Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Arik J. Guenther

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2012 WI 116 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP93-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Arik J. Guenther, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
       v. 
Arik J. Guenther, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GUENTHER   
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 21, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 116
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP93-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Arik J. Guenther, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Arik J. Guenther, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 21, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, James W. Mohr, Jr., finding that Attorney 
Arik J. 
Guenther 
violated 
the 
supreme 
court 
rules 
of 
professional 
conduct 
for 
attorneys 
and 
recommending 
that 
Attorney Guenther's license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended for a minimum of 60 days and that he be required to 
pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶2 
Because no appeal has been filed, we review the 
referee's report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  After conducting an 
independent review of the matter, we adopt the referee's 
findings of fact and conclusions of law, and we also agree with 
the referee's recommendation that Attorney Guenther's license to 
practice law be suspended for a period of 60 days.  Finally, we 
determine that Attorney Guenther should be required to pay the 
full costs of this proceeding, which were $752.31 as of May 23, 
2012. 
¶3 
Attorney Guenther was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1981.  He has a lengthy disciplinary history which 
includes three private reprimands, one public reprimand, and 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 
 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
 
 
 
2
three disciplinary suspensions, the most recent of which was 
imposed in February 2012.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Guenther, 2012 WI 10, 338 Wis. 2d 542, 808 N.W.2d 921.  
His license remains suspended. 
 ¶4 The current disciplinary proceeding arises out of 
Attorney Guenther's representation of A.K.  A.K. filed a 
grievance with the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) in January 
of 2011.  In March 2011 the OLR notified Attorney Guenther that 
it was investigating the grievance and required him to respond 
by April 15, 2011.  Attorney Guenther failed to respond.  The 
OLR director referred A.K.'s grievance to OLR's District 13 
Committee for investigation.  The chairperson of the District 13 
Committee notified Attorney Guenther of the attorneys assigned 
to investigate the grievance. 
¶5 
On April 21, 2011, the OLR director wrote to Attorney 
Guenther requiring a response to the grievance by May 2, 2011.  
Attorney Guenther failed to respond.  The OLR director sent 
Attorney Guenther another letter on May 18, 2011, requiring a 
written response to the grievance within 10 days.   
¶6 
The OLR District 13 investigators made an appointment 
to meet with Attorney Guenther on June 8, 2011.  Attorney 
Guenther failed to appear and failed to respond to multiple 
subsequent attempts to contact him.  In June 2011 Attorney 
Guenther was personally served with the OLR's May 18, 2011 
letter, along with the OLR's earlier letters.  Attorney Guenther 
still did not respond. 
¶7 
On January 13, 2012, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging that by failing to respond to the notice of formal 
 
 
 
3
investigation from the OLR and failing to cooperate with the 
District 13 Committee investigation, Attorney Guenther violated 
SCR 22.03(6)2 and SCR 22.04(1),3 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).4 
¶8 
Attorney Guenther filed an answer on March 8, 2012, 
admitting the allegations contained in the OLR's complaint.  The 
parties agreed that the matter could be resolved upon the 
pleadings, without need for an evidentiary hearing.  The referee 
issued his report and recommendation on May 3, 2012.  The 
referee found that by failing to respond to the OLR's letters 
and in failing to cooperate with the District 13 Committee 
investigation, 
Attorney 
Guenther 
committed 
professional 
misconduct.  The referee recommended that Attorney Guenther's 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.03(6) states as follows: 
 
In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, 
the 
respondent's 
wilful 
failure 
to 
provide 
relevant 
information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a 
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 
the matters asserted in the grievance. 
3 SCR 22.04(1) states as follows: 
The director may refer a matter to a district 
committee for assistance in the investigation.  A 
respondent has the duty to cooperate specified in 
SCR 21.15(4) and 22.03(2) in respect to the district 
committee.  The committee may subpoena and compel the 
production of documents specified in SCR 22.03(8) and 
22.42. 
4 SCR 20:8.4(h) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a grievance 
filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required by 
SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b),  SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or 
SCR 22.04(1); . . . ."  
 
 
 
4
license to practice law be suspended for 60 days and that he be 
required to pay the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶9 
When reviewing a referee's report and recommendation, 
we will affirm the referee's findings of fact unless they are 
clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125. The 
referee's conclusions of law are subject to de novo review.  Id.    
We determine the appropriate level of discipline given the 
particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's 
recommendation, but benefitting from it.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686. 
¶10 After independently reviewing the matter, we conclude 
that the referee's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, 
and we adopt them.  We also agree that the referee's conclusions 
of law regarding Attorney Guenther's misconduct are correct, and 
we concur with the referee that a 60-day suspension of Attorney 
Guenther's license to practice law is appropriate.  We also 
agree that Attorney Guenther should be required to pay the full 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Arik J. Guenther to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective as of the date of this order.  
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Arik J. Guenther 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.  
 
 
 
5
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Arik J. Guenther shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.   
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2).