Case Title: Robert G. Stuligross v.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1995AP003563-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1997-03-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
95-3563-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
Robert G. Stuligross, 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STULIGROSS 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
March 20, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
No.  95-3563-D 
 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing 
and modification.  The final version will 
appear in the bound volume of the official 
reports. 
 
 
No. 95-3563-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against ROBERT G. STULIGROSS, Attorney at 
Law. 
FILED 
 
MAR 20, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
Attorney disciplinary proceedings.  Attorney’s license 
suspended. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of Robert G. Stuligross to practice law 
in Wisconsin be suspended for two years as discipline for 
professional misconduct. 
That 
misconduct consisted of his 
abusing Illinois’ pro hac vice admission procedure to represent 
over a short period of time a large number of divorce clients in 
that state, where he was not admitted to practice, representing 
several clients in divorce proceedings there without seeking or 
obtaining pro hac vice admission, misrepresenting to the Board 
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) that he had 
been 
granted 
pro 
hac 
vice 
admission 
in 
certain 
divorce 
proceedings, using the attorney identification number of a 
lawyer with whom he shared offices in Illinois in pleadings he 
filed in court there, altering a court order in an Illinois 
 
 
No.  95-3563-D 
 
 
2 
divorce proceeding to state falsely that he had been granted pro 
hac vice privileges, using law office letterhead stationery with 
an Illinois address to imply falsely that he was licensed to 
practice law in that jurisdiction, and failing to timely, fully, 
and fairly respond to numerous requests for information from the 
Board in its investigation of his conduct.  
¶2 
We 
determine 
that 
the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Stuligross’ misconduct warrants the suspension of his license to 
practice law for two years. He regularly engaged in the practice 
of law without authorization in a jurisdiction where he was not 
admitted to the bar and did so frequently by misrepresenting his 
status. 
His 
alteration 
of 
a 
court 
document 
and 
his 
misrepresentation to the Board in its investigation of his 
misconduct demonstrate his willingness to be untruthful to the 
courts he purports to serve.  
¶3 
Attorney Stuligross was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1989 and for a time practiced in Milwaukee. In 1992 
he moved his practice to Chicago, Illinois. He has not been the 
subject of a prior disciplinary proceeding in Wisconsin, 
although when he applied for bar admission in Wisconsin, the 
dean of the law school he attended declined to certify his good 
moral character, as he had been dismissed from that law school 
for a period of two years for having falsified a date stamp on 
the service of notice of a discovery motion while working as a 
student intern with the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee and 
falsely representing to the law school investigating committee 
the details of his creation of the false service document. 
 
 
No.  95-3563-D 
 
 
3 
Attorney Stuligross currently resides in Kenosha and is not 
engaged in the practice of law.  
¶4 
The referee, Attorney John R. Decker, made findings of 
fact pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. After practicing with 
two law firms in Milwaukee from October, 1989 to May, 1992, 
Attorney Stuligross relocated his legal practice to Chicago, 
where he shared office space with an attorney licensed there. He 
successfully wrote the Illinois bar examination in 1992 but was 
not admitted to practice there on the ground that he failed to 
demonstrate he possesses the good moral character and general 
fitness to practice law. That determination was based on his 
pattern of filing pro hac vice petitions under the rules of the 
Supreme Court of that jurisdiction, thereby engaging in the 
unauthorized practice of law. The determination was based 
further on his conduct that led to suspension from law school 
and his untrue responses in his application for bar admission in 
Illinois, on which he did not disclose an arrest and conviction 
of a municipal ordinance violation.  
¶5 
In 
Chicago, 
Attorney 
Stuligross 
entered 
into 
a 
retainer agreement with an organization that offered a variety 
of services to clients involved in marital dissolution and 
related proceedings. All of the legal work he performed while in 
Chicago was for clients of that association who were residents 
of Illinois. From May, 1992 through at least June, 1993, he 
abused the Illinois pro hac vice procedure by appearing in some 
47 circuit court cases representing clients referred to him by 
the association. In as many as eight of those cases, he had no 
specific judicial authorization to appear pro hac vice. In one 
 
