Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mark Milos

Citation: 2012 WI 6

Docket Number: 2011AP002625-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2012-02-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
2012 WI 6 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP2625-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark Milos, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Mark Milos, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MILOS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 3, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 6
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP2625-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Mark Milos, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Mark Milos, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 3, 2012 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter. 
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint against 
Attorney Mark Milos seeking the imposition of discipline 
reciprocal to that imposed by the Illinois Supreme Court.  On 
September 26, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court suspended 
Attorney Milos' Illinois law license for 90 days, effective 
October 17, 2011, based on two counts of misconduct.  Attorney 
Milos and the OLR have entered a stipulation under SCR 22.12 for 
No. 
2011AP2625-D   
 
2 
 
the imposition of discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the 
Illinois Supreme Court.  After our review of the matter, we 
accept the stipulation and impose the same 90-day suspension 
imposed by the Illinois Supreme Court.  We also require that 
Attorney Milos comply with the terms and conditions established 
by the Illinois Supreme Court.  Because the parties' stipulation 
does not address the issue of costs, and because the stipulation 
requests that this court issue a final order consistent with the 
stipulation, no costs will be imposed.   
¶2 
Attorney Milos was admitted to practice law in both 
Illinois and Wisconsin in 2007.  Attorney Milos practices law in 
Kenosha, Wisconsin.   
¶3 
The following facts are taken from documents relating 
to the Illinois disciplinary proceedings, which were attached to 
the 
OLR's 
complaint 
and 
acknowledged 
in 
the 
parties' 
stipulation.  Attorney Milos obtained a Wisconsin real estate 
broker's license in 2008.  In 2009 Attorney Milos used his 
Wisconsin real estate broker's license to enter a Kenosha, 
Wisconsin, condominium owned by his client's opponent in 
litigation, and obtained evidence that he later used in that 
litigation matter.  Attorney Milos also made false statements to 
a police officer investigating Attorney Milos' entry into the 
condominium. 
¶4 
On May 26, 2010, the Illinois Attorney Registration 
and Disciplinary Commission (the Illinois Commission) filed a 
complaint 
against 
Attorney 
Milos 
alleging 
two 
counts 
of 
misconduct: 
No. 
2011AP2625-D   
 
3 
 
Count I:  Making a statement of material fact to a 
tribunal which the lawyer knows or reasonably should know 
is false, in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1) of the Illinois 
Rules of Professional Conduct (IRPC); using methods of 
obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of a third 
person, in violation of IRPC 4.4; conduct involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation, 
in 
violation of IRPC 8.4(a)(4); conduct that is prejudicial to 
the administration of justice, in violation of IRPC 
8.4(a)(5); and conduct which tends to bring the courts or 
the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of 
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 770. 
Count II:  Making statements of material fact to a 
third person which the lawyer knows or reasonably should 
know are false, in violation of IRPC 4.1(a); conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, 
in violation of IRPC 8.4(a)(4); conduct that is prejudicial 
to the administration of justice, in violation of IRPC 
8.4(a)(5); and conduct which tends to bring the courts or 
the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of 
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 770. 
¶5 
Attorney Milos joined a petition filed by the Illinois 
Commission in the Illinois Supreme Court to impose discipline on 
consent.  On June 13, 2011, at a hearing before the Illinois 
Commission, Attorney Milos, through counsel, asked the panel to 
approve the petition to impose discipline on consent.  Attorney 
Milos' counsel informed the panel that Attorney Milos has never 
No. 
2011AP2625-D   
 
4 
 
been disciplined before and is remorseful with regard to this 
matter.  
¶6 
On September 26, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court 
accepted the petition of the Illinois Commission to impose 
discipline on consent and suspended Attorney Milos' license to 
practice law in Illinois for 90 days, effective October 17, 
2011.  The Illinois Supreme Court also directed Attorney Milos 
to complete the Illinois Commission's Professionalism Seminar 
within one year of the court's final order of discipline, and to 
reimburse the Client Protection Program Trust Fund for any 
client protection payments arising from his conduct. 
¶7 
After reviewing the matter, we impose the identical 
90-day suspension imposed by the Illinois Supreme Court.  See 
SCR 22.22.1  On November 15, 2011, OLR filed a complaint and 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 provides, in pertinent part: 
(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. 
(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 
No. 
2011AP2625-D   
 
5 
 
order to answer.  On November 23, 2011, this court ordered 
Attorney Milos to inform the court, in writing, of any claim, 
predicated upon the grounds set forth in SCR 22.22(3), that the 
imposition of discipline identical to that imposed in Illinois 
would be unwarranted and of the factual basis for any such 
claim.  The order stated that if Attorney Milos failed to 
respond by December 13, 2011, the court would proceed under SCR 
22.22.  The order was sent via certified mail; the signed 
certified mail receipt was returned to the court.  Attorney 
Milos filed no answer to the complaint and did not respond to 
this court's November 23, 2011, order. 
¶8 
On December 27, 2011, the parties filed with this 
court a stipulation signed by Attorney Milos in which he agreed 
with the facts alleged in the complaint and the documents 
attached to the complaint, and he agreed that he is subject to 
reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22.  
Through the stipulation, Attorney Milos does not claim defenses 
to the proposed imposition of reciprocal discipline, nor does he 
contest the imposition of discipline in Wisconsin. 
¶9 
Through counsel, Attorney Milos has requested that 
this court make its order effective 60 days from the date of 
issuance so that Attorney Milos can provide adequate service to 
his clients. 
                                                                                                                                                             
shall 
be 
conclusive 
evidence 
of 
the 
attorney's 
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a 
proceeding under this rule. 
No. 
2011AP2625-D   
 
6 
 
¶10 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Mark Milos to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90 days, 
effective April 3, 2012. 
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mark Milos shall comply 
with the terms and conditions set forth in the Illinois Supreme 
Court's order and judgment of September 26, 2011. 
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mark Milos 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. 
No. 
2011AP2625-D   
 
 
 
1