol.
In addition to violating the no-contact term of his bond,
Attorney Guenther also violated the absolute sobriety term of
the bond in March 2009 when he was found to have a blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) of 0.128 grams of alcohol per 100
milliliters of blood (g/ml). This resulted in a conviction for
felony bail jumping. Id., ¶¶16, 21.
¶7 In October 2009, while his driver's license was
suspended, Attorney Guenther was again stopped by the police and
found to have a BAC of 0.213 g/ml. Attorney Guenther initially
pled guilty to and was convicted of operating a motor vehicle
with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC), as a second
offense. Id., ¶¶23, 24. He failed to notify the OLR of this
conviction. He subsequently was allowed to withdraw his guilty
plea, which reinstated all of the charges against him. Despite
the withdrawal of his plea, this court determined in
Guenther III that his operation of a motor vehicle with a PAC
constituted engaging in a criminal act that reflected adversely
on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other
2
The note contained the following message: "It's nice to
see all the things that you and your little friend can afford
while you pay no bills. That['s] all over for you. All you had
to do was be my wife but you couldn't and you will now have []
to pay." Guenther III, 338 Wis. 2d 524, ¶12.
5
No. 2012AP967-D
respects, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b). Id., ¶¶37, 45. Since
his ingestion of alcohol at the time of his October 2009 arrest
had violated the absolute sobriety term of his bond, we also
concluded that he had knowingly disobeyed an obligation under
the rules of a tribunal, in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c). Id.,
¶¶38, 45. Finally, by not notifying the OLR and the clerk of
this court of his conviction (even though it was subsequently
vacated and charges were reinstated), we determined that
Attorney Guenther had violated SCR 21.15(5), which is
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f). Id., ¶¶39, 45.
¶8 In the current disciplinary proceeding, Attorney
Guenther's answer initially admitted many of the factual
allegations of the OLR's complaint, but denied the legal claims
that his actions had constituted professional misconduct. The
OLR subsequently filed two motions for partial summary judgment,
which together addressed all 18 counts alleged in the complaint.
After the filing of each summary judgment motion, Attorney
Guenther advised the referee that he either did not deny or was
unable to contest the allegations in the motions. Accordingly,
the referee found that there were no genuine issues of material
fact and granted the OLR's summary judgment motions. The facts
as found by the referee and the legal conclusions resulting from
those facts are summarized in the following paragraphs.
¶9 Count Five of the present complaint relates to the PAC
(second offense) charge against Attorney Guenther arising out of
the traffic stop that occurred in October 2009. As was noted in
Guenther III, after initially pleading guilty to the PAC charge,
6
No. 2012AP967-D
Attorney Guenther was allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, and
the conviction based on that plea was vacated in December 2010.
The original charges were then reinstated. In August 2011,
Attorney Guenther again pled guilty and was convicted of the PAC
charge, as a second offense. As had been the case on the first
conviction that had subsequently been vacated, Attorney Guenther
again did not send a timely written notice of the conviction to
the OLR and the clerk of this court. On October 21, 2011, more
than two months after the conviction, the OLR received a letter
from Attorney Guenther notifying them of the conviction,
although the letter did not identify the jurisdiction in which
the convictions had occurred. No such notification was sent to
the clerk of this court.
¶10 The referee determined on Count Five that Attorney
Guenther's failure to notify the OLR of the conviction and the
jurisdiction in which it had occurred within the required five-
7
No. 2012AP967-D
day period constituted a violation of SCR 21.15(5),3 which is
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).4
¶11 Counts One through Four of the complaint relate to a
subsequent drunken driving incident. On September 17, 2010,
Attorney Guenther was stopped while he was driving by an officer
of the Jackson Police Department, and his blood was tested for
alcohol at a local hospital. The test revealed a BAC of
0.232 g/ml. At the time of the arrest, Attorney Guenther was
subject to a bond condition that required him to maintain
absolute sobriety and not to commit any new crimes.
¶12 Attorney Guenther ultimately pled guilty to and was
convicted of one count of operating a motor vehicle with a PAC
(third offense) and misdemeanor bail jumping. This occurred on
the same date that his guilty plea and conviction were entered
for the PAC (second offense). He again failed to notify the OLR
3
SCR 21.15(5) states:
An attorney found guilty or convicted of any
crime on or after July 1, 2002, shall notify in
writing the office of lawyer regulation and the clerk
of the Supreme Court within 5 days after the finding
or conviction, whichever first occurs. The notice
shall include the identity of the attorney, the date
of finding or conviction, the offenses, and the
jurisdiction. An attorney’s failure to notify the
office of lawyer regulation and clerk of the supreme
court of being found guilty or his or her conviction
is misconduct.
