Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Alan R. Stewart

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2017 WI 106 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2017AP1168-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Alan R. Stewart, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Alan R. Stewart, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STEWART 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 21, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2017 WI 106
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP1168-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Alan R. Stewart, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Alan R. Stewart, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 21, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review Referee John B. Murphy's 
recommendation that Attorney Alan R. Stewart be declared in 
default and that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended for 60 days for professional misconduct.  The referee 
also recommended that Attorney Stewart pay the full costs of the 
proceeding, which are $805.85 as of October 11, 2017. 
¶2 
We declare Attorney Stewart to be in default.  We 
agree with the referee that Attorney Stewart's professional 
No. 
2017AP1168-D   
 
2 
 
misconduct warrants a 60-day suspension of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  We also agree that Attorney Stewart 
should pay the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Stewart was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1992.  He was registered as a patent attorney with 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on March 
19, 2001.1  He practices in Appleton.  
¶4 
This court recently imposed a nine-month disciplinary 
suspension on Attorney Stewart for two counts of failing to 
complete and file a patent application or act in furtherance of 
his client's interests in violation of SCR 20:1.3; two counts of 
failing to keep his client reasonably informed of the status of 
the matter and respond to his client's telephone calls and 
emails in violation of SCR 20:l.4(a)(3) and (4); two counts of 
receiving an advance fee from his client and failing to complete 
and file the patent application in violation of SCR 20:1.5(a); 
two counts of failing to refund any unearned advance fee in 
violation of SCR 20:1.16(d); one count of misrepresenting to his 
client that he completed the patent application in violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(c); and two counts of failing to provide the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) with a written response to the 
grievance in violation of SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via 
                                                 
1 Attorney Stewart is not currently registered as a patent 
attorney with the USPTO.  As of July 16, 2015, he is registered 
only as a patent agent. 
No. 
2017AP1168-D   
 
3 
 
SCR 20:8.4(h).  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Stewart, 2017 WI 41, 374 Wis. 2d 642, 893 N.W.2d 572. 
¶5 
In addition, Attorney Stewart's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin is also administratively suspended due to his 
failure to pay mandatory bar dues, failure to file a trust 
account certification, and failure to comply with continuing 
legal education requirements. 
¶6 
On June 16, 2017, the OLR filed this complaint against 
Attorney Stewart alleging three counts of misconduct pertaining 
to 
his 
continuing 
to 
practice 
law 
before 
the 
USPTO.  
Specifically, as the complaint alleged, USPTO regulations 
require that trademark matters be handled by a registered 
attorney, defined as "an individual who is a member in good 
standing in the highest court of any state."  Attorney Stewart 
has been administratively suspended from the practice of law in 
Kentucky and Minnesota since at least 2013, for non-payment of 
bar dues.   
¶7 
On February 10, 2015, this court temporarily suspended 
Attorney Stewart's license to practice law due to his failure to 
cooperate in two separate OLR investigations.  The OLR sent 
Attorney Stewart notice of that temporary license suspension.  
Attorney Stewart filed documents or otherwise took action in 
five different trademark matters on March 16, 2015, April 27, 
2015, May 18, 2015, and June 6, 2015.  On October 2, 2015, the 
Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) filed a complaint with 
the USPTO against Attorney Stewart relating to his continuing 
No. 
2017AP1168-D   
 
4 
 
practice before the USPTO despite not being a member in good 
standing in any state bar. 
¶8 
Attorney Stewart did not respond the OED complaint and 
was eventually deemed to be in default; the USPTO issued an 
Initial Decision and Order on Default Judgment on December 16, 
2015, finding, inter alia, that Attorney Stewart "violated 37 
C.F.R. §11.505 by continuing to practice trademark law before 
the USPTO despite not being a member in good standing in any 
state bar."  The USPTO excluded him from practice before the 
USPTO. 
¶9 
On February 10, 2016, the OED advised the OLR of this 
matter.  On February 25, 2016, the OLR provided Attorney Stewart 
with written notice of its formal investigation, requesting a 
response from Attorney Stewart.  Despite repeated requests, 
Attorney Stewart has failed to respond to the OLR's inquiry. 
¶10 Accordingly, the OLR's complaint alleged: 
Count One: By continuing to practice trademark law 
before the USPTO despite not being a member in good 
standing in any state bar, Attorney Stewart violated 
SCR 20:5.5(a)(1).2 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:5.5(a)(1) provides:   
A lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction 
where doing so violates the regulation of the legal 
profession in that jurisdiction except that a lawyer 
admitted to practice in Wisconsin does not violate 
this rule by conduct in another jurisdiction that is 
permitted in Wisconsin under SCR 20:5.5(c) and (d) for 
lawyers not admitted in Wisconsin. 
No. 
2017AP1168-D   
 
5 
 
Count Two:  By representing himself to the USPTO as an 
attorney of record in Wisconsin in four separate 
trademark applications, despite knowing that he was 
suspended from the practice of law, Attorney Stewart 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c).3 
Count Three:  By willfully failing to provide the OLR 
with a written response to the OLR's investigation, 
Attorney Stewart violated SCR 22.03(2)4 and 22.03(6),5 
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).6 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
4 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the respondent of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise.  The 
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail 
request for a written response.  The director may 
allow additional time to respond.  Following receipt 
of the response, the director may conduct further 
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation.   
5 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"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." 
6 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides:  "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)." 
No. 
2017AP1168-D   
 
