Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Joseph M. Capistrant

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2020AP001007-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2021-05-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
2021 WI 46 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2020AP1007-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joseph Michael Capistrant,  Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Joseph M. Capistrant, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CAPISTRANT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 25, 2021   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2021 WI 46
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2020AP1007-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joseph Michael Capistrant,  
Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Joseph M. Capistrant, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
MAY 25, 2021 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter.  
On June 12, 2020, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a 
complaint and motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22, 
asking this court to suspend Attorney Joseph M. Capistrant's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 60 days, as 
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of 
Minnesota, yet consistent with Supreme Court of Wisconsin 
precedent and to order Attorney Capistrant to pay restitution of 
No. 
2020AP1007-D   
 
2 
 
$547 to his client.  Upon careful review, we agree that it is 
appropriate to suspend Attorney Capistrant's law license for a 
period of 60 days.  Since this matter did not require submission 
to a referee, we impose no costs.   
¶2 
Attorney Capistrant was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2007.  He was admitted to practice law in Minnesota 
in 1987.  The most recent address Attorney Capistrant has furnished 
to the State Bar of Wisconsin is in Osseo, Minnesota.  Attorney 
Capistrant's Wisconsin law license has been administratively 
suspended since June 12, 2012 for failure to comply with Wisconsin 
continuing legal education requirements and since October 31, 2012 
for failure to pay state bar dues and file a trust account 
certification. 
¶3 
In 2015, this court suspended Attorney Capistrant's law 
license for 90 days.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Capistrant, 2015 WI 88, 364 Wis. 2d 530, 868 N.W.2d 595.  He has 
not been reinstated from that disciplinary suspension. 
¶4 
On March 14, 2017, the Minnesota Office of Lawyers 
Professional Responsibility (OLPR) petitioned the Supreme Court of 
Minnesota to discipline Attorney Capistrant.  In 2014, D.Y. hired 
Attorney Capistrant to probate his son's estate and make changes 
to some family documents.  D.Y. paid Attorney Capistrant $547 for 
expected expenses.  Attorney Capistrant did not deposit the money 
into his trust account, did not use the funds toward their intended 
purpose, and did not file the probate action.  Attorney Capistrant 
also did not respond to D.Y. or his daughter's communications about 
No. 
2020AP1007-D   
 
3 
 
the matter, did not refund the $547, and did not respond to the 
OLPR's attempt to investigate his client's grievance.   
¶5 
On January 10, 2018, the Supreme Court of Minnesota 
disbarred Attorney Capistrant.  Attorney Capistrant did not inform 
the OLR of the 2018 Minnesota disbarment within 20 days.  The OLR's 
complaint averred that the OLR's director determined that 
Wisconsin precedent justifies a 60-day suspension of Attorney 
Capistrant's Wisconsin Law license. 
¶6 
On November 10, 2020, this court directed Attorney 
Capistrant to inform the court in writing within 20 days of any 
claim by him that the imposition of reciprocal discipline, as 
requested in the OLR's complaint, would be unwarranted.  Attorney 
Capistrant did not file a response. 
¶7 
On February 24, 2021, this court directed the parties to 
inform the court in more detail why a 60-day suspension, rather 
than revocation, which would be comparable to the sanction imposed 
in Minnesota, would be an appropriate level of discipline.  The 
OLR filed a response on March 17, 2021.   
¶8 
The OLR's response states that Minnesota's disciplinary 
system uses a different method of "counts" and rule violations 
than does Wisconsin.  The OLR explains that in Minnesota, the 
misconduct related to Attorney Capistrant's handling of the D.Y. 
matter is one count, and his non-cooperation is another count.  
The OLR says within these counts, the Minnesota action combined 
multiple violations into one unofficial sub-count.  The OLR 
explains that it determined that the equivalent Wisconsin counts 
would be as follows:   
No. 
2020AP1007-D   
 
