Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael Strizic

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2015 WI 57 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP175-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Michael Strizic, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Michael Strizic, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STRIZIC 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 19, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 57
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2014AP175-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Michael Strizic, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael Strizic, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 19, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline case 
that comes before the court in a rather unusual posture.   
¶2 
Attorney Michael Strizic was admitted to practice law 
in Wisconsin in 1975.  His license is suspended for failure to 
pay State Bar dues and failure to comply with continuing legal 
education requirements.  Attorney Strizic was also admitted to 
practice law in Illinois in 1981.  He is not licensed to 
practice law in any other state.  
No. 
2014AP175-D   
 
2 
 
¶3 
When an attorney licensed in Wisconsin has been 
publicly disciplined by another jurisdiction, Supreme Court Rule 
(SCR) 22.22 provides, in pertinent part:   
(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 
In May 2013, Attorney Strizic was disciplined in a 
jurisdiction——Arizona——where he is not licensed to practice law.  
After finding that Attorney Strizic had failed to answer or 
otherwise defend against a State Bar of Arizona disciplinary 
complaint, the Arizona Supreme Court found that:  (1) Attorney 
Strizic exerted undue influence over a client to obtain an 
unwarranted benefit for himself by preparing trust documents for 
the client and including himself as a beneficiary; (2) Attorney 
Strizic 
intentionally 
failed 
to 
comply 
with 
the 
Arizona 
disciplinary 
investigation; 
and 
(3) 
Attorney 
Strizic 
held 
himself out to the public as a licensed lawyer even though he 
did not have an Arizona law license.   
¶5 
Based on these findings, the Arizona Supreme Court 
concluded that Attorney Strizic had engaged in the unauthorized 
No. 
2014AP175-D   
 
3 
 
practice of law, operated under a conflict of interest, and 
failed to furnish information or respond promptly to an inquiry 
or request from the State Bar of Arizona.  The Arizona Supreme 
Court stated that if Attorney Strizic had been an Arizona-
licensed attorney, disbarment would have been the appropriate 
remedy.  However, because Attorney Strizic was not licensed in 
Arizona, a reprimand was the only available remedy, which the 
court therefore imposed.  See Matter of Olsen, 881 P.2d 337, 339 
(Ariz. 1994) (disbarment warranted, but because respondent-
lawyer was not a member of the Arizona State Bar, the only 
sanction that could be imposed was a censure (now a reprimand)).  
¶6 
In July 2013, Attorney Strizic moved to set aside the 
Arizona court's report and order imposing sanctions, asserting 
that he had not received notice of the Arizona disciplinary 
proceedings and had not become aware of any disciplinary action 
having been taken against him until late May 2013, when the 
publication of the final judgment and order appeared on the 
internet and was discovered by Attorney Strizic's son.  The 
motion further alleged that the Arizona disciplinary authorities 
had 
been 
grossly 
misinformed 
about 
Attorney 
Strizic's 
relationship with the decedent.  In late July 2013, the Arizona 
court denied the motion.  
¶7 
In January 2014, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
filed a complaint against Attorney Strizic, seeking to impose 
the discipline that the Arizona Supreme Court wanted to impose 
(revocation), not the reprimand that the Arizona court had been 
No. 
2014AP175-D   
 
4 
 
constrained to impose due to the fact that Attorney Strizic was 
not licensed to practice law in Arizona.   
¶8 
In response to the OLR complaint, Attorney Strizic 
effectively 
invoked 
two 
of 
the 
exceptions 
to 
reciprocal 
discipline under SCR 22.22(3).  He claimed:  (1) that the 
Arizona disciplinary proceedings were so lacking in notice as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process; and (2) that the 
Arizona disciplinary proceedings suffered from an infirmity of 
proof establishing the alleged misconduct.  
¶9 
Because the resolution of these claims necessitated 
findings of fact and conclusions of law, this court referred the 
matter to a referee for a hearing.  See SCR 22.22(5).  
Catherine M. Rottier was appointed to serve as referee.  
¶10 Shortly before the scheduled evidentiary hearing, the 
OLR filed with this court a stipulation and no-contest plea.  
Therein, Attorney Strizic stipulated to most, but not all, of 
the facts alleged in the OLR complaint and its attachments.  
Attorney Strizic also entered a plea of no contest to the two 
counts of misconduct contained in the OLR complaint.  Count One 
alleged 
that 
Attorney 
Strizic 
was 
subject 
to 
reciprocal 
discipline under SCR 22.22 "[b]y virtue of having received 
public discipline imposed in Arizona for his violation of the 
Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct."  Count Two alleged that 
Attorney Strizic violated SCR 22.22(1) by failing to notify the 
OLR of his public discipline in Arizona within 20 days of its 
effective 
date. 
 