 
No.  95-3563-D 
 
 
4 
of them, he altered an official court order to indicate that he 
had been granted those privileges, when he had not.  
¶6 
Attorney Stuligross continued to file pro hac vice 
petitions after he was notified that his application for bar 
admission in Illinois would not be approved and that his 
character and fitness were under review. In those applications, 
he did not advert to that fact; instead, he asserted merely that 
he had passed the Illinois bar examination. The investigating 
committee in Illinois found that assertion misleading.  
¶7 
In pleadings he filed in circuit court in Illinois, 
Attorney Stuligross repeatedly used the attorney code number 
assigned to the attorney with whom he was sharing offices, 
without making it clear to the court that the number was not his 
own. Also, he used letterhead stationery falsely suggesting he 
was licensed to practice in Illinois, as it listed his Illinois 
address without a disclaimer that he was not licensed in that 
jurisdiction.  
¶8 
In the course of the Board’s investigation of his 
conduct, Attorney Stuligross on several occasions failed to 
fully, fairly, and timely disclose all facts and circumstances 
pertaining to that conduct. In response to an inquiry from the 
Board concerning whether he had been granted pro hac vice 
admission to practice in certain identified cases in Illinois, 
Attorney Stuligross misrepresented that he had obtained and 
would provide the Board copies of most of the orders granting 
that admission, when in fact he had not obtained admission.  
¶9 
On the basis of those facts, the referee concluded 
that Attorney Stuligross violated the following Rules of 
 
 
No.  95-3563-D 
 
 
5 
Professional Conduct for Attorneys. His abuse of the Illinois 
pro hac vice admission procedure and his representation of 
several clients without seeking or obtaining such admission 
constituted his practice of law in a jurisdiction where doing so 
violated that jurisdiction’s regulation of the legal profession, 
in violation of SCR 20:5.5(a).1 His statement to the Board that 
he had been granted pro hac vice admission in certain cases in 
Illinois and had obtained and would provide copies of orders 
granting those admissions constituted a false statement of 
material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter, in 
violation of SCR 20:8.1(a)2 and 22.07(2).3 His use of an Illinois 
                     
1 SCR 20:5.5 provides, in pertinent part: Unauthorized 
practice of law 
A lawyer shall not:  
(a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates 
the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction;  
2 SCR 20:8.1 provides, in pertinent part: Bar admission and 
disciplinary matters 
An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in 
connection with a bar admission application or in connection 
with a disciplinary matter, shall not:  
(a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact;  
3 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
. . . 
(2) 
During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
 
 
No.  95-3563-D 
 
 
6 
attorney’s 
identification 
number when 
filing 
pleadings in 
Illinois courts constituted false statements of fact to a 
tribunal and conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1)4 and 8.4(c).5 
His alteration of a court order in one case to state falsely 
that he had been granted pro hac vice privileges in it 
constituted conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). His use of 
letterhead 
with 
an 
Illinois 
address 
without 
a 
specific 
disclaimer 
that 
he 
was 
not 
admitted 
to 
practice 
there 
constituted use of a firm letterhead that was false and 
misleading, in violation of SCR 20:7.5(b).6 Finally, his failure 
                                                                  
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
4 SCR 20:3.3 provides, in pertinent part: Candor toward the 
tribunal 
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: 
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal; 
5 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
. . . 
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation;  
6 SCR 20:7.5 provides, in pertinent part: Firm names and 
letterheads  
. . . 
 (b) A law firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction 
may use the same name in each jurisdiction, but identification 
of the lawyers in an office of the firm shall indicate the 
jurisdictional limitations on those not licensed to practice in 
the jurisdiction where the office is located.  
 
 
No.  95-3563-D 
 
 
7 
to timely, fully, and fairly respond to numerous requests for 
information from the Board during its investigation violated SCR 
21.03(4)7 and 22.07(2) and (3).8  
¶10 As discipline for that professional misconduct, the 
referee recommended the discipline to which the parties had 
stipulated, 
namely, 
that 
Attorney 
Stuligross’ 
license 
to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for two years, commencing 
the date of the court’s order. In addition, the referee 
recommended that he be required to pay the costs of this 
proceeding.  
¶11 We 
adopt 
the 
referee’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that the recommended license 
suspension is appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney 
Stuligross’ misconduct in these matters. Starting at least when 
in law school, he has established a pattern of serious 
                     
7 
 
SCR 
21.03 
provides, 
in 
pertinent 
part: 
General 
principles.  
. . . 
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board of 
administrator.  
8  SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
. . . 
(3) 
The 
administrator 
or 
committee 
may 
compel 
the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present 
any information deemed relevant to the investigation. Failure of 
the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or present 
relevant information is misconduct. The administrator or a 
committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent 
books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22.  
 
 
No.  95-3563-D 
 
 
8 
misrepresentations to courts and others, something that cannot 
be tolerated in a person this court licenses to represent others 
in our legal system.  
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Robert G. Stuligross 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two 
years, commencing the date of this order.  
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Robert G. Stuligross pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility 
the costs 
of this 
proceeding, 
provided that if the costs are not paid within the time 
specified and absent a showing to this court of his inability to 
pay the costs within that time, the license of Robert G. 
Stuligross to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended 
until further order of the court.  
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Robert G. Stuligross comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.  
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
95-3563-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against 
Robert G. Stuligross, 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STULIGROSS 
 
 
 
 
No.  95-3563-D 
 
 
2 
Opinion Filed: 
March 20, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
No.  95-3563-D 
 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing 
and modification.  The final version will 
appear in the bound volume of the official 
reports. 
 
