Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Amie Trupke

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2018 WI 43 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2017AP1465-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Amie B. Trupke, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Amie B. Trupke, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TRUPKE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 24, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2018 WI 43
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP1465-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Amie B. Trupke, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Amie B. Trupke, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 24, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed pursuant 
to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 between the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Amie B. Trupke.  The stipulation 
provides 
that 
Attorney 
Trupke 
committed 
two 
counts 
of 
professional misconduct and requests that the court suspend 
Attorney Trupke's license to practice law in this state for one 
year.  
No. 
2017AP1465-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
After carefully reviewing this matter, we accept the 
stipulation and impose the requested discipline.  We do not 
order any restitution, as none was requested by the OLR.  
Because this matter has been resolved by a stipulation under 
SCR 22.12 without the need for the appointment of a referee, we 
impose no costs on Attorney Trupke.  
¶3 
Attorney Trupke was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 2002.  She resides in Oregon, Wisconsin.  Attorney 
Trupke has not previously been the subject of professional 
discipline.  At the times of the events giving rise to this 
proceeding, Attorney Trupke was a partner in a Madison law firm. 
¶4 
On July 28, 2017, the OLR filed a disciplinary 
complaint against Attorney Trupke alleging two counts of 
professional misconduct and seeking a one-year suspension.  
Attorney Trupke retained counsel and responded to the complaint.   
¶5 
The facts set forth in the complaint are as follows: 
In 2013, Attorney Trupke began serving as an independent 
reviewer for the Center for Copyright Information (CCI).  CCI is 
a service offered through the American Arbitration Association 
(AAA) in which an independent reviewer is appointed to consider 
whether an individual may be violating copyright law or has a 
valid defense.  Once a CCI reviewer or AAA arbitrator completes 
a matter, the parties pay a fee to AAA, which in turn pays the 
reviewer or arbitrator.   
¶6 
Between January 2013 and June 2016, AAA paid Attorney 
Trupke $73,025 for her work as a CCI reviewer.  Attorney Trupke 
No. 
2017AP1465-D   
 
3 
 
did not report the $73,025 in CCI fees to her firm or to her 
partners.   
¶7 
In 2013, Attorney Trupke opened a file at the firm for 
an AAA matter.  After working 28.10 hours on the matter, she 
directed the firm's accounting department to write the time off. 
She subsequently sent a personal invoice to AAA, requesting that 
AAA send payment to her home.  In March 2016, Attorney Trupke 
gave misleading information to the firm's managing partner about 
her work and income from CCI and AAA.  
¶8 
Attorney Trupke resigned from the firm in May 2016.  
In June 2016, Attorney Trupke and the firm entered into a 
reimbursement agreement in which Attorney Trupke waived certain 
post resignation benefits to offset payments she owed to the 
firm.  
¶9 
On January 2, 2018, the OLR and Attorney Trupke filed 
a stipulation whereby Attorney Trupke withdrew her answer and 
stipulated that she did not contest the alleged misconduct.  
Specifically, Attorney Trupke stipulated that converting fees 
belonging to the firm from 2013 through 2016 constitutes a 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).1  Attorney Trupke stipulated further 
that by converting fees owed to her law firm from 2013 through 
2016, by misrepresenting to the firm the amount of fees she had 
earned from 2013 through 2016, and in taking steps to ensure 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2017AP1465-D   
 
4 
 
that fees owed to the firm were paid directly to her instead of 
the firm, she breached fiduciary duties owed to her firm and her 
duty of honesty in her professional dealings with the firm, 
thereby violating SCR 20:8.4(f).2  
¶10 In the stipulation, Attorney Trupke stated that she 
believed that her work as a CCI reviewer was educational in 
nature, similar to educational services that law partners 
performed for the law school, whereby partners were allowed to 
retain some compensation under a firm honoraria policy. 
¶11 Attorney Trupke added that all checks from the AAA 
were sent to the firm's address, and her 1099s for 2014 and 2015 
from the AAA were sent to the firm's address and were received 
by the firm's accounting department.  Attorney Trupke stated 
that she was under the impression that the firm was aware of her 
work for the CCI and AAA. 
¶12 The OLR maintained that the firm was not aware of 
Attorney Trupke's work as a CCI reviewer, nor her compensation 
for it, and that Attorney Trupke's work as a CCI reviewer did 
not fall within the firm's policy regarding honoraria.  
¶13 The court directed the OLR to file a memorandum in 
support of the stipulation with some additional information.  
The OLR's subsequent memorandum and Attorney Trupke's memorandum 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers."  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shea, 190 
Wis. 2d 560, 527 N.W.2d 314 (1995). 
No. 
2017AP1465-D   
 
5 
 
in response to the OLR's memo clarified that Attorney Trupke 
fully intended to withdraw her response to the complaint and 
that the recommended suspension was agreed upon based on 
precedent and Attorney Trupke's desire to avoid a disciplinary 
hearing.  We accede to the parties' request to consider this 
stipulation without appointment of a referee.   
¶14 In the stipulation, Attorney Trupke affirms that the 
stipulation did not result from plea bargaining; she fully 
understands the misconduct allegations; she fully understands 
her right to contest this matter; she fully understands her 
right to consult with counsel; her entry into this stipulation 
is 
made 
knowingly 
and 
voluntarily; 
her 
entry 
into 
this 
stipulation 
represents 
her 
decision 
not 
to 
contest 
the 
misconduct alleged in the complaint; and she assents to the 
level of discipline requested by the OLR.  
¶15 The stipulation requests that the court suspend 
Attorney Trupke's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a 
period of one year, which was the level of discipline originally 
sought by the OLR in its complaint.  
¶16 Acknowledging that the imposition of discipline in 
attorney disciplinary cases is not an exact science, we conclude 
that a one-year suspension is consistent with the level of 
discipline imposed in somewhat similar cases.  In considering 
the appropriate sanction, we deem In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Brown, 2005 WI 49, 280 Wis. 2d 44, 695 N.W.2d 295, 
instructive.  There, Attorney Brown was suspended for 18 months 
for, inter alia, accepting fees from clients totaling some 
No. 
2017AP1465-D   
 
6 
 
$16,000 while advising his firm that he was acting pro bono.    
The nature of the misconduct in Brown was more serious than 
here, and various mitigating factors support a lesser suspension 
than he received.  See also In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Elverman, 2008 WI 28, 308 Wis. 2d 524, 746 N.W.2d 793 
(imposing nine-month suspension on attorney for failing to 
report substantial co-trustee fees to his firm).  These cases 
are sufficiently analogous to support the imposition of a one-
year suspension here.   
¶17 Accordingly, we accept the stipulation and impose the 
requested one-year suspension.  The OLR has not requested 
restitution in light of the fact that Attorney Trupke made 
arrangements to refund the firm.  Accordingly, we do not order 
any restitution.  Finally, because the stipulation was filed at 
the outset of this proceeding, thereby avoiding litigation costs 
and the need to appoint a referee, we impose no costs on 
Attorney Trupke.  
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Amie B. Trupke to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, 
effective June 5, 2018.  
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Amie B. Trupke 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. 
2017AP1465-D   
 
 
 
1