The 
parties 
stipulated 
neither 
to 
the 
discipline that the Arizona Supreme Court wanted to impose 
No. 
2014AP175-D   
 
5 
 
(revocation) nor to the discipline that court did impose (a 
reprimand).  Instead, the parties stipulated to a 60-day 
suspension.  
¶11 To justify this deviation from the discipline imposed 
by the Arizona court, the parties explained in their stipulation 
that 
the 
OLR 
had 
obtained 
"newly 
discovered 
evidence 
. . . during the pendency of the disciplinary action" that 
"specifically 
contradict[ed]" 
the 
Arizona 
Supreme 
Court's 
finding that Attorney Strizic had exerted undue influence over 
his client.  The stipulation did not, however, describe this 
"newly discovered evidence" in any fashion.  Upon request from 
the referee, the OLR explained in an e-mail to the referee that 
this "newly discovered evidence" derived from the OLR's review 
of the Arizona probate file and its discussion with certain 
witnesses.   
¶12 The 
referee 
cancelled 
the 
scheduled 
evidentiary 
hearing and, in late December 2014, filed a report that 
recommended the discipline to which the parties had stipulated:  
a 60-day license suspension.  In her report, the referee 
expressed concern about whether Attorney Strizic had received 
notice of the Arizona disciplinary proceeding, saying: 
While the evidence is clear that Strizic did not 
receive actual notice of the disciplinary complaint in 
Arizona, it is much less clear that the Arizona 
procedure for mailing notice to the last known address 
of a lawyer not licensed to practice in Arizona 
constitutes "a deprivation of due process."  Strizic 
had his opportunity to present his case on the notice 
issue to the Arizona disciplinary authorities and they 
flatly rejected his arguments. 
No. 
2014AP175-D   
 
6 
 
Nonetheless, the absence of actual notice to an 
attorney threatened with the loss of his ability to 
practice law is very troubling.  No one should suffer 
such a serious deprivation without being afforded a 
real opportunity to provide a defense.  
¶13 The referee went on to question whether the absence of 
actual notice of the Arizona proceeding deprived Attorney 
Strizic of a real opportunity to defend himself against the 
charge that he had exerted undue influence over his client, and 
the referee posited that, had Attorney Strizic received actual 
notice of the Arizona disciplinary proceedings and defended 
against them, he still would likely have emerged with a public 
reprimand for his admitted ethical lapses, since Arizona's 
options on sanctions were limited due to the fact that he had no 
license to practice law in Arizona.  The referee said, however, 
that Attorney Strizic likely would not have emerged with an 
order saying he would have been disbarred in Arizona if he had 
been licensed to practice there.  
¶14 The referee explained: 
[I]t was not so much an infirmity of proof in the 
Arizona proceedings as it was an absence of a defense 
by Strizic, caused by his failure to receive actual 
notice of the Arizona complaint. 
The most serious allegation against Strizic in 
the 
Arizona 
disciplinary 
proceedings 
is 
that 
he 
exerted undue influence over a client to obtain 
financial advantage for himself. This is the very 
allegation against which Strizic could have offered 
the most compelling defense. Had he done so, the 
sanction order in Arizona might have read much 
differently.  
. . . . 
No. 
2014AP175-D   
 
7 
 
[T]he 
record 
here 
does 
not 
demonstrate 
much 
opportunity for Strizic to present his defenses in 
Arizona.  . . .  Thus, the protections afforded by 
SCR 22.22(3)(a) and (c) are triggered here.  
¶15 The referee agreed with the parties that a 60-day 
license suspension was appropriate.  The referee further 
recommended that Attorney Strizic be required to pay only one-
half of the costs of these proceedings.1 
¶16 With this unique factual and procedural background, we 
are now called upon to review the referee's report and the 
stipulation which it approved.  
¶17 Under SCR 22.22(3), in reciprocal discipline matters, 
this court shall impose the identical discipline unless one of 
the enumerated exceptions is shown.  Our review of the record, 
including the parties' stipulation and the referee's report, 
leads us to conclude that the misconduct at issue in this case 
justifies substantially different discipline than that imposed 
by the Arizona Supreme Court.  See SCR 22.22(3)(c).  
¶18 Attorney Strizic admits to conduct in Arizona that, we 
conclude, constitutes violations of SCR 20:1.8(c) (soliciting a 
substantial gift from a client) and SCR 20:5.5(a)(1) (practicing 
law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of 
the legal profession in that jurisdiction).  Attorney Strizic 
also pled no contest in the stipulation to failing to notify the 
OLR of his Arizona discipline within 20 days of the effective 
                                                 
1 The full costs of the proceeding are $1,546.02 as of 
January 26, 2015.  
No. 
2014AP175-D   
 
8 
 
date of that discipline, in violation of SCR 22.22(1).  We 
conclude 
that 
if 
the 
OLR 
had 
commenced 
a 
freestanding 
disciplinary action rather than proceeding under the reciprocal 
discipline rule,2 the admitted misconduct would warrant a 60-day 
suspension of Attorney Strizic's Wisconsin law license.   
¶19 As to costs, we agree with the referee that due to the 
unusual nature of this case, Attorney Strizic should be 
responsible for one-half of the OLR's $1,546.02 in costs, for a 
total of $773.01.  
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michael Strizic to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Michael Strizic shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation one-half of the costs of this proceeding, $773.01.  
                                                 
2 The OLR is not required to automatically invoke the 
reciprocal disciplinary system whenever an attorney is publicly 
disciplined 
in 
another 
jurisdiction. 
 
The 
statement 
in 
SCR 22.22(2) that the OLR director "may" file a complaint 
demonstrates that the director has discretion to file a 
reciprocal discipline complaint, to file a de novo disciplinary 
action, or to take no action at all.  In this case, a de novo 
disciplinary proceeding may have allowed the development of a 
substantially different record than what was developed in 
Arizona and may well have avoided various procedural anomalies.  
Under the unique circumstances of this case, however, we choose 
to embrace a practical solution and take the case as we find it 
rather than ordering additional proceedings that would result in 
further delay and increased costs.  Accordingly, we approve the 
60-day suspension under SCR 22.22(3)(c).  
No. 
2014AP175-D   
 
9 
 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael Strizic 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. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
 
 
No. 
2014AP175-D   
 
 
 
1