2013 WI 41

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2013AP133-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings

Against Jon E. Stanek, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

Complainant,

v.

Jon E. Stanek,

Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STANEK

OPINION FILED: May 16, 2013

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:
2013 WI 41

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further

editing and modification. The final

version will appear in the bound

volume of the official reports.

No. 2013AP133-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings

Against Jon E. Stanek, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

Complainant,

v.

Jon E. Stanek,

Respondent.

FILED

MAY 16, 2013

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license

suspended.

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a stipulation filed by the

Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Jon E. Stanek

pursuant to SCR 22.12

1 requesting this court to suspend Attorney

1 SCR 22.12 provides:

(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. 2013AP133-D

2

Stanek's license to practice law in Wisconsin as reciprocal

discipline identical to that imposed by the Supreme Court of

Minnesota.

¶2 According to the stipulation, Attorney Stanek became

licensed to practice law in Wisconsin in 2005, and practices in

Eau Claire. He has no prior Wisconsin disciplinary history.

¶3 In the stipulation Attorney Stanek acknowledges that

on November 26, 2012, the Supreme Court of Minnesota suspended

his Minnesota law license for 30 days for failing to comply with

the terms of a consent agreement for conditional admission and

making false statements to the director of Minnesota's Office of

Lawyers Professional Responsibility during a disciplinary

investigation. The Supreme Court of Minnesota found that those

actions violated Rules 3.4(c), 8.1(a) and (b), 8.4(c) and (d),

and 25 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.

¶4 Attorney Stanek states in the stipulation that he does

not claim that any of the conditions listed in SCR 22.22(3)(a)-

(c)

2 prevent the imposition of reciprocal discipline in 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.

2 SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c) states:
No. 2013AP133-D

3

case. Attorney Stanek and the OLR jointly request that Attorney

Stanek's license to practice law in this state be suspended for

30 days. The stipulation properly provides that it did not

result from plea bargaining. Attorney Stanek says he does not

contest the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR or the

discipline that the OLR director is seeking in this matter.

Attorney Stanek represents that he fully understands the

misconduct allegations; fully understands the ramifications

should the court impose the stipulated level of discipline;

fully understands his right to contest this matter; and fully

understands his right to consult with counsel. He further avers

that his entry into the stipulation was made knowingly and

voluntarily and represents his decision not to contest the

misconduct alleged or the type of discipline sought by the OLR

director.

¶5 Based upon our independent review, we determine that

the SCR 22.12 stipulation should be accepted and Attorney

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. 2013AP133-D

4

Stanek's license to practice law in Wisconsin should be

suspended for 30 days as reciprocal discipline to that imposed

by the Supreme Court of Minnesota. Since Attorney Stanek

entered into a stipulation and there was no need to appoint a

referee, we agree that costs should not be imposed in this case.

¶6 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jon E. Stanek to

practice law in the State of Wisconsin is suspended for a period

of 30 days, effective June 13, 2013.

¶7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jon E. Stanek 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.

¶8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all

conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See

SCR 22.28(2).
No. 2013AP133-D

1