Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Joseph Engl

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 102 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP838-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joseph Engl, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Joseph Engl, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ENGL 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 6, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 102
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP838-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joseph Engl, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Joseph Engl, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 6, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney Joseph Engl and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
pursuant to SCR 22.121 concerning Attorney Engl's professional 
                                                 
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. 
2005AP838-D   
 
2 
 
misconduct in using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime.  
The parties stipulated that the appropriate discipline to impose 
for that professional misconduct is a public reprimand.   
¶2 
We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated 
findings of fact and conclusions of law.  We also accept the 
parties' stipulation that a public reprimand is the appropriate 
discipline for Attorney Engl's misconduct. 
¶3 
Attorney 
Engl 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 2002 and lives in Milwaukee.  He has not previously 
been disciplined.  In April 2004, while working at his former 
law firm, Attorney Engl entered an internet chat room where he 
engaged in a conversation with a detective who was posing as a 
fourteen-year-old girl.  Attorney Engl expressed interest in 
having sex with the girl and arranged to meet her that evening.  
When he arrived at the prearranged meeting site, Attorney Engl 
was arrested.  He was charged with one count of using a computer 
to facilitate a child sex crime, in violation of Wis. Stat. 
§ 948.075(1) (2003-04), a Class D felony.  He entered a guilty 
plea to the charge and was convicted.  The trial court withheld 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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. 
No. 
2005AP838-D   
 
3 
 
its sentence and placed Attorney Engl on four years probation 
with conditions that he undergo counseling and evaluation for 
sex offender treatment; that he have no unsupervised conduct 
with females under the age of 18 except for relatives; that he 
not visit chat rooms or sexual websites; that he not engage in 
instant messaging; that he submit a DNA sample; that he not 
possess firearms; and that he be assessed costs.  Attorney 
Engl's former law firm terminated his employment when the 
criminal charge was filed.   
¶4 
Attorney Engl and the OLR have stipulated that by 
using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime, Attorney Engl 
violated SCR 20:8.4(b).2  The stipulation states that the parties 
agree that an appropriate level of discipline to impose in 
response to the misconduct is a public reprimand.  In explaining 
why a public reprimand, rather than a more serious sanction, is 
appropriate the stipulation points to a number of mitigating 
factors: Attorney Engl had no prior disciplinary history; at the 
time the incident occurred he was experiencing extreme stress, 
was working excessively long hours, and his mother had recently 
died; he cooperated with criminal investigators and with the OLR 
and is remorseful; the arrest resulted in media coverage; he was 
convicted of a felony and placed on four years probation with 
various conditions; he was fired from his job; and he provided 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides:  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." 
No. 
2005AP838-D   
 
4 
 
reports from three therapists who evaluated him and gave the 
opinion that he is unlikely to re-offend.   
¶5 
Attorney Engl represents that he understands the 
misconduct allegations and the ramifications if the court should 
impose the stipulated level of discipline.  He indicates that he 
fully understands his right to contest the matter and his right 
to consult with counsel.  He states he is represented by counsel 
in the matter and that he entered into the stipulation knowingly 
and voluntarily.  Attorney Engl states that he admits the 
misconduct and assents to the level and type of discipline 
sought by the OLR director.  The stipulation further indicates 
that neither the misconduct charged nor the level of discipline 
sought is the result of plea bargaining.   
¶6 
We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
to which the parties have stipulated concerning Attorney Engl's 
professional misconduct.  After considering the seriousness of 
the misconduct and the various mitigating factors presented in 
this case, we conclude that it is appropriate to impose a public 
reprimand.  
¶7 
IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Joseph Engl is hereby 
publicly reprimanded.   
No. 
2005AP838-D   
 
 
 
1