Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jon E. Stanek

Citation: 2013 WI 41

Docket Number: 2013AP000133-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2013-05-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
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, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jon E. Stanek, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 16, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
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   
 
2 
 
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: 
No. 
2013AP133-D   
 
3 
 
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. 
No. 
2013AP133-D   
 
4 
 
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). 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
2013AP133-D   
 
 
 
1