2015 WI 43
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2014AP2125 - D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Jeff D. Stobbe, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Jeff D. Stobbe,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STOBBE
OPINION FILED: April 28, 2015
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2015 WI 43
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2014AP2125-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Jeff D. Stobbe, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
APR 28, 2015
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Jeff D. Stobbe,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly
reprimanded.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review, pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule (SCR) 22.17(2), the report of the referee, Michael F.
Dubis, recommending that the court publicly reprimand Attorney
Jeff D. Stobbe for professional misconduct. No appeal has been
filed.
¶2 We approve and adopt the referee's findings of fact and
conclusions of law. We agree that Attorney Stobbe's misconduct
No. 2014AP2125-D
warrants a public reprimand. We impose the full costs of this
proceeding, which total $890.68 as of March 3, 2015.
¶3 Attorney Stobbe was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 2002. He resides in Muskego, Wisconsin. Attorney
Stobbe's Wisconsin law license has been administratively
suspended since June 4, 2013, pursuant to SCR 31.10(1), as a
result of his failure to satisfy mandatory continuing legal
education requirements for the 2011-12 period.
¶4 On September 9, 2014, the Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR) filed a six-count complaint alleging that Attorney Stobbe
committed misconduct in connection with five client matters.
Michael Dubis was appointed referee on October 28, 2014. On
December 17, 2014, the parties entered into a comprehensive
stipulation regarding both misconduct and discipline.
¶5 On January 29, 2015, the referee filed a report and
recommendation accepting the parties' stipulation, adopting the
factual findings set forth therein, and concluding that Attorney
Stobbe engaged in the alleged misconduct. The OLR filed a
restitution statement on February 10, 2015, indicating it was
not seeking restitution.
¶6 The OLR alleged and the parties stipulated that by
failing to file a post-conviction motion or notice of appeal
from a sentencing after probation revocation, prior to the time
expiring for such filings, and by otherwise failing to act in
2
No. 2014AP2125-D
furtherance of his client A.Z.'s interests, Attorney Stobbe
violated SCR 20:1.3.1
¶7 The OLR alleged and the parties stipulated that by
failing to file a post-conviction motion or notice of appeal
from a sentencing after revocation of extended supervision,
prior to the time expiring for such filings, and by otherwise
failing to act in furtherance of his client M.R.'s interests,
Attorney Stobbe violated SCR 20:1.3.
¶8 The OLR alleged and the parties stipulated that by
failing to file a post-conviction motion or notice of appeal
from a sentencing after probation revocation, prior to the time
expiring for such filings, and by otherwise failing to act in
furtherance of his client D.M.'s interests, Attorney Stobbe
violated SCR 20:1.3.
¶9 The OLR alleged and the parties stipulated that by
failing to file compliant briefs and appendices in his client
J.O.'s appeal, even after receiving orders from the court of
appeals, Attorney Stobbe violated SCRs 20:1.3 and 20:3.4(c).2
¶10 The OLR alleged and the parties stipulated that by
failing to file compliant briefs and appendices in his client
1
SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."
2
SCR 20:3.4(c) provides 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."
3
No. 2014AP2125-D
L.L.'s appeal, even after the court of appeals ordered him to do
so, Attorney Stobbe violated SCRs 20:1.3 and 20:3.4(c).
¶11 The OLR alleged and the parties stipulated that by
failing to either pay sanctions imposed by the court in the
matters of J.O. and L.L. or move for relief from the financial
penalties, Attorney Stobbe violated SCR 20:3.4(c).
¶12 This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact
unless they are clearly erroneous; conclusions of law are
reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. This
court is free to impose whatever discipline it deems
appropriate, regardless of the referee's recommendation. See
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44,
261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.
¶13 Briefly stated, over a period of several months in
2010, Attorney Stobbe missed a series of filing deadlines for
several clients, failed to file appropriate appellate briefs,
and then failed to respond to court orders directing filing and
imposing sanctions. The record before us does not clearly
indicate what led to this misconduct, but it appears that
Attorney Stobbe was in poor health at the time.
¶14 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings
of fact are erroneous. Accordingly, we adopt them. We also
agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Stobbe
violated the supreme court rules set forth above. We further
agree with the referee that a public reprimand is an appropriate
sanction for the misconduct at issue here, and we agree that
4
No. 2014AP2125-D
Attorney Stobbe should be required to pay the full costs of the
proceeding.
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that Jeff D. Stobbe is publicly
reprimanded for professional misconduct.
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Jeff D. Stobbe shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not
been full compliance with all conditions of this order.
5
No. 2014AP2125-D
1