2013 WI 41
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2013AP133-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Jon E. Stanek, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Jon E. Stanek,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STANEK
OPINION FILED: May 16, 2013
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2013 WI 41
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2013AP133-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Jon E. Stanek, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
MAY 16, 2013
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Jon E. Stanek,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a stipulation filed by the
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Jon E. Stanek
pursuant to SCR 22.121 requesting this court to suspend Attorney
1
SCR 22.12 provides:
(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. 2013AP133-D
Stanek's license to practice law in Wisconsin as reciprocal
discipline identical to that imposed by the Supreme Court of
Minnesota.
¶2 According to the stipulation, Attorney Stanek became
licensed to practice law in Wisconsin in 2005, and practices in
Eau Claire. He has no prior Wisconsin disciplinary history.
¶3 In the stipulation Attorney Stanek acknowledges that
on November 26, 2012, the Supreme Court of Minnesota suspended
his Minnesota law license for 30 days for failing to comply with
the terms of a consent agreement for conditional admission and
making false statements to the director of Minnesota's Office of
Lawyers Professional Responsibility during a disciplinary
investigation. The Supreme Court of Minnesota found that those
actions violated Rules 3.4(c), 8.1(a) and (b), 8.4(c) and (d),
and 25 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.
¶4 Attorney Stanek states in the stipulation that he does
not claim that any of the conditions listed in SCR 22.22(3)(a)-
(c)2 prevent the imposition of reciprocal discipline in 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
SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c) states:
2
No. 2013AP133-D
case. Attorney Stanek and the OLR jointly request that Attorney
Stanek's license to practice law in this state be suspended for
30 days. The stipulation properly provides that it did not
result from plea bargaining. Attorney Stanek says he does not
contest the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR or the
discipline that the OLR director is seeking in this matter.
Attorney Stanek represents that he fully understands the
misconduct allegations; fully understands the ramifications
should the court impose the stipulated level of discipline;
fully understands his right to contest this matter; and fully
understands his right to consult with counsel. He further avers
that his entry into the stipulation was made knowingly and
voluntarily and represents his decision not to contest the
misconduct alleged or the type of discipline sought by the OLR
director.
¶5 Based upon our independent review, we determine that
the SCR 22.12 stipulation should be accepted and Attorney
The supreme court shall impose the identical
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of
the following is present:
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to
constitute a deprivation of due process.
(b) There was such an infirmity of proof
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that
the supreme court could not accept as final the
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical
incapacity.
(c) The misconduct justifies substantially
different discipline in this state.
3
No. 2013AP133-D
Stanek's license to practice law in Wisconsin should be
suspended for 30 days as reciprocal discipline to that imposed
by the Supreme Court of Minnesota. Since Attorney Stanek
entered into a stipulation and there was no need to appoint a
referee, we agree that costs should not be imposed in this case.
¶6 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jon E. Stanek to
practice law in the State of Wisconsin is suspended for a period
of 30 days, effective June 13, 2013.
¶7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jon E. Stanek 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.
¶8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See
SCR 22.28(2).
4
No. 2013AP133-D
1