Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jolie M. Semancik

Citation: 2015 WI 31

Docket Number: 2013AP002780-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2015-03-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
2015 WI 31 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP2780-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Jolie M. Semancik, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Jolie M. Semancik, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SEMANCIK 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 18, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 31
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2013AP2780-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jolie M. Semancik, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jolie M. Semancik, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 18, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   On August 29, 2014, referee Christine 
Harris Taylor filed a report recommending that Attorney Jolie M. 
Semancik be declared in default, concluding that Attorney 
Semancik engaged in serious professional misconduct warranting 
revocation of her license to practice law in Wisconsin, and 
recommending that the court impose the costs of this proceeding.  
Subsequently, the referee twice amended her report, first to 
correct a statement and clarify that the costs should be imposed 
No. 
2013AP2780-D   
 
2 
 
on Attorney Semancik, and second to accede to the request of the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
that 
she 
recommend 
a 
restitution order, although restitution was not requested in 
either the disciplinary complaint or in the OLR's motion for 
default judgment. 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact 
pertaining 
to 
Attorney 
Semancik's 
ethical 
misconduct 
are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence in the record. 
Attorney Semancik failed to present a defense despite being 
given multiple opportunities to do so, and we declare her to be 
in default.  We further agree that the seriousness of Attorney 
Semancik's misconduct warrants the revocation of her license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  In addition, we conclude that the 
full costs of this proceeding, which are $840.56 as of 
October 28, 2014, should be assessed against Attorney Semancik, 
and we direct Attorney Semancik to pay $108,000 in restitution, 
as ordered by the Milwaukee County Circuit Court and recommended 
by the referee. 
¶3 
Attorney Semancik was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1994.  In 2005, this court suspended Attorney 
Semancik's license for six months for converting funds in her 
trust account that the Office of the State Public Defender had 
provided to pay an investigator.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Semancik, 2005 WI 139, 286 Wis. 2d 24, 704 N.W.2d 581.  
Her license remains suspended. 
¶4 
On November 7, 2012, the Milwaukee County District 
Attorney 
charged 
Attorney 
Semancik 
with 
felony 
theft - 
No. 
2013AP2780-D   
 
3 
 
embezzlement of over $10,000.  State of Wisconsin v. Jolie M. 
Semancik, Milwaukee County Case No. 2012-CF-5523.  The criminal 
complaint alleged that between January 2010 and July 2012, 
Attorney Semancik stole $80,674.50 from the title company where 
she was a vice president and operations manager.  Attorney 
Semancik wrote several checks for her own benefit from company 
accounts and made false entries into records to disguise her 
acts.  On March 25, 2013, Attorney Semancik pled no contest to 
the charge and was convicted.  As part of her sentencing, the 
Milwaukee County Circuit Court ordered her to pay a total of 
$108,000 in restitution to Mayfair Title Company ($58,000) and 
Society Insurance Company ($50,000). 
¶5 
On December 17, 2013, the OLR filed a disciplinary 
complaint against Attorney Semancik alleging one count of 
professional misconduct arising from her criminal conviction.  
On January 31, 2014, Attorney Semancik was personally served 
with the complaint and order to answer.   
¶6 
Other 
than 
a 
single 
appearance 
at 
a 
telephone 
scheduling conference on April 9, 2014, at which she indicated 
that she did not intend to file an answer, Attorney Semancik has 
not participated in these proceedings.  She did not appear at 
the scheduling conference on May 12, 2014, despite efforts to 
contact her by telephone and email.  She did not respond to 
correspondence from the OLR attempting to resolve this matter by 
stipulation.  She did not respond to a scheduling order advising 
her that the OLR intended to seek default judgment if she failed 
to submit an answer by June 17, 2014.  No answer was ever filed. 
No. 
2013AP2780-D   
 
