2018 WI 36

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2017AP2427-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Barry S. Wagner, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Barry S. Wagner,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WAGNER

OPINION FILED: April 17, 2018

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2018 WI 36

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2017AP2427-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Barry S. Wagner, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Barry S. Wagner,

 Respondent.

FILED

APR 17, 2018

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly 

reprimanded. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 

and Attorney Barry S. Wagner have filed a stipulation pursuant 

to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 that Attorney Wagner be 

publicly reprimanded as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by

the Supreme Court of Arizona. After reviewing the matter, we 

approve the stipulation and impose the stipulated reciprocal 

discipline. In light of the parties' stipulation and the fact 
No. 2017AP2427-D 

2

that no referee needed to be appointed, we impose no costs upon 

Attorney Wagner.

¶2 Attorney Wagner was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 2000. He was admitted to practice law in Arizona 

in 2004. Attorney Wagner's Wisconsin law license has been 

suspended since October 2006 for failure to pay bar dues and 

since May 2007 for failure to fulfill continuing legal education 

requirements. Attorney Wagner has not been the subject of 

previous professional discipline in this state.

¶3 On March 22, 2017, the State Bar of Arizona and 

Attorney Wagner, through counsel, filed an agreement for 

discipline by consent with the Supreme Court of Arizona. On 

April 14, 2017, the State Bar of Arizona reprimanded Attorney 

Wagner, based on his professional misconduct. As part of their 

order, the Arizona court required Attorney Wagner to be on 

disciplinary probation for two years and complete trust account 

ethics training. The Arizona Supreme Court found that Attorney 

Wagner's actions violated the Arizona Rules of Professional 

Conduct by failing to safe keep property and by violating 

specific rules regarding trust account management. Attorney 

Wagner did not notify the OLR of the Arizona reprimand within 

twenty days of its effective date. 

¶4 On December 13, 2017, the OLR filed a disciplinary 

complaint alleging that Attorney Wagner should be subject to 

reciprocal discipline due to the public reprimand imposed by the 

Supreme Court of Arizona. On February 22, 2018, after the OLR's 

complaint had been served on Attorney Wagner, the OLR and 
No. 2017AP2427-D 

3

Attorney Wagner entered into a stipulation whereby Attorney 

Wagner agreed that the facts alleged in the OLR's complaint 

supported the imposition of a public reprimand as reciprocal 

discipline.

¶5 Under SCR 22.22(3),

1 this court shall impose the 

identical discipline imposed in another jurisdiction unless one 

or more of three exceptions apply. In his stipulation, Attorney 

Wagner states that he does not claim any of the exceptions in 

SCR 22.22(3). He agrees that this court should impose the 

public reprimand sought by the OLR.

¶6 Attorney Wagner further states that the stipulation 

was not the result of plea bargaining, that he does not contest 

the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR or the discipline 

that the OLR director is seeking in this matter, that he fully 

understands the ramifications should the court impose the 

 

1 SCR 22.22(3) provides: 

The supreme court shall impose the identical 

discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 

the following is present:

(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 

so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 

constitute a deprivation of due process.

(b) There was such an infirmity of proof 

establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 

the supreme court could not accept as final the 

conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 

incapacity.

(c) The misconduct justifies substantially 

different discipline in this state.
No. 2017AP2427-D 

4

stipulated level of discipline, that he fully understands his 

right to consult with counsel and has consulted with an Arizonalicensed counsel about this matter, and that his entry into the 

stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily and represents his 

decision not to contest the misconduct in the complaint or the 

level of discipline sought by the OLR director. 

¶7 Having considered this matter, we accept the 

stipulation and impose a public reprimand, as discipline 

reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Arizona. 

Because this matter has been resolved through a stipulation 

without the appointment of a referee and the OLR has not sought

the imposition of any costs, we do not impose costs in this 

matter. 

¶8 IT IS ORDERED that Barry S. Wagner is publicly 

reprimanded.
No. 2017AP2427-D 

1