2010 WI 109
|
Supreme Court of |
|
|
|
|
Case No.: |
2009AP916-D |
|
Complete Title: |
|
|
|
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sandra K. Coplien, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Sandra K. Coplien, Respondent. |
|
|
|
|
|
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COPLIEN |
|
|
|
|
Opinion Filed: |
September 3, 2010 |
|
Submitted on Briefs: |
|
|
Oral Argument: |
|
|
|
|
|
Source of Appeal: |
|
|
|
Court: |
|
|
County: |
|
|
Judge: |
|
|
|
|
Justices: |
|
|
|
Concurred: |
|
|
Dissented: |
|
|
Not Participating: |
|
|
|
|
Attorneys: |
|
2010
WI 109
notice
This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended.
¶1 PER
CURIAM. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has
filed a complaint seeking discipline identical to that imposed in
¶2 Because no appeal has been filed, we review the referee's report
pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).[1] Upon our independent review of the record, we
approve and adopt the referee's findings and conclusions. We determine that by virtue of having been
suspended in
¶3 Attorney Sandra K. Coplien was admitted to practice law in
¶4 On April 10, 2009, the OLR filed a complaint alleging that Attorney
Coplien committed two counts of professional misconduct and asking this court
to suspend Attorney Coplien's Wisconsin law license for six months as discipline
reciprocal to that imposed upon Attorney Coplien in
¶5 On
April 15, 2010, the referee filed his report and recommendation. The referee stated that Attorney Coplien had
been served with the complaint and motion and failed to appear or contest the
proceedings. The referee incorporated
into his findings the allegations of the OLR complaint.
¶6 The misconduct upon which Attorney Coplien's
¶7 In addition, Attorney Coplien failed to cooperate with the
Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission ("ARDC"). ARDC found Attorney Coplien to be uncooperative
and nonresponsive.
¶8 Attorney Coplien's misconduct violated the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct ("IRPC") by: (a) failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in violation of Rule 1.3 of the IRPC; (b) failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter in violation of Rule 1.4(a) of the IRPC; (c) failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client in violation of Rule 3.2 of the IRPC; (d) failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority in violation of Rule 8.1(a)(2) of the IRPC; (e) conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 4(a)(4) of the IRPC (two counts); and (f) conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770 of the IRPC (two counts).
¶9 Referee
Decker noted that Attorney Coplien failed to notify OLR of her
¶10 The
referee concluded Attorney Coplien was in default and the allegations contained
in the OLR's complaint were deemed admitted. The referee concluded Attorney Coplien had
violated SCR 22.22(1) by failing to notify the OLR within 20 days of the
effective date of her
¶11 We
approve and adopt the referee's findings and conclusions, which are
unchallenged. By virtue of having been
suspended by the Illinois Supreme Court for her violation of the Illinois Rules
of Professional Conduct, Attorney Coplien is subject to reciprocal discipline
in
¶12 We
suspend Attorney Coplien's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of
six months, and we direct Attorney Coplien to bear the costs of this proceeding,
which were $1,407.68 as of May 5, 2010.
¶13 IT
IS ORDERED that the license of Sandra K. Coplien to practice law in
¶14 IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date of this order, Sandra K. Coplien
pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of the proceeding.
¶15 IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sandra K. Coplien shall comply with SCR 22.26 regarding
the duties of a person whose license to practice law in
[1] SCR 22.17(2) provides:
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] SCR 22.22 states: Reciprocal discipline.
(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for medical incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction shall promptly notify the director of the matter. Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the effective date of the order or judgment of the other jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in this state, the director may file a complaint in the supreme court containing all of the following:
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order from the other jurisdiction.
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of the identical discipline or license suspension by the supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual basis for the claim.
(3) 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.
(4) Except as provided in sub. (3), a final adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity shall be conclusive evidence of the attorney's misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a proceeding under this rule.
(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint filed under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16. At the hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the imposition of discipline or license suspension different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction to demonstrate that the imposition of identical discipline or license suspension by the supreme court is unwarranted.
(6) If the discipline or license suspension imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the stay expires.
[3] On May 19, 2008, the
Illinois Supreme Court ordered a six-month suspension. The OLR learned of Attorney Coplien's