|
|
|
|
|
Case No.: |
04-0336-D |
|
|
Complete Title: |
|
|
|
|
In the
Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Duane Craig Mikkelsen, Attorney at Law: Office
of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Duane
Craig Mikkelsen, Respondent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MIKKELSEN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opinion Filed: |
June 8, 2004 |
|
|
Submitted on Briefs: |
||
|
Oral Argument: |
||
|
|
|
|
|
Source of Appeal: |
|
|
|
|
Court: |
|
|
|
County: |
|
|
|
Judge: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justices: |
|
|
|
|
Concurred: |
BRADLEY, J., concurs but would suspend Attorney
Mikkelsen’s license as of the date of this order. |
|
|
Dissented: |
|
|
|
Not Participating: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attorneys: |
|
|
2004 WI 72
|
|
Supreme
Court of Wisconsin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notice This order is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. |
|
The Court entered the following order on this date:
On February 3,
2004, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint
against Attorney Duane Craig Mikkelsen asking this court to impose reciprocal
discipline identical to that imposed on Attorney Mikkelsen by the Oregon
Supreme Court. That court suspended
Attorney Mikkelsen’s Oregon law license for one year, effective January 17,
2004. On February 4, 2004, this court
issued an order to show cause directing Attorney Mikkelsen to show cause in
writing by February 24, 2004 why the imposition of the identical discipline
imposed by the Oregon Supreme Court would be unwarranted. Attorney Mikkelsen has responded to the
order to show cause admitting that he was suspended by the Oregon Supreme Court
for one year and asserting that all but 90 days of that period was stayed.
Attorney
Mikkelsen was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1988 and he became
licensed to practice law in Oregon in 1982.
In 1982, Attorney Mikkelsen’s Wisconsin license was suspended for his
failure to pay dues to the Wisconsin State Bar. His Wisconsin license remains suspended.
The one-year
suspension in Oregon resulted from misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation; neglect of a legal matter; and failure to promptly
return client materials in one matter, and engaging in conduct including
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; lawyer self-interest conflict,
and neglect of a legal matter in another matter.
SCR 22.22(3)
provides that this court shall impose the identical discipline or license
suspension unless the procedure in the other jurisdiction was so lacking in
notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a due process violation;
there was such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct that this
court should not accept as final the misconduct finding; or the misconduct
justifies substantially different discipline here. Neither OLR nor Attorney Mikkelsen contend, nor does this court
find, that any of these three exceptions exist.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that
the license of Duane Craig Mikkelsen to practice law in the state of Wisconsin
be suspended for one year, effective as of January 17, 2004;
IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that this suspension does not affect the existing suspensions for
failure to pay dues to the Wisconsin State Bar or failure to comply with CLE
requirements which would also have to be satisfied in order for Attorney
Mikkelsen’s license to practice law in Wisconsin to be reinstated;
IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that Attorney Mikkelsen shall comply, if he has not already done so,
with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to activities following
suspension.
Bradley,
J., concurs but would suspend Attorney Mikkelsen’s license as of the date of
this order.
Cornelia
G. Clark
Clerk
of Supreme Court