Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John M. Curtin

Citation: 2014 WI 90

Docket Number: 2013AP002705-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2014-07-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
2014 WI 90 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP2705-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
John M. Curtin, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CURTIN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 24, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 90
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP2705-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
John M. Curtin, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 24, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney John M. Curtin 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12.  The stipulation 
requests this court to publicly reprimand Attorney Curtin as 
reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the Arizona 
Supreme Court.   
¶2 
Attorney Curtin was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1987.  His Wisconsin license is currently in good 
standing but inactive.  Attorney Curtin is also admitted to 
practice law in Arizona.   
No. 
2013AP2705-D   
 
2 
 
¶3 
According to the stipulation, on May 13, 2013, the 
Arizona Supreme Court reprimanded Attorney Curtin for failing to 
maintain adequate trust account records and failing to meet 
required standards for performance regarding trust account 
control and supervision after the staff member who maintained 
Attorney Curtin's trust account records falsified, destroyed, 
and stopped maintaining some trust account records to enable 
substantial theft from Attorney Curtin's trust account.  The 
Arizona Supreme Court found that Attorney Curtin violated 
ER 1.15(a) of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, 
Rule 42, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct., and Rules 43(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)-(C), 
and (b)(2)(A)-(D).  Attorney Curtin admitted the allegations and 
agreed 
that 
a 
reprimand 
and 
a 
year 
of 
probation 
and 
participation in a trust account ethics program was appropriate.  
Attorney Curtin did not notify the OLR of the Arizona reprimand 
within 20 days of its effective date.  The OLR did receive 
notice from Attorney Curtin on December 11, 2013. 
¶4 
On December 10, 2013, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging two counts of misconduct: 
 
[Count One]  By virtue of the Arizona reprimand, 
Curtin 
is 
subject 
to 
reciprocal 
discipline 
in 
Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22. 
 
[Count Two]  By failing to notify OLR of his 
reprimand 
in 
Arizona 
for 
professional 
misconduct 
within 
20 
days 
of 
the 
effective 
date 
of 
its 
imposition, Curtin violated SCR 22.22(1). 
¶5 
On February 11, 2014, the parties entered into a 
stipulation whereby Attorney Curtin agreed that it would be 
appropriate for this court to impose a public reprimand as 
No. 
2013AP2705-D   
 
3 
 
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Arizona Supreme 
Court.  The stipulation properly provides that it did not result 
from plea bargaining.  Attorney Curtin says he does not contest 
the facts of misconduct alleged by the OLR or the discipline 
that the OLR's director is seeking in this matter.  Attorney 
Curtin further states that he fully understands the misconduct 
allegations and the ramifications should this court impose the 
stipulated level of discipline.  He also states that he fully 
understands his right to contest the matter and he understands 
his right to consult with counsel.  Attorney Curtin states that 
his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily 
and represents his decision not to contest the misconduct 
alleged in the OLR's complaint or the level and type of 
discipline sought by the OLR director. 
¶6 
Based upon our independent review of the matter, we 
conclude that the SCR 22.12 stipulation should be accepted and 
that 
Attorney 
Curtin 
should 
be 
publicly 
reprimanded 
as 
discipline identical to that imposed by the Arizona Supreme 
Court.  Since Attorney Curtin entered into a stipulation with 
the OLR and there was no need to appoint a referee, we conclude 
that no costs should be assessed. 
¶7 
IT IS ORDERED that John M. Curtin is publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
 
No. 
2013AP2705-D   
 
 
 
1