Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Philip M. Kleinsmith

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2017AP002540-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2018-05-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
2018 WI 50 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2017AP2540-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Philip M. Kleinsmith, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Philip M. Kleinsmith, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KLEINSMITH 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 16, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2018 WI 50
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP2540-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Philip M. Kleinsmith, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Philip M. Kleinsmith, 
 
          Respondent.   
FILED 
 
May 16, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
and Attorney Philip M. Kleinsmith have filed a stipulation 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.121 agreeing that 
                                                 
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, in which case the supreme 
court 
may 
approve 
the 
stipulation, 
reject 
the 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP2540-D   
 
2 
 
Attorney Kleinsmith's license to practice law in Wisconsin 
should be revoked, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by 
the Supreme Court of Colorado.  Upon careful review of the 
matter, we approve the stipulation and impose the stipulated 
reciprocal discipline.  The OLR does not seek the imposition of 
costs against Attorney Kleinsmith because this matter was 
resolved without the need for a referee or a lengthy proceeding, 
and we impose no costs.  We do require Attorney Kleinsmith to 
comply with all of the conditions of the disciplinary orders 
                                                                                                                                                             
stipulation, 
or 
direct 
the 
parties 
to 
consider 
specific modifications to the stipulation. 
(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 a stipulation, a 
referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. 
(3m) If the supreme court directs the parties to 
consider specific modifications to the stipulation, 
the parties may, within 20 days of the date of the 
order, file a revised stipulation, in which case the 
supreme court may approve the revised stipulation, 
adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law, and 
impose the stipulated discipline. If the parties do 
not file a revised stipulation within 20 days of the 
date of the order, 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. 
No. 
2017AP2540-D   
 
3 
 
imposed on him by the Colorado Supreme Court, which include a 
requirement that he pay restitution in the Colorado matter. 
¶2 
Attorney Kleinsmith was admitted to practice law in 
Colorado in 1967.  He presently resides in Colorado.  He was 
admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1999 and, at some 
point, was also admitted to practice law in Arizona.  In 2013, 
this 
court 
publically 
reprimanded 
Attorney 
Kleinsmith 
as 
discipline reciprocal to a reprimand imposed by the Arizona 
Supreme Court, for filing improper arbitration certificates in 
nine different matters; failing to appear at a hearing; failing 
to properly serve a party; failing to properly withdraw as 
counsel; and filing documents with errors and omissions.  Public 
Reprimand of Philip M. Kleinsmith, No. 2013-10 (electronic copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/ 
raw/002602.html).  His Wisconsin law license has been suspended 
since October 31, 2017, for failure to pay mandatory state bar 
dues and failure provide an OLR certification. 
¶3 
On October 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of Colorado 
entered an order disbarring Attorney Kleinsmith in Colorado for 
professional misconduct.  The misconduct giving rise to his 
Colorado disbarment dates from 2012, when Attorney Kleinsmith 
hired a title company to work on several foreclosure matters in 
which his firm represented a bank.  Attorney Kleinsmith billed 
the bank for the title company's work, but after the bank paid 
him, he converted those funds to his own use, instead of paying 
the title company.  
No. 
2017AP2540-D   
 
4 
 
¶4 
The 
Colorado 
Supreme 
Court 
found 
that 
Attorney 
Kleinsmith's conduct violated Colorado Rules of Professional 
Conduct (RPC) 8.4(c), 1.15A and former RPC l.15(b).  Attorney 
Kleinsmith was ordered to pay $56,238.80 in restitution to First 
American Title Company of Montana. 
¶5 
Attorney Kleinsmith then failed to notify the OLR of 
his Colorado disbarment within 20 days of its effective date.  
SCR 22.22(1). 
¶6 
On December 29, 2017, the OLR filed a complaint 
against Attorney Kleinsmith alleging two counts of misconduct.  
First, by virtue of his Colorado disbarment, Attorney Kleinsmith 
is subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to 
SCR 22.22(3) (Count 1).  Second, by failing to notify OLR of his 
disbarment in Colorado for professional misconduct within 20 
days 
of 
the 
effective 
date 
of 
its 
imposition, 
Attorney 
Kleinsmith violated SCR 22.22(1) (Count 2). 
¶7 
On February 22, 2018, Attorney Kleinsmith entered into 
a stipulation with the OLR in which he agreed that the facts 
alleged in the OLR's complaint support the revocation of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin, as discipline reciprocal 
to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Colorado.  
¶8 
Supreme Court Rule 22.22(3) provides that this court 
shall impose the identical discipline imposed in another 
No. 
2017AP2540-D   
 
