Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Eric S. Brittain

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2013 WI 26 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
12AP1245-D  
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Eric S. Brittain, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Eric S. Brittain, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BRITTAIN     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 22, 2013   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
2013 WI 26
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP1245-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Eric S. Brittain, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Eric S. Brittain, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 22, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, Richard C. Ninneman, approving a stipulation 
filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney 
Eric S. Brittain regarding Attorney Brittain's professional 
misconduct in the handling of two client matters.  The OLR and 
Attorney Brittain stipulate that Attorney Brittain committed 
professional misconduct.  The referee concluded that the 
appropriate sanction for the misconduct is a public reprimand.  
No. 
2012AP1245-D   
 
2 
 
Upon careful consideration, we adopt the stipulated facts and 
the referee's conclusions of law.  We also agree that a public 
reprimand is an appropriate level of discipline, and we deem it 
appropriate to order Attorney Brittain to pay the full costs of 
the proceeding, which are $3,348.31 as of January 31, 2013. 
¶2 
Attorney Brittain was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2003, and most recently practiced in Glendale, 
Wisconsin. 
 He has not previously been the subject of 
professional discipline. 
¶3 
On June 5, 2012, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
four counts of misconduct arising out of Attorney Brittain's 
representation of clients in two criminal matters.  In the first 
matter, Attorney Brittain was retained to defend V.K., who was 
charged with misdemeanor battery and disorderly conduct in 
Waukesha County.  Judge J. Mac Davis initially served as the 
presiding judge in the matter. 
¶4 
On November 25, 2008, Attorney Brittain appeared in 
court for the first day of a scheduled jury trial and made an 
opening statement on behalf of V.K.  In the course of the 
opening statement Attorney Brittain told the jury, "I want to 
talk about violence.  And, well, what it is like to be in an 
environment where people yell and scream.  And I know that 
environment because I grew up in one, and my mom was very 
erratic, very emotionally unstable."  Judge Davis immediately 
interrupted and admonished Attorney Brittain that it was 
inappropriate to reflect on personal matters in an opening 
statement.  After Judge Davis asked that he refocus his remarks, 
No. 
2012AP1245-D   
 
3 
 
Attorney Brittain approached his client, put his hands on his 
client's shoulders, and told the jury, "I know . . . a brave man 
when I see one." 
¶5 
Judge 
Davis 
immediately 
interrupted 
again 
and 
admonished Attorney Brittain that his conduct was inappropriate.  
Judge Davis directed Attorney Brittain to return to the lectern 
and instructed that he was not allowed to vouch for his client 
and that he should not put his hands on his client or talk about 
his client's character in that fashion. 
¶6 
Continuing his opening statement, Attorney Brittain 
told the jury: 
 
Imagine what it is to be falsely accused of 
something, and to know what a conviction would mean to 
you, especially if you have a two-year[-]old son and 
your wife is emotionally unstable and erratic, and 
you're falsely accused, what that means. 
 
I'm going to tell you what happened that day.  
I'm going to tell you about [the defendant].  I'm 
going to do it in the first person narrative as if I 
am [the defendant] so that you can know what happened. 
¶7 
Judge Davis again interrupted and said the court would 
not allow Attorney Brittain to make an opening statement in the 
form of a first person narrative.  After Attorney Brittain said 
he would renew an earlier motion seeking Judge Davis's recusal 
based on alleged bias, Judge Davis excused the jury.  In the 
conference that followed outside the presence of the jury, Judge 
Davis said Attorney Brittain was raising his voice and sticking 
his finger in the face of the assistant district attorney who 
was prosecuting the case.  Attorney Brittain disagreed with 
No. 
2012AP1245-D   
 
4 
 
Judge Davis's statements.  He also continued to challenge 
rulings made by Judge Davis as to the form of the opening 
statement.  Judge Davis reaffirmed his earlier rulings and 
instructed Attorney Brittain not to give any first person 
remarks, not to vouch for his client's credibility, and not to 
talk about his personal life experiences. 
¶8 
After the jury returned to the courtroom, Judge Davis 
sustained two more objections by the assistant district attorney 
based on Attorney Brittain making inappropriate comments during 
his opening statement.  After Judge Davis sustained the second 
objection, Attorney Brittain turned to look at Judge Davis, 
paused, and then said to the jury, "And so, [l]adies and 
[g]entleman, under a lot of——a lot of obstacles, we are here 
today." 
¶9 
After opening statements were concluded, Judge Davis 
again excused the jury and found Attorney Brittain in summary 
contempt of court for the comment about "obstacles."  Judge 
Davis sanctioned Attorney Brittain with a forfeiture of $50.  On 
February 16, 2009, the court entered the written order of 
contempt against Attorney Brittain based on the oral contempt 
order of November 25, 2008.  Attorney Brittain appealed the 
contempt order.  The court of appeals affirmed Judge Davis's 
order holding Attorney Brittain in contempt. 
¶10 The OLR's complaint alleged that by injecting personal 
and irrelevant information about himself during his opening 
No. 
2012AP1245-D   
 
