Office of Lawyer Regulation v. David J. Silberman

2017 WI 10

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2016AP2014-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against David J. Silberman, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
David J. Silberman,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SILBERMAN

OPINION FILED: February 17, 2017
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:

JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:
2017 WI 10
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2016AP2014-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against David J. Silberman, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant, FEB 17, 2017
v. Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
David J. Silberman,

Respondent.

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license

revoked.

¶1 PER CURIAM. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR)

and Attorney David J. Silberman have filed a stipulation

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 that Attorney

Silberman's license to practice law in Wisconsin should be

revoked, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme

Court of Illinois. Upon careful review of the matter, we

approve the stipulation and impose the stipulated reciprocal
No. 2016AP2014-D

discipline. The OLR does not seek the imposition of costs

against Attorney Silberman, and we impose no costs.

¶2 Attorney Silberman was admitted to practice law in

Wisconsin in 1972. He was admitted to practice law in Illinois

in 1973. Attorney Silberman's Wisconsin law license has been

suspended since October 31, 2015, for failure to pay bar dues

and failure to file an OLR trust account certificate.

¶3 On September 22, 2016, the Supreme Court of Illinois

entered an order disbarring Attorney Silberman in that state.

The disbarment was based on two counts of misconduct:

(1) Failure to hold property of third persons that is
in his possession in connection with a representation
separate from his own property, by converting real
estate escrow account proceeds to fund the operation
of Nova Title, in violation of Rule 1.15(a) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and

(2) Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation, by using real estate escrow funds
to pay Nova Title's operating expenses, in violation
of Rule 8.4(c) of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct (2010).
¶4 The two counts of misconduct for which the Supreme
Court of Illinois disbarred Attorney Silberman arose out of

allegations that Attorney Silberman transferred over $460,000 in

real estate escrow money from his trust account to the operating

account of Nova Title, a company that he owned. The transfers

were unrelated to the purpose of the escrow and exceeded any

amounts legitimately due to Attorney Silberman or his company.

Accordingly, Attorney Silberman's transfer of the funds
constituted conversion of his clients' trust funds to his own

2
No. 2016AP2014-D

personal use. Attorney Silberman transferred some of the funds

back but over $180,000 was not returned. Attorney Silberman

failed to respond to the Illinois disciplinary proceeding and

provided no defense to the allegations against him.

Accordingly, the allegations were deemed admitted and his

disbarment was ordered pursuant to default proceedings.

¶5 Attorney Silberman did not notify the OLR of the

Illinois disbarment within 20 days of its effective date.

¶6 On October 18, 2016, the OLR filed a complaint against

Attorney Silberman alleging the following counts of misconduct:

Count One: By virtue of the Illinois disciplinary
disbarment, Attorney Silberman is subject to
reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to
SCR 22.22.

Count Two: By failing to notify OLR of the Illinois
disciplinary disbarment within 20 days of the
effective date of that jurisdiction's imposition of
public discipline for professional misconduct,
Attorney Silberman violated SCR 22.22(1).
¶7 On December 6, 2016, Attorney Silberman entered into a

stipulation with the OLR in which he agreed that the facts

alleged in the OLR's complaint supported the revocation of his
license to practice law in Wisconsin as reciprocal discipline to

that imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois.

¶8 Under SCR 22.22(3), this court shall impose the

identical discipline imposed in another jurisdiction unless one

or more of three exceptions apply. In his stipulation, Attorney

Silberman states that he does not claim any of the defenses

3
No. 2016AP2014-D

found in SCR 22.22(3), and he agrees that this court should

revoke his license to practice law in Wisconsin.

¶9 In the stipulation, Attorney Silberman states that the

stipulation did not result from plea bargaining, that he does

not contest the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR or the

discipline sought by the OLR director. Attorney Silberman

further states that he agrees the facts alleged in the OLR's

complaint may form a basis for the discipline requested by the

OLR director. He further avers that he fully understands the

misconduct allegations; fully understands the ramifications

should this court impose the stipulated level of discipline;

fully understands his right to contest the matter; fully

understands his right to consult with counsel and represents

that he has in fact consulted with counsel; that his entry into

the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily; that he has

read the OLR's complaint and the stipulation and that his entry

into the stipulation represents his decision not to contest the

misconduct alleged in the complaint or the level and type of
discipline sought by the OLR director.

¶10 Upon review of this matter, we accept the stipulation

and impose the identical discipline imposed by the Supreme Court

of Illinois, namely the revocation of Attorney Silberman's

license to practice law in Wisconsin. Because this matter has

been resolved by means of a stipulation without the appointment

of a referee and because the OLR has not requested the

imposition of costs, we do not impose any costs upon Attorney
Silberman.
4
No. 2016AP2014-D

¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of David J. Silberman

to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of

this order.

¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not

already done so, David J. Silberman shall comply with the

provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose

license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.

¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all

conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See

SCR 22.28(3).

5
No. 2016AP2014-D