Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Joseph M. Capistrant

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2015 WI 88 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP2535-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Joseph M. Capistrant, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Joseph M. Capistrant, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CAPISTRANT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 18, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 88
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2014AP2535-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Joseph M. Capistrant, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Joseph M. Capistrant, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
AUG 18, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review Referee Daniel L. Icenogle's 
recommendation that the court suspend the Wisconsin law license 
of Attorney Joseph M. Capistrant for a period of 90 days for 
professional misconduct.  The referee also recommended that 
Attorney Capistrant pay the costs of the proceeding, which total 
$574.94 as of June 1, 2015. 
No. 
2014AP2535-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Because no appeal has been filed, we review the 
referee's report pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1  
After conducting our independent review of the matter, we agree 
with the referee that, based on Attorney Capistrant's failure to 
answer the complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR), the OLR is entitled to a default judgment.  We further 
agree with the referee that Attorney Capistrant's professional 
misconduct warrants a 90-day suspension of his Wisconsin law 
license, and that he should be ordered to pay the full costs of 
the proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Capistrant was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2007.  Attorney Capistrant is also licensed to 
practice law in Minnesota. 
¶4 
According 
to 
the 
OLR's 
complaint, 
Attorney 
Capistrant's Wisconsin law license is currently suspended for 
his failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal education 
(CLE) reporting requirements, failure to pay bar dues and 
assessments, and failure to file the required trust account 
certification.   
                                                 
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. 
No. 
2014AP2535-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
According 
to 
the 
OLR's 
complaint, 
Attorney 
Capistrant's Wisconsin law license was suspended during certain 
periods in the years 2010 through 2012 for his failure to comply 
with mandatory CLE reporting requirements. 
¶6 
The OLR filed the current complaint against Attorney 
Capistrant in October 2014.  The complaint alleges eight counts 
of 
professional 
misconduct 
in 
connection 
with 
Attorney 
Capistrant's work in seven legal matters during the years 2010 
through 2012. 
¶7 
Repeating the allegations of each separate matter here 
is not necessary.  Attorney Capistrant's conduct followed a 
common theme.  He practiced law with a suspended law license and 
without telling clients, courts, and opposing counsel about his 
license suspension.  He failed to diligently pursue certain 
cases, including matters that he allowed to languish after the 
circuit court or opposing counsel voiced concerns about his law 
license status.  He used letterhead that stated he was "admitted 
in the State of Wisconsin" when his Wisconsin law license was 
suspended.   
¶8 
The complaint also alleges that in April 2011, 
Attorney Capistrant filed a petition for reinstatement of his 
Wisconsin law license, in which he failed to disclose all 
incidents of practice during his period of suspension. 
¶9 
Based on this course of conduct, the OLR alleged in 
its complaint that Attorney Capistrant:  
• practiced law on behalf of various clients despite 
the fact that his Wisconsin law license had been 
No. 
2014AP2535-D   
 
4 
 
suspended, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 
31.10(1)2 
and 
SCR 22.26(2),3 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f)4 (Count 
One);  
                                                 
2 SCR 31.10(1) provides: 
If a lawyer fails to comply with the attendance 
requirement of SCR 31.02, fails to comply with the 
reporting requirement of SCR 31.03(1), or fails to pay 
the late fee under SCR 31.03(2), the board shall serve 
a notice of noncompliance on the lawyer.  This notice 
shall advise the lawyer that the lawyer’s state bar 
membership 
shall 
be 
automatically 
suspended 
for 
failing to file evidence of compliance or to pay the 
late fee within 60 days after service of the notice.  
The board shall certify the names of all lawyers so 
suspended under this rule to the clerk of the supreme 
court, all supreme court justices, all court of 
appeals and circuit court judges, all circuit court 
commissioners appointed under SCR 75.02(1) in this 
state, all circuit court clerks, all juvenile court 
clerks, 
all 
registers 
in 
probate, 
the 
executive 
director of the state bar of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin 
State Public Defender’s Office, and the clerks of the 
federal district courts in Wisconsin.  A lawyer shall 
not engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while 
his or her state bar membership is suspended under 
this rule.  
3 SCR 22.26(2) provides: 
An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
No. 
2014AP2535-D   
 
5 
 
• failed 
to 
act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
promptness in several client matters, contrary to 
SCR 20:1.35 (Count Two);  
• failed to advise clients, courts, and opposing 
counsel of the suspension of his Wisconsin law 
license, and thereby failed to explain matters to 
the extent reasonably necessary to permit his 
clients to make an informed decision regarding 
representation, contrary to SCR 20:1.4(b)6 (Count 
Three); engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, contrary to 
SCR 20:8.4(c)7 (Count Four); failed to notify his 
clients by certified mail of his license suspension 
and failed to advise them to seek legal advice 
                                                                                                                                                             