4 
 
 By misappropriating D.Y.'s $547, Attorney Capistrant 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c).1 
 By failing to deposit D.Y.'s advanced fee payment of 
$547 into his trust account, Attorney Capistrant 
violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).2 
 By failing to file the D.Y. probate matter and pay 
related 
expenses, 
Attorney 
Capistrant 
violated 
SCR 20:1.3.3 
 By failing to keep D.Y. reasonably informed of the 
probate matter's status and failing to respond to his 
client's reasonable requests for information, Attorney 
Capistrant 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.4(a)(3)4 
and 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).5 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation." 
2 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides: 
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 3rd 
parties that is in the lawyer's possession in connection 
with a representation.  All funds of clients and 3rd 
parties paid to a lawyer or law firm in connection with 
a representation shall be deposited in one or more 
identifiable trust accounts. 
3 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
5 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides:  "A lawyer shall promptly comply 
with reasonable requests by the client for information."  
No. 
2020AP1007-D   
 
5 
 
 By failing to respond to D.Y.'s grievance and the OLPR's 
requests for information, Attorney Capistrant violated 
SCR 22.03(2)6 and SCR 22.03(6),7 enforceable via SCR 
20:8.4(c). 
¶9 
The OLR states that the Minnesota discipline was at heart 
a one-client matter and the amount of converted funds was 
relatively low at $547.  The OLR cites a number of cases in which 
this court has previously suspended attorneys for 60 days for 
similar misconduct.   
¶10 Under our rules and precedent, this court shall impose 
the identical discipline imposed by another jurisdiction unless 
one or more of the enumerated exceptions in SCR 22.22(3) is shown.  
One 
of 
the 
exceptions 
is 
that 
the 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different 
discipline 
in 
this 
state. 
 
See 
                                                 
6 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the respondent of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise.  The 
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts and 
circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 
request for a written response.  The director may allow 
additional time to respond.  Following receipt of the 
response, the director may conduct further investigation 
and may compel the respondent to answer questions, 
furnish documents, and present any information deemed 
relevant to the investigation. 
7 SCR 22.03(6) provides:  "In the course of the investigation, 
the respondent's willful failure to provide relevant information, 
to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents and the 
respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure are misconduct, 
regardless of the merits of the matters asserted in the grievance." 
No. 
2020AP1007-D   
 
6 
 
SCR 22.22(3)(c).  Upon careful review of this matter and 
particularly after reviewing the OLR's response to this court's 
February 24, 2021 order, we agree that if this case had been 
prosecuted by the OLR, a 60-day suspension of Attorney Capistrant's 
license would have been the likely outcome. 
¶11 Although no two disciplinary proceedings are identical, 
we find the misconduct at issue here somewhat analogous to the 
misconduct at issue in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Bartz, 2015 WI 61, 362 Wis. 2d 752, 864 N.W.2d 881.  The attorney 
in that case was suspended for 60 days for converting $3,271 in 
settlement proceeds that he was supposed to hold in trust and in 
failing to inform his client of an administrative suspension.  In 
addition, we find this case somewhat analogous to In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sarbacker, 2017 WI 86, 377 
Wis. 2d 484, 901 N.W.2d 373.  Attorney Sarbacker was suspended for 
60 days for dispersing a client's fund to himself, having no 
written fee agreement, failing to timely respond to the grievance 
filed against him, and pleading guilty to an unrelated misdemeanor.  
Based on these somewhat similar cases, we agree with the OLR that 
the misconduct at issue here justifies substantially different 
discipline than that imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota. 
¶12 We agree with the OLR that Attorney Capistrant should be 
required to make restitution to D.Y. in the amount of $547.  Since 
this matter was resolved without the appointment of a referee, we 
impose no costs. 
No. 
2020AP1007-D   
 
7 
 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Joseph M. Capistrant 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Joseph M. Capistrant shall make restitution to D.Y. 
in the amount of $547. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Joseph M. Capistrant 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. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order are required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2).   
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative suspension 
of Joseph M. Capistrant's license to practice law due to his 
failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements and 
failure to pay state bar dues and comply with trust account 
certification requirements shall remain in effect until each 
reason for the administrative suspension has been rectified, 
pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 
 
No. 
2020AP1007-D   
 
 
 
1