Title: Anthony M. Marick v.

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

No. 96-2368-D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
 
 
No.  96-2368-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against ANTHONY M. MARICK, Attorney at Law. 
 
FILED 
 
 
OCT 21, 1996 
 
 
 Marilyn L. Graves 
  Clerk of Supreme Court 
  
Madison, WI  
 
                                                                 
  
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation, pursuant to SCR 
21.09(3m),
1 concerning the professional misconduct of Anthony M. 
                     
     
1 SCR 21.09 provides, in pertinent part:  Procedure. 
 
. . . 
 
(3m) The board may file with a complaint a stipulation by the 
board and the respondent attorney to the facts, conclusions of law 
and discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may consider the 
complaint and stipulation without appointing a referee.  If the 
supreme court approves the stipulation, it shall adopt the 
stipulated facts and conclusions of law and impose the stipulated 
discipline.  If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, a 
referee shall be appointed pursuant to sub. (4) and the matter 
shall proceed pursuant to SCR chapter 22.  A stipulation that is 
rejected has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to the 
respondent's defense of the proceeding or the board's prosecution 
of the complaint. 
 
No. 96-2368-D 
 
 
 
2 
Marick that occurred while practicing law in Minnesota and for 
which he was disciplined there.  Attorney Marick and the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) stipulated that a 
nine-month suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin 
would be appropriate discipline to be imposed for that misconduct. 
  
We accept the parties' stipulation and adopt the findings of 
fact and conclusions of law set forth in it concerning Attorney 
Marick's professional misconduct and determine that the nine-month 
license 
suspension 
to 
which 
the 
parties 
have 
stipulated 
constitutes 
appropriate 
discipline 
to 
be 
imposed 
in 
this 
jurisdiction, as it corresponds to the discipline imposed upon him 
in Minnesota.   
 
Attorney Marick was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 
September, 1990.  He previously has not been the subject of a 
disciplinary proceeding in Wisconsin.  Following his admission to 
the Minnesota bar in October, 1992, he resided and practiced in 
the Minneapolis area.   
 
In 1996, in a disciplinary proceeding in the Minnesota 
Supreme Court, Attorney Marick stipulated to the following facts. 
 While employed as an associate in a law firm, Attorney Marick 
worked on a corporate acquisition on behalf of a client.  In the 
course of that work, he obtained confidential information 
concerning the client's proposed acquisition of another company.  
Using that information, he purchased 625 shares of stock in the 
company to be acquired and subsequently sold that stock for a 
 
No. 96-2368-D 
 
 
 
3 
profit of some $1300.  Those dealings were discovered in 1995 
during an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
whose investigation had not been completed by the time of the 
Minnesota disciplinary proceeding and Attorney Marick had not been 
charged criminally.  Attorney Marick informed his law firm of his 
conduct in August, 1995 and his employment was terminated.   
 
As discipline for that misconduct, the Minnesota disciplinary 
authorities and Attorney Marick stipulated to a nine-month license 
suspension.  The parties further stipulated to his payment of the 
costs of that proceeding, his successful completion of the 
Minnesota 
professional 
responsibility 
examination, 
and 
his 
compliance 
with 
the 
rules 
and 
continuing 
legal 
education 
requirements applicable to an attorney whose license is suspended. 
 The Minnesota Supreme Court accepted that stipulation and imposed 
that discipline.   
 
Attorney 
Marick's 
professional 
misconduct 
in 
Minnesota 
violated 
the 
Wisconsin 
Rules 
of 
Professional 
Conduct 
for 
Attorneys.  His use of a confidence or secret of a client for his 
own advantage without the client's consent after full disclosure 
violates SCR 20:1.6(a).
2  Moreover, it constituted a criminal act 
                     
     
2 SCR 20:1.6 provides, in pertinent part:  Confidentiality of 
information 
 
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to 
representation of a client unless the client consents after 
consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized 
in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in 
paragraphs (b), (c) and (d).   
 
No. 96-2368-D 
 
 
 
4 
that reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness 
as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b), and 
involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).
3   
 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Anthony M. Marick to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of nine 
months, effective the date of this order.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this 
order Anthony M. Marick 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 Anthony M. Marick to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of the court.   
                     
     
3 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part:  Misconduct 
 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: 
 
. . . 
 
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects; 
 
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation; 
 
No. 96-2368-D 
 
 
 
5 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Anthony M. Marick 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. 96-2368-D 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
96-2368 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary  
 
 
 
Proceedings Against 
 
 
 
Anthony M. Marick, 
 
 
 
Attorney at Law. 
 
 
 
___________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MARICK 
 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
October 21, 1996 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: 
 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS: