Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jack U. Shlimovitz

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2002 WI 103 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-0876-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jack U. Shlimovitz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Jack U. Shlimovitz,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHLIMOVITZ 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 11, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 103 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-0876-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jack U. Shlimovitz, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jack U. Shlimovitz,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 11, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney Jack U. Shlimovitz and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.121 setting forth findings of fact and 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides: Stipulation. 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.   The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee.  
No. 
02-0876-D   
 
2 
 
conclusions of law regarding Attorney Shlimovitz's professional 
misconduct in connection with his representation of a debtor in 
a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding.  The parties stipulated that 
this misconduct constitutes commission of a criminal act that 
reflects 
adversely 
on 
Attorney 
Shlimovitz's 
honesty, 
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in violation of SCR 
20:8.4(b).2  The parties further stipulated to a two-year 
suspension of Attorney Shlimovitz's license to practice law.  
¶2 
We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated 
facts and conclusions of law.   We agree that the seriousness of 
Attorney Shlimovitz's misconduct warrants the suspension of his 
license to practice law.  We accept the parties' stipulation 
that two years is appropriate discipline for this offense, 
subject to the understanding that in the federal case giving 
rise to this disciplinary action, Attorney Shlimovitz agreed to 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline.  
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation.  
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
2 SCR 
20:8.4(b) 
provides 
that 
"[i]t 
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." 
No. 
02-0876-D   
 
3 
 
surrender his license to practice law for a period of five 
years.   
¶3 
Attorney Shlimovitz was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1955.  He was publicly reprimanded in 1994 for 
permitting an associate to work on a bankruptcy matter that the 
associate had previously worked on while employed by the United 
States Trustee's Office, and for related misrepresentations in 
connection with billing these services.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Shlimovitz, 182 Wis. 2d 65, 512 N.W.2d 769 
(1994). 
¶4 
The 
current 
disciplinary 
proceeding 
stems 
from 
Attorney Shlimovitz's violation of federal law in connection 
with his representation of a debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy 
proceeding.   
¶5 
Attorney Shlimovitz filed the bankruptcy petition in 
federal district court on behalf of his client on January 18, 
2000.  One of the debtor's assets was a home.  Attorney 
Shlimovitz indicated in the petition that the client resided in 
the home and he listed the value of the home as $70,000.  The 
next day Attorney Shlimovitz filed a motion seeking to avoid a 
judgment lien against the home, asserting that the lien would 
interfere with the debtor's homestead exemption.   
¶6 
At the time he filed the motion Attorney Shlimovitz 
knew the home was valued well over $70,000.  In 1999 he had 
ordered an appraisal of the home, which placed its value at 
$160,000.  In addition, prior to filing the bankruptcy petition, 
Attorney Shlimovitz was aware that a potential purchaser of the 
No. 
02-0876-D   
 
4 
 
home had obtained a $128,000 mortgage from a bank and that the 
tax assessed value of the home was $189,000.  On November 11, 
2000, the bankruptcy estate sold the home for $155,000. 
¶7 
On July 17, 2001, Attorney Shlimovitz was charged in 
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin with 
one count of willfully disobeying a lawful rule of the U.S. 
Bankruptcy Court in violation of 18 U.S.C § 401(3).3  He entered 
into a plea agreement in July 2001 and on November 8, 2001, 
Attorney Shlimovitz pled guilty to the charge.  He was convicted 
and sentenced to two years' probation on the same day. See 
United States v. Shlimovitz, No. 01-CR-138 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 9, 
2001). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement he agreed to 
surrender his license to practice law for no less than five 
                                                 
3 18 U.S.C. § 401 is entitled "power of court" and provides: 
A court of the United States shall have power to 
punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, 
such contempt of its authority, and none others, as -  
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or 
so 
near 
thereto 
as 
to 
obstruct 
the 
administration of justice; 
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their 
official transactions; 
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful 
writ, 
process, 
order, 
rule, 
decree, 
or 
command. 
No. 
02-0876-D   
 
5 
 
years.4  The relevant provision of the plea agreement reads as 
follows: 
Prior to sentencing, defendant agrees to take all 
necessary steps to voluntarily surrender his license 
to practice law.  Defendant further agrees not to 
petition any court or agency for reinstatement of his 
license until a period of five years following the 
later of his sentencing, or revocation of his license, 
has lapsed.  Defendant further agrees not to practice 
law in the State of Wisconsin or elsewhere for a 
period of five years following his sentencing.  The 
parties understand and agree that this paragraph is a 
material 
provision 
of 
this 
agreement 
and 
the 
defendant's failure to comply with the terms of this 
paragraph will render this agreement null and void. 
¶8 
On March 27, 2002, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Shlimovitz in connection with this matter.  The parties 
promptly entered into a stipulation whereby they agreed that 
Attorney Shlimovitz committed the federal criminal offense of 
knowingly disobeying a lawful rule of the bankruptcy court, 
contrary to 18 U.S.C § 401(3) by his act of knowingly submitting 
false information to a bankruptcy court.  The parties stipulated 
further that this constitutes commission of a criminal act that 
reflects 
adversely 
on 
Attorney 
Shlimovitz's 
honesty, 
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in violation of SCR 
20:8.4(b). 
¶9 
We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
set forth in the parties' stipulation.  Providing false 
                                                 
4 On October 29, 2001, Attorney Shlimovitz petitioned this 
court for the voluntary surrender of his law license.  However, 
because of the pendency of this OLR proceeding, the petition was 
denied. 
No. 
02-0876-D   
 
6 
 
information to the court is a serious breach of professional 
conduct and warrants suspension of Attorney Shlimovitz's license 
to practice law.  We accept the parties' conclusion that a two-
year suspension of his license is appropriate discipline for his 
professional misconduct, subject to the understanding that 
Attorney Shlimovitz has ceased to practice law and that he 
remains subject to the terms of the federal plea agreement, 
which precludes him from seeking reinstatement of his license 
until a period of five years following his sentencing has 
lapsed.   
¶10 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jack U. Shlimovitz 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two 
years, effective the date of this order.  The OLR indicates it 
is not seeking imposition of costs in this matter. 
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jack U. Shlimovitz 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. 
02-0876-D   
 
 
 
1