4
SCR 20:8.4(f) states that it is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of
lawyers."
8
No. 2012AP967-D
and the clerk of this court within the required five-day period.
He finally notified the OLR of the conviction via the letter it
received on October 21, 2010, although that letter failed to
identify the jurisdiction in which the conviction had occurred.
¶13 The referee determined that these facts supported
conclusions of misconduct on four counts of the OLR's complaint.
First, the referee concluded that Attorney Guenther's conviction
for operation of a motor vehicle with a PAC, as a repeat
offender, violated SCR 20:8.4(b).5 Second, his consumption of
alcohol and commission of a crime, contrary to the terms of his
bond, constituted a violation of SCR 20:8.4(b). Third, his
disobedience of the court's order in his bond not to consume
alcohol or commit any new crimes also constituted a violation of
SCR 20:3.4(c).6 Fourth, his failure to provide timely notice of
his conviction and his failure to provide all of the required
information when he finally did notify the OLR constituted a
violation of SCR 21.15(5), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).
¶14 After the OLR received notification of the
convictions, it sent a letter to Attorney Guenther on
November 17, 2011, notifying him that it was investigating the
5
SCR 20:8.4(b) states that 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."
6
SCR 20:3.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not "knowingly
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation
exists."
9
No. 2012AP967-D
convictions and their underlying facts, and asking him to
provide a written response by December 12, 2011. Attorney
Guenther did not respond. The OLR sent another letter in
January 2012, but Attorney Guenther again did not respond. On
Count Six of the complaint, the referee determined that Attorney
Guenther's failure to respond to the OLR's requests for
information as part of its investigation constituted a violation
of SCR 22.03(2)7 and SCR 20:8.4(h).8
¶15 The remaining counts in the present complaint (Counts
Seven through Eighteen) all relate to Attorney Guenther's
contacts with his now ex-wife, R.G., and the resulting court
proceedings. In March 2009 the Fond du Lac County circuit court
issued an injunction prohibiting Attorney Guenther from
7
SCR 22.03(2) states:
Upon commencing an investigation, the director
shall notify the respondent of the matter being
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the
investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a
request for a written response. The director may
allow additional time to respond. Following receipt
of the response, the director may conduct further
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer
questions, furnish documents, and present any
information deemed relevant to the investigation.
8
SCR 20:8.4(h) states that it is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6),
or SCR 22.04(1)."
10
No. 2012AP967-D
"contacting or causing any person other than a party's attorney
or law enforcement officer" to contact R.G., unless she had
previously consented in writing. The injunction specified that
"contacting" included communicating in writing. The injunction
stated that it would remain in effect until March 2013.
¶16 Attorney Guenther petitioned for divorce from R.G. in
April 2009, and a judgment of divorce was issued in November
2009. Throughout the divorce proceedings, R.G. was represented
by counsel. Attorney Guenther represented himself.
¶17 On October 1, 2010, Attorney Guenther mailed legal
documents related to the divorce directly to R.G., as well as to
the Winnebago County circuit court. The cover letter
accompanying the documents contained the following explanation
as to why Attorney Guenther was mailing the documents directly
to R.G.: "I am unable to have [R.G.] served at her place of
employment as they will not allow it and her former lawyer told
me that he was no longer willing to accept anything on her
behalf, therefore I am forced to attempt service in this
fashion." R.G. had not consented to receiving documents in the
mail directly from Attorney Guenther. In addition, her divorce
lawyer had not told Attorney Guenther that he would no longer
accept documents on her behalf.
¶18 On October 4, 2010, Attorney Guenther mailed
additional legal documents directly to R.G. She had not
consented to receiving those documents from Attorney Guenther.
¶19 The state filed two criminal complaints against
Attorney Guenther. State v. Guenther, Winnebago County Case No.
11
No. 2012AP967-D
2010CM1666 (for the October 1, 2010 mailing); State v. Guenther,
Winnebago County Case No. 2010CM1667 (for the October 4, 2010
mailing). Each complaint charged a single count of knowingly
violating a domestic abuse order, contrary to Wis. Stat.
