Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Paul B. Rudolph

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2009 WI 94 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP917-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  Paul B. Rudolph, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Paul B. Rudolph, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RUDOLPH 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 15, 2009   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2009 WI 94
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2009AP917-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Paul B. Rudolph, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Paul B. Rudolph, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
SEP 15, 2009 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter.  
We review a stipulation entered by Attorney Paul B. Rudolph and 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) under SCR 22.12 for the 
imposition of discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the 
Supreme Court of Arizona.  After our review of the matter, we 
accept the stipulation and impose the same 30-day suspension 
imposed by the Supreme Court of Arizona.  We also require that 
Attorney 
Rudolph 
comply 
with 
the 
terms 
and 
conditions 
No. 
2009AP917-D   
 
2 
 
established by the Supreme Court of Arizona.  Finally, we do not 
assess the costs of this disciplinary proceeding against 
Attorney Rudolph. 
¶2 
Attorney Rudolph was admitted to the practice of law 
in both Arizona and Wisconsin in 1991.  His license to practice 
law in Wisconsin has been inactive since July 1999 and remains 
in inactive status at the present time. 
¶3 
The following facts are taken from documents relating 
to the Arizona disciplinary proceedings, which were attached to 
the 
OLR's 
complaint 
and 
acknowledged 
in 
the 
parties' 
stipulation.  In 2002 Attorney Rudolph was the defendant in a 
malpractice action.  Shortly after the malpractice action was 
settled in February 2004, Attorney Rudolph used an assumed name 
to send six e-mails to the attorneys who had represented 
Attorney Rudolph's former client in the malpractice action 
against him.  The e-mails contained profane and abusive 
language, and some of them contained slurs.  In addition, some 
of the e-mails threatened physical harm to the opposing 
attorneys and mentioned their home addresses, causing distress 
to the attorneys and their families.  The police were contacted 
and subsequently learned that Attorney Rudolph had been the 
sender of the e-mails.  Attorney Rudolph had apparently stopped 
sending the e-mails of his own accord prior to being apprehended 
by the police. 
¶4 
Attorney Rudolph was charged with and pled guilty to 
one count of misdemeanor harassment.  The Arizona trial court 
imposed a $2,500 fine and sentenced Attorney Rudolph to ten days 
No. 
2009AP917-D   
 
3 
 
of 
unsupervised 
probation. 
 
The 
probationary 
period 
was 
subsequently waived because Attorney Rudolph immediately paid 
the fine. 
¶5 
After what appears to be a very thorough disciplinary 
process, the Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of 
Arizona decided that Attorney Rudolph's license to practice law 
in Arizona should be suspended for a period of 30 days.  It also 
required that Attorney Rudolph be subject to two years of 
"probation" under the Arizona State Bar's Member Assistance 
Program.  Finally, it required that Attorney Rudolph pay the 
costs 
of 
the 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Under 
Arizona 
disciplinary procedure, if no notice of appeal is filed from the 
Disciplinary Commission's report and order, the clerk of the 
Supreme Court of Arizona enters a judgment of the court in 
conformity with the report and order.  That appears to have 
occurred in this case. 
¶6 
The stipulation between Attorney Rudolph and the OLR 
states 
that 
Attorney 
Rudolph 
was 
found 
in 
the 
Arizona 
disciplinary proceeding to have (1) committed a criminal act; 
(2) engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation; (3) engaged in conduct that was prejudicial 
to the administration of justice; and (4) engaged in conduct 
involving offensive personality.  The stipulation acknowledges 
the 30-day suspension and two-year probation period imposed by 
the Supreme Court of Arizona.  In the stipulation Attorney 
Rudolph states that he does not claim any of the "defenses" set 
forth in SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c).  He agrees that he is subject to 
No. 
2009AP917-D   
 
4 
 
reciprocal discipline pursuant to SCR 22.221 (Count 1), and that 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 states as follows:  Reciprocal discipline. 
(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. 
(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. 
No. 
2009AP917-D   
 
5 
 
he failed to notify the OLR of the suspension of his license to 
practice law in Arizona within 20 days of the suspension, in 
violation of SCR 22.22(1) (Count 2).  The stipulation requests 
that this court suspend Attorney Rudolph's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin for 30 days and "order that [Attorney] Rudolph 
comply with the terms and conditions established by the Arizona 
Supreme Court." 
¶7 
The stipulation states that it was not the result of 
plea bargaining.  In the stipulation, Attorney Rudolph verifies 
that he fully understands the misconduct allegations against 
him, he fully understands his right to contest the allegations 
and to have the advice of counsel in contesting them, and he 
fully 
understands 
the 
ramifications 
of 
the 
stipulated 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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. 
2009AP917-D   
 
6 
 
discipline, in the event this court accepts the stipulation.  
Attorney Rudolph represents that he entered the stipulation 
knowingly and voluntarily, and he admits the facts and claims of 
misconduct alleged by the OLR. 
¶8 
After reviewing the matter, we accept the stipulation 
and impose the identical discipline imposed by the Supreme Court 
of Arizona.  SCR 22.22(3).  Although we generally do not impose 
30-day suspensions, we will do so in the context of a reciprocal 
discipline situation in order to impose the identical discipline 
as imposed by the other jurisdiction.  See, e.g., In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grady, 188 Wis. 2d 98, 523 
N.W.2d 564 (1994).   
¶9 
In addition, where the other jurisdiction has imposed 
a form of probation or other discipline that this court 
generally does not utilize, we have required that the attorney 
comply with the terms and conditions of the other jurisdiction's 
disciplinary order in order to make the discipline identical.  
See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moree, 2004 WI 
118, 275 Wis. 2d 279, 684 N.W.2d 667.  We do so in the present 
case.   
¶10 Finally, as requested by the OLR, in light of Attorney 
Rudolph's cooperation and the fact that this matter was resolved 
by stipulation without the necessity of appointing a referee, we 
decide not to assess the costs of this disciplinary proceeding 
against Attorney Rudolph. 
No. 
2009AP917-D   
 
7 
 
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Paul B. Rudolph to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 30 days, 
effective as of the date of this order. 
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Paul B. Rudolph shall 
comply with the terms and conditions of probation set forth in 
the 
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Arizona's 
judgment 
and 
order 
of 
September 3, 2008. 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
already done so, Paul B. Rudolph 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. 
2009AP917-D   
 
 
 
1