Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Richard A. Kranitz

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2014 WI 47 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP2128-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Richard A. Kranitz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Richard A. Kranitz, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KRANITZ 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 1, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
         
 
COUNTY: 
       
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 47
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP2128-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Richard A. Kranitz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Richard A. Kranitz, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 1, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   In this disciplinary proceeding, we 
review a stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.121 between the Office of 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides: Stipulation. 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee. 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
2 
 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Richard A. Kranitz.  In the 
stipulation, Attorney Kranitz agrees with the OLR's position 
that his misconduct that resulted in a federal felony conviction 
for 
conspiracy 
to 
commit 
securities 
fraud 
warrants 
the 
imposition of a two-year suspension of his license to practice 
law in Wisconsin. 
¶2 
After fully reviewing the stipulation and the facts of 
this matter, we accept the stipulation and impose the two-year 
suspension jointly requested by the parties.  Given the OLR's 
statement that no funds came into Attorney Kranitz's control in 
connection with his misconduct and no individual victims were 
directly harmed, we do not impose any restitution obligation.  
Finally, in light of the parties' stipulation and the fact that 
no referee needed to be appointed in this matter, we do not 
impose any costs on Attorney Kranitz. 
¶3 
Attorney Kranitz was admitted to the practice of law 
in June 1969.  He most recently practiced in Grafton.  He has 
not been the subject of professional discipline prior to the 
present matter.  Following his federal conviction in 2013, this 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. 
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
3 
 
court summarily suspended his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.20.  His law license remains 
suspended. 
¶4 
On April 16, 2013, Attorney Kranitz entered a guilty 
plea to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1348, 1349, and 2, in the United 
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  United 
States v. Kranitz, CR No. 11-10415-NMG.  During the plea 
hearing, 
Attorney 
Kranitz 
acknowledged 
that 
the 
federal 
government would have been able to produce sufficient facts at 
trial to prove that he had participated in a conspiracy to pay 
secret kickbacks to a purported investment fund representative 
in exchange for having the fund pay inflated prices for shares 
of stock in a corporation, China Wi-Max Communications, Inc. 
(China Wi-Max), for which Attorney Kranitz served as a director 
and attorney.2  Attorney Kranitz's involvement in the conspiracy 
included drafting agreements and invoices that facilitated the 
stock 
purchase 
and 
attempted 
to 
conceal 
the 
kickback.  
Unbeknownst to Attorney Kranitz and the other co-conspirators, 
the purported investment fund representative was an undercover 
agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  Based on 
                                                 
2 Attorney Steven T. Berman, who was also licensed to 
practice law in Wisconsin, was the chief executive officer of 
China Wi-Max and was also convicted of conspiracy to commit 
securities fraud for the same kickback scheme.  In the 
disciplinary proceeding involving Attorney Berman, we suspended 
his license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of two 
years.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Berman, 2014 
WI 2, 351 Wis. 2d 771, 841 N.W.2d 50. 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
4 
 
the information provided by the prosecution and Attorney 
Kranitz's statements at the plea hearing, the federal district 
court accepted Attorney Kranitz's guilty plea. 
¶5 
On July 17, 2013, the federal court sentenced Attorney 
Kranitz to serve 18 months in prison and one year of supervised 
release, as well as levied a fine and imposed other conditions.  
As Attorney Kranitz has noted, while the federal court did not 
find that Attorney Kranitz needed to pay restitution to any 
individuals, it did order him and his co-conspirators to repay 
$16,000 to the federal government. 
¶6 
In the stipulation in this disciplinary proceeding, 
Attorney Kranitz admits that his actions in connection with the 
stock purchase and kickback scheme constituted criminal acts 
that reflect adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or 
fitness as a lawyer, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).3  He further 
agrees that a two-year suspension of his license to practice law 
in this state would be an appropriate level of discipline for 
his misconduct. 
¶7 
The stipulation also contains a set of representations 
by Attorney Kranitz.  He represents that he fully understands 
the misconduct allegations in the OLR's complaint and that he 
understands the ramifications that would follow this court's 
acceptance of the stipulation.  He further acknowledges that he 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:8.4(b) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects; . . . ." 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
5 
 
