Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Gordon C. Ring

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2019 WI 87 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP1148-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Gordon C. Ring, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Gordon C. Ring, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RING 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 23, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2019 WI 87
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2019AP1148-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gordon C. Ring, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Gordon C. Ring, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
AUG 23, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter. 
On June 25, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a 
two-count complaint against Attorney Gordon C. Ring.  Count one 
alleged that by virtue of Attorney Ring's recent two-year 
license suspension by the Illinois Supreme Court, Attorney Ring 
should be subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin pursuant 
to SCR 22.22.  Count two alleged by failing to notify the OLR of 
his disbarment in Illinois within 20 days of the effective date 
of the imposition of such discipline, Attorney Ring violated 
No. 
2019AP1148-D   
 
2 
 
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22(1).1  After service of the 
complaint, 
the 
parties 
stipulated 
to 
the 
imposition 
of 
reciprocal discipline.  We approve the stipulation, and we 
therefore order a two-year suspension of Attorney Ring's 
Wisconsin law license. 
¶2 
Attorney Ring's law license history is as follows.  He 
was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in May 1984, and in 
Illinois in November 1977.  His Wisconsin disciplinary history 
consists of a six-month suspension in 1992, as discipline 
reciprocal to that imposed on him by the Illinois Supreme Court 
for professional misconduct.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ring, 168 Wis. 2d 817, 484 N.W.2d 336 (1992).  Attorney 
Ring did not petition for reinstatement of his Wisconsin law 
license; it remains suspended.  Attorney Ring's Wisconsin law 
license was also administratively suspended in 1985 for failure 
to comply with continuing legal education requirements, and in 
2011 for failure to pay State Bar dues.  His license remains 
administratively suspended. 
¶3 
On September 20, 2018, the Illinois Supreme Court 
suspended Attorney Ring's Illinois law license for two years, 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22(1) provides:   
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 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct. 
No. 
2019AP1148-D   
 
3 
 
effective October 11, 2018, for multiple counts of misconduct, 
and ordered him to reimburse the Illinois Client Protection 
Program Trust Fund for any payments arising from his misconduct 
prior to the end of his suspension.  According to the 
allegations in the OLR's complaint and the Illinois disciplinary 
records attached to the complaint, Attorney Ring's misconduct in 
Illinois included misappropriation of over $124,000 in two 
client matters, and, in a third matter, failing to work on a 
case after the filing of the complaint, causing the case to be 
dismissed.  Attorney Ring did not tell his client that he had 
failed to work on the case or that it had been dismissed, and he 
later used funds in his client trust account belonging to others 
to make a $10,000 payment to his client to resolve the matter. 
By his conduct, Attorney Ring violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 
1.15(a), 3.2, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of 
Professional Conduct. 
¶4 
On July 15, 2019, after the OLR's complaint had been 
served on Attorney Ring but before a referee had been appointed, 
Attorney Ring entered into a stipulation with the OLR whereby he 
agreed that the facts alleged in the OLR's complaint supported a 
two-year suspension of his Wisconsin law license as reciprocal 
discipline to that imposed by the Illinois Supreme Court. 
¶5 
Supreme Court Rule 22.22(3) states as follows: 
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
No. 
2019AP1148-D   
 
4 
 
(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. 
¶6 
Attorney Ring does not claim that any of the defenses 
found in SCR 22.22(3) apply.  Attorney Ring further states that 
the stipulation did not result from plea bargaining; that he 
understands the allegations against him; that he understands the 
ramifications should the court impose the stipulated level of 
discipline; that he understands his right to contest this 
matter; that he understands his right to consult with counsel, 
and represents that he has consulted with counsel; that his 
entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily; 
and that his entry into the stipulation represents his decision 
not to contest the misconduct alleged in the complaint or the 
level and type of discipline sought by the OLR's director. 
¶7 
Upon 
our 
review 
of 
the 
matter, 
we 
accept 
the 
stipulation and impose discipline identical to that imposed by 
the Illinois Supreme Court; i.e., a two-year suspension of 
Attorney Ring's Wisconsin law license.  Because this matter was 
resolved by means of a stipulation, the OLR has not sought the 
imposition of costs, and we impose none.   
No. 
2019AP1148-D   
 
5 
 
¶8 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Gordon C. Ring to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for two years, effective 
the date of this order. 
¶9 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Gordon C. Ring 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. 
¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c). 
 
 
 
 
 
1