4 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
5 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
6 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides that "[a] lawyer shall explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding the representation." 
7 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2014AP2535-D   
 
6 
 
elsewhere, contrary to SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b),8 
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f) (Count Five); and failed 
to provide written notification of his suspension 
and inability to act as an attorney to the courts 
and 
to 
opposing 
counsel, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 22.26(1)(c),9 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f) (Count 
Six); 
• failed to keep his clients reasonably informed and 
to 
explain 
matters 
to 
the 
extent 
reasonably 
necessary to permit his clients to make an informed 
decision 
regarding 
representation, 
contrary 
to 
                                                 
8 SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) provide that, on or before the 
effective date of license suspension, an attorney whose license 
is suspended shall "[n]otify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as an attorney 
following the effective date of the suspension or revocation" 
and "[a]dvise the clients to seek legal advice of their choice 
elsewhere." 
9 SCR 22.26(1)(c) provides that, on or before the effective 
date of license suspension, an attorney whose license is 
suspended shall: 
Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation.  The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence. 
No. 
2014AP2535-D   
 
7 
 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)10 and SCR 20:1.4(b) (Count Seven); 
and  
• made 
false 
or 
misleading 
communications 
about 
himself 
and 
his 
legal 
services, 
contrary 
to 
SCR 20:7.1(a)11 and SCR 20:7.5(a)12 (Count Eight). 
¶10 The OLR personally served the complaint and an order 
to answer on Attorney Capistrant.  Attorney Capistrant failed to 
file an answer, and the OLR moved for default judgment.   
¶11 The referee sent notice of a hearing on the OLR's 
motion for default judgment by certified mail to Attorney 
Capistrant, who signed for the certified letter but failed to 
appear for the hearing.   
¶12 The referee issued a decision recommending that this 
court grant the OLR's motion for default judgment.  In so doing, 
                                                 
10 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides that a lawyer shall "keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
11 SCR 20:7.1(a) provides that a lawyer shall not make a 
false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the 
lawyer's 
services, 
such 
that 
it 
"contains 
a 
material 
misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to 
make the statement considered as a whole not materially 
misleading." 
12 SCR 20:7.5(a) provides: 
A lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead or 
other 
professional 
designation 
that 
violates 
SCR 
20:7.1. A trade name may be used by a lawyer in 
private practice if it does not imply a connection 
with 
a 
government 
agency 
or 
with 
a 
public 
or 
charitable legal services organization and is not 
otherwise in violation of SCR 20:7.1. 
No. 
2014AP2535-D   
 
8 
 
the referee implicitly incorporated by reference the allegations 
in the OLR's complaint and deemed them established.  The referee 
also recommended a 90-day suspension of Attorney Capistrant's 
Wisconsin law license and the imposition of the full costs of 
this proceeding against him.   
¶13 Attorney Capistrant did not appeal from the referee's 
report and recommendation.  Thus, we proceed with our review of 
the matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).  We review a referee's 
findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard.  See 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, 
¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  We review the referee's 
conclusions of law de novo.  Id.  We determine the appropriate 
level of discipline independent 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. 
¶14 We agree with the referee that Attorney Capistrant 
should be declared in default.  Although the OLR effected 
personal service of its complaint, and although Attorney 
Capistrant was given notice of the hearing on the motion for 
default judgment, he failed to appear or present a defense. 
Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to declare him in default. 
¶15 We agree with the referee that the allegations in the 
OLR's 
complaint 
have 
been 
established 
and 
that 
Attorney 
Capistrant engaged in the eight counts of misconduct alleged in 
the complaint.  We further agree that a 90-day license 
suspension is an appropriate sanction for Attorney Capistrant's 
misconduct.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
No. 
2014AP2535-D   
 
9 
 
Grady, 2003 WI 144, 267 Wis. 2d 115, 671 N.W.2d 649 (imposing a 
90-day license suspension for attorney's representation of 
clients 
for 
two 
years 
after 
license 
suspension 
and 
his 
subsequent denial of this conduct to OLR staff).  Finally, we 
agree that Attorney Capistrant should pay the full costs of the 
proceeding.  
¶16 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Joseph M. Capistrant 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 
90 days, effective September 17, 2015. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Joseph M. Capistrant shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joseph M. Capistrant 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. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
 
No. 
2014AP2535-D   
 
 
 
1