 
No. 95-3563-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against ROBERT G. STULIGROSS, Attorney at 
Law. 
FILED 
 
MAR 20, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
Attorney disciplinary proceedings.  Attorney’s license 
suspended. 
¶15 PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of Robert G. Stuligross to practice law 
in Wisconsin be suspended for two years as discipline for 
professional misconduct. 
That 
misconduct consisted of his 
abusing Illinois’ pro hac vice admission procedure to represent 
over a short period of time a large number of divorce clients in 
that state, where he was not admitted to practice, representing 
several clients in divorce proceedings there without seeking or 
obtaining pro hac vice admission, misrepresenting to the Board 
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) that he had 
been 
granted 
pro 
hac 
vice 
admission 
in 
certain 
divorce 
proceedings, using the attorney identification number of a 
lawyer with whom he shared offices in Illinois in pleadings he 
filed in court there, altering a court order in an Illinois 
 
 
No.  95-3563-D 
 
 
2 
divorce proceeding to state falsely that he had been granted pro 
hac vice privileges, using law office letterhead stationery with 
an Illinois address to imply falsely that he was licensed to 
practice law in that jurisdiction, and failing to timely, fully, 
and fairly respond to numerous requests for information from the 
Board in its investigation of his conduct.  
¶16 We 
determine 
that 
the 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Stuligross’ misconduct warrants the suspension of his license to 
practice law for two years. He regularly engaged in the practice 
of law without authorization in a jurisdiction where he was not 
admitted to the bar and did so frequently by misrepresenting his 
status. 
His 
alteration 
of 
a 
court 
document 
and 
his 
misrepresentation to the Board in its investigation of his 
misconduct demonstrate his willingness to be untruthful to the 
courts he purports to serve.  
¶17 Attorney Stuligross was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1989 and for a time practiced in Milwaukee. In 1992 
he moved his practice to Chicago, Illinois. He has not been the 
subject of a prior disciplinary proceeding in Wisconsin, 
although when he applied for bar admission in Wisconsin, the 
dean of the law school he attended declined to certify his good 
moral character, as he had been dismissed from that law school 
for a period of two years for having falsified a date stamp on 
the service of notice of a discovery motion while working as a 
student intern with the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee and 
falsely representing to the law school investigating committee 
the details of his creation of the false service document. 
 
 
No.  95-3563-D 
 
 
3 
Attorney Stuligross currently resides in Kenosha and is not 
engaged in the practice of law.  
¶18 The referee, Attorney John R. Decker, made findings of 
fact pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. After practicing with 
two law firms in Milwaukee from October, 1989 to May, 1992, 
Attorney Stuligross relocated his legal practice to Chicago, 
where he shared office space with an attorney licensed there. He 
successfully wrote the Illinois bar examination in 1992 but was 
not admitted to practice there on the ground that he failed to 
demonstrate he possesses the good moral character and general 
fitness to practice law. That determination was based on his 
pattern of filing pro hac vice petitions under the rules of the 
Supreme Court of that jurisdiction, thereby engaging in the 
unauthorized practice of law. The determination was based 
further on his conduct that led to suspension from law school 
and his untrue responses in his application for bar admission in 
Illinois, on which he did not disclose an arrest and conviction 
of a municipal ordinance violation.  
¶19 In 
Chicago, 
Attorney 
Stuligross 
entered 
into 
a 
retainer agreement with an organization that offered a variety 
of services to clients involved in marital dissolution and 
related proceedings. All of the legal work he performed while in 
Chicago was for clients of that association who were residents 
of Illinois. From May, 1992 through at least June, 1993, he 
abused the Illinois pro hac vice procedure by appearing in some 
47 circuit court cases representing clients referred to him by 
the association. In as many as eight of those cases, he had no 
specific judicial authorization to appear pro hac vice. In one 
 
