Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jeff D. Stobbe

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2015 WI 43 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP2125 - D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeff D. Stobbe, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Jeff D. Stobbe, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STOBBE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 28, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 43
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2014AP2125-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeff D. Stobbe, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jeff D. Stobbe, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 28, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule (SCR) 22.17(2), the report of the referee, Michael F. 
Dubis, recommending that the court publicly reprimand Attorney 
Jeff D. Stobbe for professional misconduct.  No appeal has been 
filed. 
¶2 We approve and adopt the referee's findings of fact and 
conclusions of law.  We agree that Attorney Stobbe's misconduct 
No. 
2014AP2125-D   
 
2 
 
warrants a public reprimand.  We impose the full costs of this 
proceeding, which total $890.68 as of March 3, 2015. 
¶3 
Attorney Stobbe was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2002.  He resides in Muskego, Wisconsin.  Attorney 
Stobbe's 
Wisconsin 
law 
license 
has 
been 
administratively 
suspended since June 4, 2013, pursuant to SCR 31.10(1), as a 
result of his failure to satisfy mandatory continuing legal 
education requirements for the 2011-12 period.   
¶4 
On September 9, 2014, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a six-count complaint alleging that Attorney Stobbe 
committed misconduct in connection with five client matters.  
Michael Dubis was appointed referee on October 28, 2014.  On 
December 17, 2014, the parties entered into a comprehensive 
stipulation regarding both misconduct and discipline. 
¶5 
On January 29, 2015, the referee filed a report and 
recommendation accepting the parties' stipulation, adopting the 
factual findings set forth therein, and concluding that Attorney 
Stobbe engaged in the alleged misconduct.  The OLR filed a 
restitution statement on February 10, 2015, indicating it was 
not seeking restitution.  
¶6 
The OLR alleged and the parties stipulated that by 
failing to file a post-conviction motion or notice of appeal 
from a sentencing after probation revocation, prior to the time 
expiring for such filings, and by otherwise failing to act in 
No. 
2014AP2125-D   
 
3 
 
furtherance of his client A.Z.'s interests, Attorney Stobbe 
violated SCR 20:1.3.1   
¶7 
The OLR alleged and the parties stipulated that by 
failing to file a post-conviction motion or notice of appeal 
from a sentencing after revocation of extended supervision, 
prior to the time expiring for such filings, and by otherwise 
failing to act in furtherance of his client M.R.'s interests, 
Attorney Stobbe violated SCR 20:1.3.   
¶8 
The OLR alleged and the parties stipulated that by 
failing to file a post-conviction motion or notice of appeal 
from a sentencing after probation revocation, prior to the time 
expiring for such filings, and by otherwise failing to act in 
furtherance of his client D.M.'s interests, Attorney Stobbe 
violated SCR 20:1.3.   
¶9 
The OLR alleged and the parties stipulated that by 
failing to file compliant briefs and appendices in his client 
J.O.'s appeal, even after receiving orders from the court of 
appeals, Attorney Stobbe violated SCRs 20:1.3 and 20:3.4(c).2  
¶10 The OLR alleged and the parties stipulated that by 
failing to file compliant briefs and appendices in his client 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable  diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides that a lawyer shall not "knowingly 
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for 
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 
exists." 
No. 
2014AP2125-D   
 
4 
 
L.L.'s appeal, even after the court of appeals ordered him to do 
so, Attorney Stobbe violated SCRs 20:1.3 and 20:3.4(c).  
¶11 The OLR alleged and the parties stipulated that by 
failing to either pay sanctions imposed by the court in the 
matters of J.O. and L.L. or move for relief from the financial 
penalties, Attorney Stobbe violated SCR 20:3.4(c).  
¶12 This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous; 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. 
¶13 Briefly stated, over a period of several months in 
2010, Attorney Stobbe missed a series of filing deadlines for 
several clients, failed to file appropriate appellate briefs, 
and then failed to respond to court orders directing filing and 
imposing sanctions.  The record before us does not clearly 
indicate what led to this misconduct, but it appears that 
Attorney Stobbe was in poor health at the time.  
¶14 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact are erroneous.  Accordingly, we adopt them.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Stobbe 
violated the supreme court rules set forth above.  We further 
agree with the referee that a public reprimand is an appropriate 
sanction for the misconduct at issue here, and we agree that 
No. 
2014AP2125-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney Stobbe should be required to pay the full costs of the 
proceeding. 
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that Jeff D. Stobbe is publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Jeff D. Stobbe shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶17 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. 
2014AP2125-D   
 
 
 
1