Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Marc G. Kurzman

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2016AP000307-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2016-05-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
2016 WI 32 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP307-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Marc G. Kurzman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Marc G. Kurzman, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KURZMAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 10, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 32
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP307-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Marc G. Kurzman, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Marc G. Kurzman, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 10, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.    Attorney's license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 between the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
and 
Attorney 
Marc 
G. 
Kurzman. 
In 
the 
stipulation, Attorney Kurzman agrees with the OLR's position 
that his misconduct warrants the imposition of a 60-day 
suspension as discipline reciprocal to that imposed on him in 
Minnesota.  
No. 
2016AP307-D   
 
2 
¶2 
After fully reviewing the stipulation and the facts of 
this matter, we accept the stipulation and impose the 60-day 
suspension jointly requested by the parties. 
¶3 
Attorney Kurzman was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2003. Attorney Kurzman's Wisconsin disciplinary 
history 
consists 
of 
public 
reprimand 
for 
trust 
account 
anomalies.  Public Reprimand of Marc G. Kurzman, 2012-OLR-12.  
He was admitted to practice law in Minnesota on October 20, 
1972.  He practices in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 
¶4 
On November 25, 2015, the Minnesota Supreme Court 
issued a 60-day suspension of Attorney Kurzman's license based 
on two counts of misconduct alleging five rule violations for 
inappropriately questioning a witness during a deposition, 
failing to provide two different clients with their files within 
a reasonable period of time, failing to submit records to the 
court as directed, and providing confidential materials from 
multiple clients to another of his clients.   
¶5 
The Minnesota Supreme Court found these acts violated 
Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 4.4(a), Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d), 
Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d), Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 
Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, and Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6(a).  
Attorney 
Kurzman 
failed 
to 
notify 
OLR 
of 
the 
Minnesota 
discipline within 20 days of its effective date.    
No. 
2016AP307-D   
 
3 
¶6 
On February 11, 2016, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging that, by virtue of the Minnesota discipline, Attorney 
Kurzman is subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin 
pursuant to SCR 22.22.1  The complaint further alleged that by 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 provides that:   
(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
shall promptly notify the director of the matter. 
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.  
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a 
judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing 
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for 
medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the 
practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in 
this state, the director may file a complaint in the 
supreme court containing all of the following: 
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order 
from the other jurisdiction.  
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the 
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the 
grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of 
the identical discipline or license suspension by the 
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual 
basis for the claim.  
(3) 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.  
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP307-D   
 
4 
failing 
to 
notify 
OLR 
of 
his 
Minnesota 
discipline 
for 
professional misconduct within 20 days of the effective date of 
its imposition, Attorney Kurzman violated SCR 22.22(1). The OLR 
asked this court to issue an order directing Attorney Kurzman to 
inform the court of any claim by him predicated upon the grounds 
set forth in SCR 22.22(3) that imposition of discipline 
reciprocal to that imposed in Minnesota would be unwarranted. 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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.  
(4) Except as provided in sub.(3), a final 
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney 
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity 
shall 
be 
conclusive 
evidence 
of 
the 
attorney's 
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a 
proceeding under this rule.   
(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint filed 
under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a report 
and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16. At the 
hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the 
imposition 
of 
discipline 
or 
license 
suspension 
different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction 
to demonstrate that the imposition of identical 
discipline or license suspension by the supreme court 
is unwarranted.  
(6) If the discipline or license suspension 
imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any 
reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by 
the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the 
stay expires.   
No. 
2016AP307-D   
 
5 
¶7 
On March 31, 2016, the parties filed a jointly 
executed stipulation whereby Attorney Kurzman agrees that by 
virtue of the Minnesota suspension, he is subject to reciprocal 
discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22.  He agrees that 
the factual allegations contained in the OLR's complaint are 
accurate and that he committed the professional misconduct 
charged in the complaint. The stipulation states that Attorney 
Kurzman does not claim any of the defenses set forth in SCR 
22.22(3)(a)-(c). The stipulation states that Attorney Kurzman 
fully understands the nature of the misconduct allegations 
against him, his right to contest those allegations, and the 
ramifications that would follow from this court's imposition of 
the stipulated level of discipline. The stipulation indicates 
that Attorney Kurzman understands his right to counsel and 
verifies that he is entering into the stipulation knowingly and 
voluntarily and that his entry into the stipulation represents 
his decision not to contest this matter. He agrees that it would 
be appropriate for this court to suspend his license to practice 
law for a period of 60 days.  
¶8 
Having carefully considered this matter, we approve 
the 
stipulation, 
adopt 
the 
stipulated 
facts 
and 
legal 
conclusions of professional misconduct, and we suspend Attorney 
Kurzman's license to practice law for a period of 60 days. 
Because 
Attorney 
Kurzman 
entered 
into 
a 
comprehensive 
No. 
2016AP307-D   
 
6 
stipulation under SCR 22.12 and no referee was needed, we do not 
impose any costs in this matter.  
¶9 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Marc G. Kurzman to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if he has not already done 
so, Marc G. Kurzman shall comply with the provisions of SCR 
22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license to 
practice law has been suspended.  
  
 
 
No. 
2016AP307-D   
 
 
 
1