Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John J. Pangallo

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2022 WI 108 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2022AP830-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John J. Pangallo, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
John J. Pangallo, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PANGALLO  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 22, 2022   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam.  
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2022 WI 108
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2022AP830-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John J. Pangallo, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
John J. Pangallo, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
DEC 22, 2022 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.  This 
is 
a 
reciprocal 
discipline 
matter.  On May 17, 2022, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
filed a complaint and motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
(SCR) 22.22,1 requesting this court suspend Attorney John J. 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 provides: 
(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 
   (continued) 
No. 
2022AP830-D   
 
2 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
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.  
(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. 
                                                (continued) 
 
No. 
2022AP830-D   
 
3 
 
Pangallo's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 
three years, as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed 
by the Supreme Court of Florida. 
¶2 
Attorney Pangallo and the OLR executed a stipulation, 
whereby Attorney Pangallo agrees that he should be suspended for 
a period of three years as discipline reciprocal to that imposed 
by the Supreme Court of Florida.  Upon our review of the matter, 
we accept the stipulation and suspend Attorney Pangallo's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of three 
years.  Because the parties were able to resolve this matter 
without the need for appointment of a referee, no costs will be 
imposed. 
¶3 
Attorney Pangallo was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1992.  His Wisconsin law license is currently 
suspended for failure to comply with continuing legal education 
reporting requirements and for failure to pay annual bar dues.  
                                                                                                                                                             
(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. 
2022AP830-D   
 
4 
 
 ¶4 Attorney Pangallo is also admitted to practice law in 
Florida.  On May 25, 2017, the Supreme Court of Florida 
suspended Attorney Pangallo's Florida law license for three 
years.  The Florida court found that Attorney Pangallo had 
withdrawn trust account funds for his own purposes, including 
making payments to himself and third parties.  The court found 
those acts violated Florida Rules of Professional Conduct with 
respect to trust accounts and safekeeping property.  The Florida 
Court required Attorney Pangallo to complete specific continuing 
education courses, including a trust accounting class and ethics 
school, as well as serve three years of probation in the event 
his Florida license is reinstated.  
¶5 
Attorney Pangallo provided notice to the State Bar of 
Wisconsin of his Florida suspension, but he did not realize that 
was the incorrect disciplinary authority and that the OLR should 
have received notification.  Accordingly, notice of his Florida 
suspension was not effective under SCR 22.22(1). 
¶6 
In its complaint, the OLR alleged that Attorney 
Pangallo is subject to reciprocal discipline and that, by 
failing to notify the OLR of his suspension in Florida for 
professional misconduct within 20 days of the effective date of 
its imposition, Attorney Pangallo violated SCR 22.22(1). 
¶7 
On September 7, 2022, Attorney Pangallo and the OLR 
filed a stipulation, agreeing that by virtue of his Florida 
suspension, 
Attorney 
Pangallo 
is 
subject 
to 
reciprocal 
discipline in Wisconsin.  Attorney Pangallo agrees that it would 
be appropriate for this court to suspend his Wisconsin law 
No. 
2022AP830-D   
 
5 
 
license for a period of three years.  The parties state that the 
stipulation did not result from plea bargaining.  Attorney 
Pangallo does not contest the facts and misconduct alleged by 
the OLR, and he agrees to the level of discipline sought by the 
OLR.  Attorney Pangallo also represents and verifies that he 
fully 
understands 
the 
misconduct 
allegations; 
he 
fully 
understands the ramifications should this court impose the 
stipulated level of discipline; he fully understands his right 
to contest the matter; he fully understands his right to consult 
with and retain counsel; and he states that his entry into the 
stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily.  Attorney 
Pangallo also stipulates that he does not claim any of the 
potential defenses set forth in SCR 22.22(3)(a)–(c). 
¶8 
Upon 
our 
review 
of 
the 
matter, 
we 
accept 
the 
stipulation and impose a three-year suspension of Attorney 
Pangallo's Wisconsin law license, reciprocal to that imposed by 
the Supreme Court of Florida.  
¶9 
Because this matter was resolved by stipulation 
without the need for appointment of a referee, no costs are 
imposed.    
¶10 IT IS ORDERED that the license of John J. Pangallo to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of three 
years, effective the date of this order.   
¶11 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of John J. Pangallo's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues and 
failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements, 
No. 
2022AP830-D   
 
6 
 
will remain in effect until each reason for the administrative 
suspension has been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, John J. Pangallo 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. 
2022AP830-D   
 
 
 
1