§ 813.12(8), as an act of domestic abuse. On June 2, 2011,
Attorney Guenther appeared by telephone at a joint motion
hearing. In response to the prosecutor's statement that he did
not think Attorney Guenther had received permission to appear by
telephone, Attorney Guenther told the court that he had
requested at a prior hearing to appear by telephone and that he
was appearing by telephone with the permission of the court.
The court had not granted any such permission to appear by
telephone. The court found that Attorney Guenther had failed to
appear in person for the hearing and had made a
misrepresentation to the court. It therefore found him in
contempt and ordered him to pay $100 as a contempt sanction
within seven days. It further informed him that he did not have
permission to appear by telephone and directed him to be present
at the next proceeding, which was a status conference scheduled
for July 11, 2011.
¶20 When Attorney Guenther did not pay the $100 sanction
within the required seven-day period, the court held a show
cause hearing on June 30, 2011. Attorney Guenther did not
appear at that hearing. He also did not appear at the status
conference, which had been rescheduled for July 13, 2011.
¶21 The OLR sent letters to Attorney Guenther in July and
August 2011 directing him to file responses to the grievances it
12
No. 2012AP967-D
had received. Attorney Guenther did not respond. After the OLR
learned that Attorney Guenther had been incarcerated in the
Washington County Jail, it sent another letter to him at that
location, again asking for a response. Attorney Guenther still
did not respond.
¶22 In January 2012 Attorney Guenther pled no contest and
guilty in the two pending Winnebago County cases to reduced
misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct, with a domestic abuse
surcharge. He did not timely report his convictions in these
two cases to the OLR or the clerk of this court.
¶23 The referee concluded that these facts properly
supported legal conclusions that Attorney Guenther had engaged
in 12 counts of professional misconduct. With respect to Counts
Seven and Eight, the referee determined that Attorney Guenther's
written contact with R.G. on October 1, 2010 (Count Seven), and
on October 4, 2010 (Count Eight), without her consent and in
violation of the terms of a domestic abuse injunction, had
violated SCR 20:8.4(b). The referee further found on Count Nine
that Attorney Guenther had engaged in misrepresentation when he
had falsely stated to the circuit court that R.G.'s allegedly
former lawyer had said he was unwilling to accept legal papers
on R.G.'s behalf and that Attorney Guenther had been forced to
mail legal documents directly to R.G., in violation of
13
No. 2012AP967-D
SCR 20:3.3(a)(1)9 and SCR 20:8.4(c).10 On Count Ten, the referee
found that Attorney Guenther's knowingly false representation to
the circuit court at the June 2, 2011 motion hearing that it had
previously granted permission to him to appear by telephone
violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) and SCR 20:8.4(c). The referee found
on Count Eleven that Attorney Guenther's action in contempt of
court at the June 2, 2011 hearing had violated his attorney's
oath, as set forth in SCR 40:15,11 and SCR 20:8.4(g).12 The
9
SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) states that a lawyer shall not knowingly
"make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously
made to the tribunal by the lawyer."
10
SCR 20:8.4(c) states that it is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation."
11
Attorney Guenther's failure to appear demonstrated a lack
of respect for the court and his false statements about having
received prior permission to appear by telephone constituted an
attempt to mislead the judge. SCR 40:15 (Attorney's oath)
states, in pertinent part:
The oath or affirmation to be taken to qualify
for admission to the practice of law shall be in
substantially the following form:
. . . .
I will maintain the respect due to courts of
justice and judicial officers;
. . . .
I will employ, for the purpose of maintaining the
causes confided to me, such means only as are
consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek
to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false
statement of fact or law; . . . .
14
No. 2012AP967-D
referee further determined that Attorney Guenther's mailing of
legal documents directly to R.G. on October 1, 2010 (Count
Twelve) and on October 4, 2010 (Count Thirteen), contrary to the
circuit court's "no contact" provision in the domestic abuse
injunction, had violated SCR 20:3.4(c). Attorney Guenther's
failure to pay the $100 contempt sanction (Count Fourteen), his
failure to appear at the June 30, 2011 hearing to explain his
failure to appear (Count Fifteen), and his failure to appear at
the July 13, 2011 status conference (Count Sixteen) also
constituted violations of SCR 20:3.4(c). The referee further
concluded on Count Seventeen that Attorney Guenther's failure to
give timely notice of his convictions in the two Winnebago
County criminal cases had violated SCR 21.15(5), enforceable via
SCR 20:8.4(f). Finally, with respect to Count Eighteen, the
referee determined that Attorney Guenther's failure to answer
the OLR's repeated requests for a written response to its
grievance investigation had violated SCR 22.03(2), enforceable
via SCR 20:8.4(h).