4 
 
¶7 
When Attorney Semancik failed to appear at the 
June 17, 2014 scheduling conference, the referee scheduled a 
default hearing.  On June 23, 2014, the OLR filed its expected 
motion for default judgment.  Attached to the supporting 
affidavit was a copy of the criminal complaint filed against 
Attorney Semancik, a copy of her judgment of conviction, and 
excerpts from transcripts of her plea hearing and the ensuing 
sentencing hearings.  
¶8 
The default motion asked the referee to determine that 
the OLR had properly served Attorney Semancik under Supreme 
Court Rule (SCR) 22.13(1).1  The motion further sought a 
determination that Attorney Semancik was in default by failing 
to timely file an answer to the complaint.  The motion sought an 
order for default judgment and issuance of a report making 
findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the 
allegations in the complaint.  
¶9 
The 
referee 
filed 
an 
order 
on 
July 
15, 
2014, 
recommending that this court grant the OLR's motion for default 
judgment.  By recommending that this court grant the motion for 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.13(1) provides: 
The complaint and the order to answer shall be 
served upon the respondent in the same manner as a 
summons under section 801.11(1) of the statutes.  If, 
with reasonable diligence, the respondent cannot be 
served under section 801.11(1)(a) or (b) of the 
statutes, service may be made by sending by certified 
mail an authenticated copy of the complaint and order 
to answer to the most recent address furnished by the 
respondent to the state bar. 
No. 
2013AP2780-D   
 
5 
 
default 
judgment, 
the 
referee 
implicitly 
incorporated 
by 
reference the allegations in the OLR's complaint and deemed them 
established.  
¶10 On August 29, 2014, the referee issued a report 
finding that the OLR had proven the allegations in the complaint 
and concluding that Attorney Semancik's criminal conviction for 
felony 
theft 
(embezzlement) 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(b), 
which 
provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to 
"commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's 
honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects."  The referee recommended that Attorney Semancik's 
license be revoked and that she be ordered to pay the full costs 
of this proceeding.2   
¶11 On September 19, 2014, the OLR wrote to the referee, 
asking the referee to recommend imposing restitution on Attorney 
Semancik in the amount of $108,000.  The OLR conceded that it 
had failed to include this request in either its complaint or as 
part of the requested relief in the default proceeding.  It 
explained that the restitution order sought is identical to that 
already imposed on Attorney Semancik in the underlying state 
court criminal proceeding.  On October 10, 2014, the referee 
issued a second amended report noting that Attorney Semancik did 
                                                 
2 On September 3, 2014, the OLR requested that the referee 
correct 
the 
report 
to 
accurately 
reflect 
the 
OLR's 
recommendation as to costs; on September 9, 2014, the referee 
issued an amended report clarifying that the costs should be 
imposed on Attorney Semancik.   
No. 
2013AP2780-D   
 
6 
 
not respond to the motion, repeating the OLR's motion to modify 
the report nearly verbatim, and recommending that the court 
impose the requested restitution award. 
¶12 Attorney Semancik has not filed an appeal from the 
referee's report and recommendation.  Accordingly, our review 
proceeds pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).3 
¶13 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Eisenberg, 
2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The court may 
impose whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of the 
referee's recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.   
¶14 We agree with the referee that Attorney Semancik 
should be declared in default.  Although the OLR properly 
effected service of its complaint pursuant to SCR 22.13(1) and 
although Attorney Semancik was given notice of the hearing on 
the motion for default judgment, she failed to appear or present 
a defense.  Accordingly, we declare her in default.   
                                                 
3 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2013AP2780-D   
 
7 
 
¶15 We also agree that the allegations in the OLR's 
complaint have been established and that Attorney Semancik 
engaged in the misconduct alleged in the complaint, namely, a 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).  We further agree that revocation is 
an 
appropriate 
sanction 
for 
Attorney 
Semancik's 
serious 
misconduct, and we agree that she should pay the full costs of 
the proceeding.   
¶16 We 
also 
accept 
the 
recommendation 
regarding 
restitution.  The belated nature of the OLR's request for 
restitution would be problematic if Attorney Semancik had 
participated in these proceedings, but in this case, she 
indicated she did not intend to participate in the disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney Semancik is already subject to the 
requested restitution, as it was imposed by the Milwaukee County 
Circuit Court in her underlying state court criminal proceeding. 
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jolie M. Semancik to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Jolie M. Semancik shall pay a total of $108,000 
in restitution, to Mayfair Title Company ($58,000) and Society 
Insurance Company ($50,000), consistent with the order rendered 
by the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in State of Wisconsin v. 
Jolie M. Semancik, Case No. 2012-CF-5523. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Jolie M. Semancik shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2013AP2780-D   
 
8 
 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not 
already done so, Jolie M. Semancik shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney 
whose license to practice law has been revoked. 
 
No. 
2013AP2780-D   
 
 
 
1