Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James E. Pancratz

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 135 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP1469-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James E. Pancratz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
James E. Pancratz, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PANCRATZ 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 29, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 135
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This order is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
 
 
 
No.  2005AP1469-D  
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James E. Pancratz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
James E. Pancratz, 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
AUG 29, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
On June 2, 2005, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
filed a disciplinary complaint against Attorney James E. 
Pancratz asking this court to impose reciprocal discipline 
identical to that imposed on Attorney Pancratz by the Illinois 
Supreme Court.  OLR and Attorney Pancratz subsequently executed 
a stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.12 pursuant to which Attorney 
Pancratz would receive identical discipline to that imposed in 
the Illinois disciplinary proceeding, namely a three-month 
suspension 
of 
his 
license 
to 
practice 
law, 
imposed 
retroactively. 
 
SCR 22.22(3) provides that this court shall impose the 
identical discipline or license suspension unless the procedure 
in the 
other 
jurisdiction 
was so 
lacking 
in 
notice or 
opportunity to be heard as to constitute a due process 
violation; there was such an infirmity of proof establishing the 
misconduct that this court should not accept as final the 
misconduct finding; or the misconduct justifies substantially 
different discipline here.  Neither OLR nor Attorney Pancratz 
contend, nor does this court find, that any of these three 
exceptions exist. 
No.  2005AP1469-D 
 
2 
 
Accordingly, we accept the stipulation.   
 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of James E. Pancratz to 
practice law in the State of Wisconsin be suspended for three 
months, retroactively, effective October 18, 2004; 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Pancratz shall comply, 
if he has not already done so, with the requirements of SCR 
22.26 pertaining to activities following suspension. 
 
 
No.  2005AP1469-D 
 
2