 
No.  95-3563-D 
 
 
4 
of them, he altered an official court order to indicate that he 
had been granted those privileges, when he had not.  
¶20 Attorney Stuligross continued to file pro hac vice 
petitions after he was notified that his application for bar 
admission in Illinois would not be approved and that his 
character and fitness were under review. In those applications, 
he did not advert to that fact; instead, he asserted merely that 
he had passed the Illinois bar examination. The investigating 
committee in Illinois found that assertion misleading.  
¶21 In pleadings he filed in circuit court in Illinois, 
Attorney Stuligross repeatedly used the attorney code number 
assigned to the attorney with whom he was sharing offices, 
without making it clear to the court that the number was not his 
own. Also, he used letterhead stationery falsely suggesting he 
was licensed to practice in Illinois, as it listed his Illinois 
address without a disclaimer that he was not licensed in that 
jurisdiction.  
¶22 In the course of the Board’s investigation of his 
conduct, Attorney Stuligross on several occasions failed to 
fully, fairly, and timely disclose all facts and circumstances 
pertaining to that conduct. In response to an inquiry from the 
Board concerning whether he had been granted pro hac vice 
admission to practice in certain identified cases in Illinois, 
Attorney Stuligross misrepresented that he had obtained and 
would provide the Board copies of most of the orders granting 
that admission, when in fact he had not obtained admission.  
¶23 On the basis of those facts, the referee concluded 
that Attorney Stuligross violated the following Rules of 
 
 
No.  95-3563-D 
 
 
5 
Professional Conduct for Attorneys. His abuse of the Illinois 
pro hac vice admission procedure and his representation of 
several clients without seeking or obtaining such admission 
constituted his practice of law in a jurisdiction where doing so 
violated that jurisdiction’s regulation of the legal profession, 
in violation of SCR 20:5.5(a).9 His statement to the Board that 
he had been granted pro hac vice admission in certain cases in 
Illinois and had obtained and would provide copies of orders 
granting those admissions constituted a false statement of 
material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter, in 
violation of SCR 20:8.1(a)10 and 22.07(2).11 His use of an 
                     
9 SCR 20:5.5 provides, in pertinent part: Unauthorized 
practice of law 
A lawyer shall not:  
(a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates 
the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction;  
10 SCR 20:8.1 provides, in pertinent part: Bar admission and 
disciplinary matters 
An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in 
connection with a bar admission application or in connection 
with a disciplinary matter, shall not:  
(a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact;  
11 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
. . . 
(2) 
During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
 
 
No.  95-3563-D 
 
 
6 
Illinois attorney’s identification number when filing pleadings 
in Illinois courts constituted false statements of fact to a 
tribunal and conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:3.3(a)(1)12 
and 
8.4(c).13 His alteration of a court order in one case to state 
falsely that he had been granted pro hac vice privileges in it 
constituted conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c). His use of 
letterhead 
with 
an 
Illinois 
address 
without 
a 
specific 
disclaimer 
that 
he 
was 
not 
admitted 
to 
practice 
there 
constituted use of a firm letterhead that was false and 
misleading, in violation of SCR 20:7.5(b).14 Finally, his failure 
                                                                  
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
12 SCR 20:3.3 provides, in pertinent part: Candor toward the 
tribunal 
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: 
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal; 
13 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
. . . 
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation;  
14 SCR 20:7.5 provides, in pertinent part: Firm names and 
letterheads  
. . . 
 (b) A law firm with offices in more than one jurisdiction 
may use the same name in each jurisdiction, but identification 
of the lawyers in an office of the firm shall indicate the 
jurisdictional limitations on those not licensed to practice in 
the jurisdiction where the office is located.  
 
 
No.  95-3563-D 
 
 
7 
to timely, fully, and fairly respond to numerous requests for 
information from the Board during its investigation violated SCR 
21.03(4)15 and 22.07(2) and (3).16  
¶24 As discipline for that professional misconduct, the 
referee recommended the discipline to which the parties had 
stipulated, 
namely, 
that 
Attorney 
Stuligross’ 
license 
to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for two years, commencing 
the date of the court’s order. In addition, the referee 
recommended that he be required to pay the costs of this 
proceeding.  
¶25 We 
adopt 
the 
referee’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that the recommended license 
suspension is appropriate discipline to impose for Attorney 
Stuligross’ misconduct in these matters. Starting at least when 
in law school, he has established a pattern of serious 
                     
15  
SCR 
21.03 provides, 
in 
pertinent 
part: General 
principles.  
. . . 
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board of 
administrator.  
16  SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
. . . 
(3) 
The 
administrator 
or 
committee 
may 
compel 
the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present 
any information deemed relevant to the investigation. Failure of 
the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or present 
relevant information is misconduct. The administrator or a 
committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent 
books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22.  
 
 
No.  95-3563-D 
 
 
8 
misrepresentations to courts and others, something that cannot 
be tolerated in a person this court licenses to represent others 
in our legal system.  
¶26 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Robert G. Stuligross 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two 
years, commencing the date of this order.  
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Robert G. Stuligross pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility 
the costs 
of this 
proceeding, 
provided that if the costs are not paid within the time 
specified and absent a showing to this court of his inability to 
pay the costs within that time, the license of Robert G. 
Stuligross to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended 
until further order of the court.  
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Robert G. Stuligross comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.