Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Darin S. Harmon

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2003 WI 58 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-1149-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Darin S. Harmon, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Darin S. Harmon,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HARMON 
OPINION FILED: 
June 16, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 58 
 
 
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.  03-1149-D 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Darin S. Harmon, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Darin S. Harmon,  
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
June 16, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
On May 6, 2003, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and 
Attorney Darin S. Harmon filed a Stipulation asking this court 
to impose reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed on 
Attorney Harmon by the Iowa Supreme Court.  That court publicly 
reprimanded Attorney Harmon for misconduct stemming from his 
representation of a party to a dissolution proceeding.  Attorney 
Harmon was reprimanded for violating DR 5-105(B) of the Iowa 
Code 
of 
Professional 
Responsibility 
by 
engaging 
in 
an 
impermissible “issue” conflict and for communicating with a 
party known to be represented by counsel, in violation of DR 7-
104(A)(1).    
 
SCR 22.22(3) provides that this court shall impose the 
identical 
discipline 
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 
No. 03-1149-D 
2 
misconduct justifies substantially different discipline here.  
Neither OLR nor Attorney Harmon contend, nor does this court 
find, that any of these three exceptions exist.  
 
Accordingly,  
 
IT IS ORDERED that the Stipulation is accepted and Attorney 
Darin S. Harmon is hereby publicly reprimanded for professional 
misconduct pursuant to SCR 22.22. 
 
 
No. 03-1149-D 
2