5 
 
jurisdiction unless one or more of three exceptions apply.2  In 
his stipulation, Attorney Kleinsmith states that he does not 
claim any of the defenses found in SCR 22.22(3), and he agrees 
that this court should revoke his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  
¶9 
Attorney Kleinsmith also states that the stipulation 
did not result from plea bargaining and that he does not contest 
the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR.  Attorney 
Kleinsmith further states that he agrees the facts alleged in 
the OLR's complaint may form a basis for the discipline 
requested by the OLR director.  He further avers that he fully 
understands the misconduct allegations; fully understands the 
ramifications should this court impose the stipulated level of 
discipline; fully understands his right to contest the matter; 
fully understands his right to consult with counsel; avers that 
his 
entry 
into 
the 
stipulation 
is 
made 
knowingly 
and 
voluntarily; that he has read the OLR's complaint and the 
stipulation and that his entry into the stipulation represents 
                                                 
2 In this matter, the discipline we impose – revocation – is 
nearly identical.  The respective court rules of Wisconsin and 
Colorado dictate a slightly different result.  In Colorado, 
"disbarment" is defined as "revocation of an attorney's license 
to practice law . . . " subject to a formal "readmission" 
proceeding.  In Colorado, disbarment shall be for "at least 
eight years."  See C.R.C.P. 251.6(a).  Wisconsin uses the term 
"revocation," not disbarment.  See SCR 21.16(1m)(a).  In 
Wisconsin, an attorney whose license has been revoked may seek 
reinstatement after five years.  See SCR 22.29(2). 
No. 
2017AP2540-D   
 
6 
 
his decision not to contest the misconduct alleged in the 
complaint or the level and type of discipline sought by the OLR.  
¶10 In 
the 
memorandum 
submitted 
in 
support 
of 
the 
stipulation, the OLR recommends this court also order Attorney 
Kleinsmith to comply with the Colorado Supreme Court's decision, 
which requires Attorney Kleinsmith to make restitution.  See, 
e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Manion, 2016 WI 88, 
372 
Wis. 2d 34, 
886 
N.W.2d 371 
(ordering 
attorney 
in 
a 
reciprocal discipline case who was directed to pay restitution 
in another state to comply with "all conditions of the 
disciplinary orders imposed on him by the Arizona Supreme Court 
required for reinstatement").   
¶11 We accede to the OLR's request regarding restitution. 
The court notes that in the event Attorney Kleinsmith ever seeks 
reinstatement of his Wisconsin law license, he would need to 
demonstrate, pursuant to SCR 22.29(4m), that he has made the 
restitution ordered by the Colorado Supreme Court or explain his 
failure to do so. 
¶12 Upon review of this matter, we accept the stipulation 
and revoke Attorney Kleinsmith's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the 
Supreme Court of Colorado.  Because this matter has been 
resolved by means of a stipulation without the appointment of a 
referee and because the OLR has not requested the imposition of 
costs, we do not impose any costs upon Attorney Kleinsmith.  
No. 
2017AP2540-D   
 
7 
 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Philip M. Kleinsmith 
to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of 
this order.  
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Philip M. Kleinsmith shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.  
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order, as well as compliance with all 
conditions of the disciplinary orders imposed on him by the 
Colorado Supreme Court are required for Philip M. Kleinsmith's 
reinstatement.  See SCR 22.29(4)(c). 
 
 
No. 
2017AP2540-D   
 
 
 
1