2018 WI 36



# S UPREME 

# C OURT OF 

# W ISCONSIN

C ASE N O .: 2017AP2427

- D
C OMPLETE T ITLE : 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

O PINION F ILED : April 17, 2018
S UBMITTED ON B RIEFS :
O RAL A RGUMENT :

S OURCE OF A PPEAL :
C OURT :
C OUNTY :
J UDGE :

J USTICES :
C ONCURRED :
D ISSENTED :
N OT P ARTICIPATING :

A TTORNEYS :2018 WI 36

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volum e 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 factNo. 2017AP2427

- D

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

Attor ney 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 du es 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 co urt 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

C onduct by failing to safe kee p 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 disciplina ry
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 andNo. 2017AP2427

- D

3 Atto rney 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 th e
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

publ ic 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 s eeking 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

con stitute 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 mis conduct 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 Arizona

licensed 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