¶24 The referee directed the parties to submit briefs
regarding the appropriate sanction to be imposed in this matter.
The OLR submitted a sanction brief, asking the referee to
recommend a six-month suspension. In addition to noting a
number of aggravating factors, including a lengthy disciplinary
history, multiple offenses, a pattern of misconduct, substantial
12
SCR 20:8.4(g) states that it is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to "violate the attorney's oath."
15
No. 2012AP967-D
practice experience, and an intentional failure to cooperate
with a disciplinary agency's investigations, the OLR relied on
this court's imposition of a six-month suspension for multiple
instances of criminal conduct and for failure to cooperate with
disciplinary investigations. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Soldon, 2010 WI 27, 324 Wis. 2d 4, 782 N.W.2d 81. It
also pointed to our decision in Guenther III, where we imposed a
90-day suspension for a series of criminal acts, failure to
provide timely notice of his convictions, and failure to
cooperate with grievance investigations. Attorney Guenther did
not file any sanction brief.
¶25 Although the referee agreed with much of the OLR's
sanction analysis, she concluded that this court's practice of
imposing progressive discipline required a longer suspension
than the OLR sought. She believed that Attorney Guenther's
criminal acts of driving with a PAC were more serious than
Attorney Soldon's series of retail thefts. Given Attorney
Guenther's lengthy disciplinary history, the referee recommended
that his repeated disobedience of court orders, including
absolute sobriety and no-contact orders, and his false
statements to a court warranted a suspension of one year. She
further recommended that Attorney Guenther should be required to
pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding.
¶26 Our review of the referee's findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and sanction recommendation follows long-
established standards. Specifically, we affirm a referee's
findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous,
16
No. 2012AP967-D
but we review the referee's conclusions of law on a de novo
basis. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo,
2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125. We determine
the appropriate level of discipline given the particular facts
of each case, independent of the referee's recommendation, but
benefiting from it. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.
¶27 As noted above, Attorney Guenther has not appealed
from the referee's report and recommendation. After conducting
our own review of the record, we do not find that any of the
substantive factual findings of the referee are clearly
erroneous, and we adopt them. We further agree that those facts
provide clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that
Attorney Guenther committed the professional misconduct alleged
in the 18 counts of the OLR's complaint.
¶28 Turning to the appropriate level of discipline, we
agree with the referee that the seriousness of Attorney
Guenther's misconduct and our practice of imposing progressively
stronger sanctions require a one-year suspension of Attorney
Guenther's license to practice law in this state. Unlike the
disciplinary proceeding involving Attorney Soldon, this is the
fifth time that Attorney Guenther has committed misconduct
serious enough to warrant a suspension. He was already
disciplined for very similar misconduct in Guenther III.
Specifically, although he had been disciplined in that
proceeding for criminal convictions that arose out of improper
actions toward his then-wife, he subsequently chose to violate a
17
No. 2012AP967-D
domestic abuse injunction by sending legal documents to her
directly. Further, although he had been disciplined in
Guenther III for his second offense of operating a motor vehicle
with a PAC, he engaged in the conduct again, leading to a third
PAC conviction. This repetition of misconduct makes the
violations in this matter more troubling and worthy of a
lengthier suspension, which hopefully will impress upon him the
seriousness of his misconduct and the need to conform his
conduct to both the criminal laws of this state and the Rules of
Professional Conduct for Attorneys.
¶29 We do not include any restitution award in our order.
There are no monetary losses that arose from the misconduct at
issue in this proceeding.
¶30 Finally, we conclude that Attorney Guenther should pay
the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding. Our general
practice is to impose full costs on attorneys who are found to
have committed misconduct. See SCR 22.24(1m). Attorney
Guenther has not claimed that there are reasons to depart from
that practice in this matter, and we have not found any reason
to do so.
¶31 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Arik J. Guenther to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year,
effective the date of this order.
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Arik J. Guenther shall pay to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.
18
No. 2012AP967-D
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Arik J. Guenther shall
continue compliance with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning
the duties of a person whose license to practice law in
Wisconsin has been suspended.
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See
SCR 22.29(4)(c).
19
No. 2012AP967-D
1
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Arik J. Guenther
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date filed: 2014-11-07
Citations: 358 Wis. 2d 505, 2014 WI 120
Copy CitationsCombined Opinion