Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Sandra K. Coplien

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2010 WI 109 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP916-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Sandra K. Coplien, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Sandra K. Coplien, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COPLIEN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 3, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 109
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2009AP916-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Sandra K. Coplien, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Sandra K. Coplien, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
SEP 3, 2010 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
has filed a complaint seeking discipline identical to that 
imposed in Illinois, where Attorney Sandra Coplien was suspended 
for six months for professional misconduct.  Attorney John R. 
Decker was appointed referee.  After a default hearing, Referee 
Decker concluded Attorney Coplien is subject to reciprocal 
discipline in Wisconsin.  Referee Decker recommended Attorney 
No. 
2009AP916-D   
 
2 
 
Coplien be suspended for a period of six months and that she pay 
the costs of this proceeding. 
¶2 
Because no appeal has been filed, we review the 
referee's report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  Upon our independent 
review of the record, we approve and adopt the referee's 
findings and conclusions.  We determine that by virtue of having 
been suspended in Illinois for violation of the Illinois Rules 
of 
Professional 
Conduct, 
Attorney 
Coplien 
is 
subject 
to 
reciprocal discipline pursuant to SCR 22.22.2  Attorney Coplien's 
                                                 
1 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. 
2 SCR 22.22 states:  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. 
No. 
2009AP916-D   
 
3 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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. 
(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. 
2009AP916-D   
 
4 
 
license to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of six months and she is directed to pay the costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Sandra K. Coplien was admitted to practice 
law in Wisconsin on September 1, 1983.  She was admitted to 
practice law in Illinois on November 1, 1982.  Effective 
October 31, 2001, Attorney Coplien's Wisconsin law license was 
suspended for failure to pay dues.  Her Wisconsin law license 
remains suspended. 
¶4 
On April 10, 2009, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
that Attorney Coplien committed two counts of professional 
misconduct and asking this court to suspend Attorney Coplien's 
Wisconsin law license for six months as discipline reciprocal to 
that imposed upon Attorney Coplien in Illinois.  Following the 
appointment of Referee Decker, the OLR filed a notice of motion 
and motion for default judgment.  On December 10, 2009, the 
referee scheduled a December 18, 2009, hearing on the OLR's 
motion, noting that failure to appear could result in a default 
judgment.   
¶5 
On April 15, 2010, the referee filed his report and 
recommendation.  The referee stated that Attorney Coplien had 
been served with the complaint and motion and failed to appear 
or contest the proceedings.  The referee incorporated into his 
findings the allegations of the OLR complaint.  
¶6 
The misconduct upon which Attorney Coplien's Illinois 
suspension was based consisted of two counts of misconduct.  In 
the first matter, Attorney Coplien's client's ex-spouse filed 
No. 
2009AP916-D   
 
5 
 
three separate petitions against Attorney Coplien's client 
regarding change of visitation and child support.  Attorney 
Coplien failed to inform her client of these various filings, 
failed to respond to these petitions, and missed scheduled court 
dates. Attorney Coplien failed to respond to her client's 
numerous attempts to contact Attorney Coplien by telephone.  See 
In re Sandra Kay Coplien, IL Supreme Court No. MR 22301, 
Commission No. 07CH45.  
¶7 
In addition, Attorney Coplien failed to cooperate with 
the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission 
("ARDC").  ARDC found Attorney Coplien to be uncooperative and 
nonresponsive. 
¶8 
Attorney Coplien's misconduct violated the Illinois 
Rules of Professional Conduct ("IRPC") by: (a) failing to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client in violation of Rule 1.3 of the IRPC; (b) failing to keep 
a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter in 
violation of Rule 1.4(a) of the IRPC; (c) failing to make 
reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the 
interests of the client in violation of Rule 3.2 of the IRPC; 
(d) failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a 
disciplinary authority in violation of Rule 8.1(a)(2) of the 
IRPC; (e) conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of 
justice in violation of Rule 4(a)(4) of the IRPC (two counts); 
and (f) conduct which tends to defeat the administration of 
justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into 
No. 
2009AP916-D   
 
6 
 
disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770 of the IRPC 
(two counts).  
¶9 
Referee Decker noted that Attorney Coplien failed to 
notify OLR of her Illinois suspension.  OLR first learned of 
Attorney Coplien's Illinois discipline ruling in February 2009 
through the American Bar Association's Center for Professional 
Responsibility.  Accordingly, the referee found that Attorney 
Coplien failed to notify the OLR of the Illinois discipline 
within 20 days of its effective date.3  Attorney Coplien also 
failed to inform the court of any reason why discipline 
identical to that imposed in Illinois should not be imposed in 
Wisconsin. 
¶10 The referee concluded Attorney Coplien was in default 
and the allegations contained in the OLR's complaint were deemed 
admitted.  The referee concluded Attorney Coplien had violated 
SCR 22.22(1) by failing to notify the OLR within 20 days of the 
effective date of her Illinois suspension.  The referee 
concluded Attorney Coplien is subject to reciprocal discipline 
and recommended her license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended and that she be ordered to pay the costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶11 We approve and adopt the referee's findings and 
conclusions, which are unchallenged.  By virtue of having been 
suspended by the Illinois Supreme Court for her violation of the 
                                                 
3 On May 19, 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court ordered a six-
month suspension.  The OLR learned of Attorney Coplien's 
Illinois suspension more than eight months later. 
No. 
2009AP916-D   
 
7 
 
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, Attorney Coplien is 
subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to 
SCR 22.22.  
¶12 We suspend Attorney Coplien's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin for a period of six months, and we direct Attorney 
Coplien to bear the costs of this proceeding, which were 
$1,407.68 as of May 5, 2010. 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Sandra K. Coplien to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date 
of this order, Sandra K. Coplien pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of the proceeding. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sandra K. Coplien shall 
comply with SCR 22.26 regarding the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
No. 
2009AP916-D   
 
 
 
1