Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Eric Arthur Forstrom

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2011 WI 88 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP1509-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Eric Arthur Forstrom, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Eric Arthur Forstrom, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FORSTROM 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 20, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2011 WI 88
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP1509-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Eric Arthur Forstrom, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Eric Arthur Forstrom, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
SEP 20, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter.  
We review the stipulation entered by Attorney Eric Arthur 
Forstrom and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) for the 
imposition of discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the 
Supreme Court of California.  After reviewing the matter, we 
accept the stipulation.  By virtue of having been sanctioned by 
the California Supreme Court for violating California's Business 
and Professions Code, Attorney Forstrom is subject to reciprocal 
No. 
2011AP1509-D   
 
2 
 
discipline in Wisconsin.  Accordingly, we suspend Attorney 
Forstrom's license to practice law in Wisconsin for one year. 
¶2 
Attorney Forstrom was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2001.  He was admitted to the State Bar of 
California in 2005.   
¶3 
On March 23, 2008, Attorney Forstrom was driving his 
car when he collided with another car.  Both vehicles were 
damaged.  Attorney Forstrom remained at the accident scene for a 
few minutes, and then walked away leaving the scene and 
abandoning his car.  On March 24, 2008, Attorney Forstrom went 
to a police station and reported that his car had been stolen.  
That same day he reported to his insurance company that his car 
had been stolen and a claim was initiated. 
¶4 
The police department investigated the accident and 
identified Attorney Forstrom as the owner of the car involved in 
the hit-and-run accident.  On May 30, 2008, Attorney Forstrom's 
counsel wrote to the insurance company saying Attorney Forstrom 
was withdrawing his theft claim and would hold the insurance 
company harmless.   
¶5 
On April 28, 2009, Attorney Forstrom entered an 
initial guilty plea to insurance fraud, a felony involving moral 
turpitude.  On December 8, 2009, the charge was reduced to a 
misdemeanor and Attorney Forstrom entered a final plea.   
¶6 
On February 18, 2011, the Supreme Court of California 
suspended Attorney Forstrom's license to practice law for two 
years, staying the execution of the suspension, placing him on 
probation for two years, and suspending his law license for the 
No. 
2011AP1509-D   
 
3 
 
first year of the probation, retroactive to September 29, 2009, 
the date Attorney Forstrom was placed on interim suspension 
following his conviction.   
¶7 
On June 30, 2011, the OLR filed a complaint and motion 
for an order to show cause under SCR 22.22(2)(b) directing 
Attorney Forstrom to inform the court in writing of any claim, 
predicated upon the grounds set forth in SCR 22.22(3), that the 
imposition of discipline commensurate to that imposed in 
California would be unwarranted, and the factual basis for any 
such claim.   
¶8 
On July 26, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation 
stating that Attorney Forstrom does not claim any of the 
potential defenses articulated in SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c) but asks 
that this court consider supplemental information including the 
fact that on July 14, 2011, the Superior Court of California 
dismissed/expunged Attorney Forstrom's misdemeanor conviction. 
In addition, Attorney Forstrom maintains that he did not recall 
being involved in an auto accident at the time he initiated the 
insurance claim that led to his conviction.  He asserts he 
suffered a concussion/brain trauma caused by airbag deployment 
during 
the 
automobile 
collision 
which 
gave 
rise 
to 
the 
subsequent charge of knowingly providing false information in 
support of an insurance claim.  Attorney Forstrom says after his 
memory resurfaced in the weeks following the accident, he 
formally withdrew his insurance claim, and he expresses deep 
remorse for the entire incident. 
No. 
2011AP1509-D   
 
4 
 
¶9 
The stipulation states its terms were not bargained 
for or negotiated between the parties, and that Attorney 
Forstrom admits the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR and 
agrees to the level of discipline sought by the OLR director.  
Attorney Forstrom verifies that he fully understands the 
misconduct allegations, the ramifications should this court 
impose the stipulated level of discipline, his right to contest 
the matter, his right to consult with and retain counsel, and 
that his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and 
voluntarily.   
¶10 The 
OLR 
filed 
a 
memorandum 
in 
support 
of 
the 
stipulation.  It also filed a statement of costs showing costs 
in the amount of $231 as of July 26, 2011.  The OLR director 
recommends that no costs be assessed against Attorney Forstrom 
since the parties' entry into a comprehensive stipulation, which 
was achieved without the need for the appointment of a referee 
and without the attendant expenditure of significant lawyer 
regulation system resources, is a circumstance justifying this 
court's deviation from its general policy of imposing full 
costs. 
¶11 Upon 
our 
review 
of 
the 
matter, 
we 
accept 
the 
stipulation. 
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Eric Arthur Forstrom 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one 
year, effective the date of this order. 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Eric Arthur Forstrom shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
No. 
2011AP1509-D   
 
5 
 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed 
against Eric Arthur Forstrom. 
 
 
No. 
2011AP1509-D   
 
 
 
1