5 
 
statement, Attorney Brittain violated SCR 20:3.4(e);1 by vouching 
for his client during his opening statement, Attorney Brittain 
violated SCR 20:3.4(e); and by suggesting in his opening 
statement that Judge Davis was creating "obstacles" to the 
defense, Attorney Brittain engaged in conduct intended to 
disrupt a tribunal, in violation of SCR 20:3.5(d).2 
¶11 The 
other 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Brittain's representation of R.C., 
who was charged in Milwaukee County with burglary of a building 
or dwelling.  Judge Jean DiMotto served as the presiding judge 
in the matter.  On November 11, 2009, the matter came before 
Judge DiMotto on the defendant's arraignment. 
¶12 After Judge DiMotto had accepted the defendant's not 
guilty plea and was prepared to adjourn the proceeding, Attorney 
Brittain initiated a further exchange with the court regarding 
discovery demands, including a request to have access to his 
client's vehicle, which the City of Milwaukee Police Department 
had impounded, for an expert inspection.  Because there were 
differences between the parties as to the discovery request 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:3.4(e) states a lawyer shall not "in trial, allude 
to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is 
relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, 
assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when 
testifying as a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the 
justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the 
culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an 
accused; . . . ."  
2 SCR 20:3.5(d) states a lawyer shall not "engage in conduct 
intended to disrupt a tribunal."  
No. 
2012AP1245-D   
 
6 
 
concerning the vehicle and there was no motion before the court 
on that issue, Judge DiMotto told Attorney Brittain that the 
issue was premature and that he should bring a motion.  Judge 
DiMotto then indicated the proceeding was closed for the day. 
¶13 Raising his voice, Attorney Brittain continued to 
attempt to address the court about the discovery issues.  He 
repeatedly disregarded Judge DiMotto's instructions that the 
case was done for the day and said, "You[r] Honor, I believe 
your behavior is inappropriate." 
¶14 On the morning of December 17, 2009, the matter came 
before Judge DiMotto for a hearing on the defendant's motion to 
compel discovery.  During the hearing, again raising his voice, 
Attorney Brittain asked Judge DiMotto to recuse herself and 
called 
her 
statements 
about 
his 
pattern 
of 
behavior 
"ridiculous." 
 
Judge 
DiMotto 
adjourned 
the 
hearing 
at 
approximately 10:45 a.m.  The hearing on the motion reconvened 
at 2:05 p.m. that afternoon.  In opening the afternoon portion 
of the hearing, Judge DiMotto noted the time and said that the 
parties "left on an adjourned basis about 10:45 [a.m.] perhaps 
this morning."  Attorney Brittain interrupted and objected to 
Judge DiMotto's having characterized the close of the morning's 
hearing as an adjournment. 
¶15 In support of his motion for recusal, Attorney 
Brittain denied that he had shouted at Judge DiMotto.  He said 
Judge 
DiMotto 
had 
engaged 
in 
behaviors 
which 
were 
"inappropriate," that she had raised her voice at him, and he 
suggested that Judge DiMotto suffered from a physical or health 
No. 
2012AP1245-D   
 
7 
 
issue that affected her "ability to be appropriate" and which 
could affect his client's right to a fair trial. 
¶16 The OLR's complaint alleged that by engaging in 
abusive, belligerent, and obstreperous conduct directed at Judge 
DiMotto in the course of representing his client, Attorney 
Brittain engaged in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal, in 
violation of SCR 20:3.5(d). 
¶17 Attorney Brittain filed an answer on July 24, 2012.  
On December 28, 2012, the OLR and Attorney Brittain entered into 
a stipulation whereby Attorney Brittain admitted the allegations 
in the OLR's complaint.  The stipulation noted that the OLR was 
requesting that this court publicly reprimand Attorney Brittain.  
Attorney Brittain indicated he did not oppose the OLR's 
recommendation.  On January 11, 2013, the referee entered an 
order approving the stipulation and recommending that the court 
publicly 
reprimand 
Attorney Brittain for his professional 
misconduct. 
¶18 This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous, but conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  This 
court 
is 
free 
to 
impose 
whatever 
discipline 
it 
deems 
appropriate, regardless of the referee's recommendation.  See in 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶19 After careful review of the record, we adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  We also 
No. 
2012AP1245-D   
 
8 
 
agree with the referee that a public reprimand is an appropriate 
level of discipline.  We further deem it appropriate to require 
Attorney Brittain to pay the full costs of the proceeding, which 
are $3,348.31. 
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that Eric S. Brittain is publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Eric S. Brittain shall pay the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 
been full compliance with all conditions of this order.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
2012AP1245-D   
 
 
 
1