6 
 
¶11 The referee was appointed on August 11, 2017.  After 
Attorney Stewart failed to file an answer to the complaint, the 
OLR filed a notice of motion and motion for default judgment. 
The referee conducted a scheduling conference by telephone at 
which Attorney Stewart appeared pro se and admitted he had not 
filed an answer and stated he had no objection to the OLR's 
motion for a default judgment.  With the referee's permission, 
Attorney 
Stewart 
filed 
a 
brief 
addressing 
the 
issue 
of 
sanctions, asking that any suspension be imposed concurrent with 
his present disciplinary suspension. 
¶12 The OLR filed a response in which it agreed that 
Attorney Stewart's suspension should be imposed concurrent with 
his present disciplinary suspension, which is scheduled to 
expire on January 26, 2018.   
¶13 The referee issued his report and recommendation on 
September 22, 2017.  The referee did not rule on the OLR's 
default motion, per se, but his report explains that Attorney 
Stewart stated both during the scheduling conference and, in 
writing, in his ensuing brief on sanctions, that he did not 
oppose the motion.  As such, it is clear from the record that 
Attorney Stewart received adequate notice of the default motion.  
The facts of record provide a reasonable basis for the referee's 
implicit finding that Attorney Stewart should be deemed to have 
defaulted.   
¶14 The referee found that based on the facts alleged in 
the 
complaint, 
Attorney 
Stewart's 
failure 
to 
answer 
the 
complaint, his statements at the scheduling conference and in 
No. 
2017AP1168-D   
 
7 
 
his brief, that the OLR has met its burden of proof with respect 
to proving all three counts of misconduct alleged in the 
complaint.  With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, 
the referee observed that continued practice of law after a 
suspension is a major violation of the supreme court rules but 
acknowledged 
that 
Attorney 
Stewart's 
explanation 
provides 
support for some leniency.  Accordingly, the referee recommended 
that Attorney Stewart's license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended for 60 days and agreed that it was appropriate to 
impose that suspension concurrent with his current suspension.  
The referee further recommended that Attorney Stewart be ordered 
to pay the entire cost of the disciplinary proceeding. 
¶15 Attorney Stewart did not appeal the referee's decision 
so we consider this matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).7  
¶16 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
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.  The court may impose 
whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of the referee's 
recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
                                                 
7 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. 
No. 
2017AP1168-D   
 
8 
 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  We 
adopt the referee's findings of fact and agree with the 
referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Stewart violated the 
supreme court rules referenced above. 
¶17 Although Attorney Stewart was given the opportunity to 
file an answer and present a defense to the OLR's complaint, he 
failed to do so and advised the referee that he had no objection 
to being deemed in default.  Accordingly, we declare him to be 
in default. 
¶18 We agree with the referee that a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney Stewart's license to practice law in Wisconsin, imposed 
concurrent with his present suspension, is an appropriate 
sanction for his misconduct.  Neither the parties nor the 
referee cited case law in support of the recommended discipline.  
However, we find the matter of In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Osicka, 2014 WI 34, 353 Wis. 2d 675, 847 N.W.2d 333 
instructive in two respects.  First, a concurrent suspension is 
appropriate.  All of the alleged misconduct in this matter 
occurred between March and October 2015.  The underlying 
disciplinary proceeding giving rise to the nine-month suspension 
was filed in February 2016 and pertained to misconduct dating 
from 2013 and 2014.  As such, it appears that all of the 
misconduct could have been addressed in a single proceeding, 
which would have resulted in a single sanction.  It thus appears 
that a consecutive suspension would not be a fair or proper 
result in these circumstances.  See, e.g., Osicka, 2014 WI 34, 
¶24 
(imposing 
license 
suspension 
concurrent 
with 
prior 
No. 
2017AP1168-D   
 
9 
 
suspension where "we see no reason why the allegations in this 
complaint could not have been included in the [prior complaint] 
either 
originally 
or 
by 
amending 
the 
complaint 
in 
that 
proceeding.")   
¶19 Second, although all disciplinary matters are unique, 
we imposed a 60-day suspension on Attorney Osicka for continuing 
to practice law while his license was administratively suspended 
and for failing to cooperate with the ensuing OLR investigation.  
Id.  We conclude that a 60-day suspension of Attorney Stewart's 
license is appropriate to protect the public, the courts, and 
the 
legal 
system 
from 
repetition 
of 
Attorney 
Stewart's 
misconduct.  It will impress upon the attorney the seriousness 
of his misconduct and will deter other attorneys from committing 
similar misconduct.  The OLR does not seek restitution and no 
restitution is ordered.  Finally, we agree with the referee that 
Attorney Stewart should bear the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Alan R. Stewart to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective November 26, 2017, to run concurrent with the license 
suspension imposed in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Stewart, 2017 WI 41, 374 Wis. 2d 642, 893 N.W.2d 572. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Alan R. Stewart shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $805.85. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Alan R. Stewart shall comply with the 
No. 
2017AP1168-D   
 
10 
 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney 
whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
¶23 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Alan R. Stewart's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues, failure 
to file a trust account certification, and failure to comply 
with continuing legal education requirements, will remain in 
effect until each reason for the administrative suspension has 
been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 
 
No. 
2017AP1168-D   
 
 
 
1