understands his right to contest the allegations in this matter, 
but he admits that he engaged in the misconduct alleged in the 
OLR's complaint.  He recognizes his right to consult with 
counsel and states that he has, in fact, been represented by 
counsel during the execution of the stipulation.  Attorney 
Kranitz avers that his entry into the stipulation is made 
knowingly and voluntarily.  In addition, the OLR indicates that 
the stipulation was not the result of plea-bargaining, and that 
it represents Attorney Kranitz's assent to the misconduct 
charged and the level of discipline sought by the OLR. 
¶8 
In its memorandum in support of the stipulation, the 
OLR states that it considered a number of prior cases in 
analyzing what sanction it would request.  Ultimately, it 
concluded that a two-year suspension was the proper level of 
discipline, reasoning that this matter is analogous to the 
misconduct found in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Stern, 2013 WI 46, 347 Wis. 2d 552, 830 N.W.2d 674 (two-year 
suspension imposed where attorney convicted in federal court of 
money laundering and sentenced to one year and one day of 
imprisonment); and 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Henningsen, 2004 WI 119, 275 Wis. 2d 285, 685 N.W.2d 523 (two-
year suspension imposed where attorney convicted of four counts 
of mail fraud and sentenced to 33 months of imprisonment).  The 
OLR 
also 
sought 
this 
same 
level 
of 
discipline 
in 
the 
disciplinary case against Attorney Steven Berman, one of 
Attorney Kranitz's co-conspirators.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Berman, 2014 WI 2, 351 Wis. 2d 771, 841 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
6 
 
N.W.2d 50.  The OLR further states that in fashioning its 
sanction request, it considered a number of aggravating factors, 
including the fact that the conduct involved intentional 
dishonesty and fraud for personal gain.  On the other hand, the 
OLR notes in mitigation that this is the first time Attorney 
Kranitz has received professional discipline in a legal career 
that has spanned more than four decades. 
¶9 
As briefly mentioned above, the OLR is not seeking a 
restitution award in this matter.  It states that Attorney 
Kranitz's misconduct was discovered in the course of an FBI 
"sting" operation, and therefore no individuals were directly 
harmed by Attorney Kranitz's misconduct.  Moreover, Attorney 
Kranitz did not take into his possession funds belonging to 
others. 
¶10 After closely reviewing this matter, we accept the 
stipulation and determine that Attorney Kranitz did engage in 
criminal acts in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).  We determine that 
a two-year suspension of his license to practice law in this 
state is an appropriate level of discipline to impose in light 
of the nature of the misconduct and the other factors present in 
this case.  We have already determined that a two-year 
suspension was the proper level of discipline to be imposed on 
Attorney Berman, and we do not see a significant distinction 
between their situations.  Although they played different roles, 
they were both co-conspirators in the same illegal scheme. 
¶11 We further conclude that the suspension should be made 
effective as of the date on which we summarily suspended 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
7 
 
Attorney Kranitz's license, August 9, 2013.  This is consistent 
with our practice in previous disciplinary proceedings involving 
a prior summary suspension following a criminal conviction.  
See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hughes, 2008 
WI 120, ¶13, 314 Wis. 2d 270, 756 N.W.2d 567; In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against George, 2008 WI 21, ¶31, 308 Wis. 2d 50, 746 
N.W.2d 236; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Burke, 2007 
WI 46, ¶16, 300 Wis. 2d 198, 730 N.W.2d 651. 
¶12 We do not impose any restitution award under the 
particular facts of this case.  We note, however, that any 
attorney petitioning for reinstatement from a disciplinary 
suspension of six months or more is required to allege and 
demonstrate that the attorney "has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by [the 
attorney's] misconduct . . . , or, if not, the [attorney's] 
explanation 
of 
the 
failure 
or 
inability 
to 
do 
so."  
SCR 22.29(4m). 
¶13 Finally, since this matter was brought to the court in 
the context of an SCR 22.12 stipulation without the appointment 
of a referee, we do not impose any costs on Attorney Kranitz. 
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Richard A. Kranitz 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two 
years, effective August 9, 2013. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richard A. Kranitz 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. 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
8 
 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c). 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
 
 
1