2014 WI 115

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2014AP1622-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against 

Joshua F. Stubbins, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Joshua F. Stubbins,

 Respondent. 

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STUBBINS

OPINION FILED: October 14, 2014

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2014 WI 115

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2014AP1622-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Joshua F. Stubbins, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Joshua F. Stubbins,

 Respondent.

FILED

OCT 14, 2014

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

revoked.

¶1 PER CURIAM. In this matter, we consider the petition 

of Attorney Joshua F. Stubbins for the consensual revocation of 

his license to practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme 

Court Rule (SCR) 22.19. Attorney Stubbins is the subject of 

ongoing investigations by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 

regarding four separate client matters. He acknowledges in his 

petition that he cannot successfully defend against the 
No. 2014AP1622-D 

2

misconduct allegations that have arisen out of those 

investigations.

¶2 Attorney Stubbins was admitted to the practice of law 

in this state in January 2007. During the time period relevant 

to the investigations, Attorney Stubbins was employed as an 

associate attorney with a Milwaukee law firm, where he worked 

primarily in the areas of defending consumer protection and 

products liability claims. Attorney Stubbins has not previously 

been the subject of professional discipline. On October 31, 

2013, Attorney Stubbins's license was administratively suspended 

for failure to pay bar dues and assessments and for failure to 

submit an annual trust account certification. His license was 

also subsequently suspended for failure to comply with mandatory 

continuing legal education reporting requirements. His license 

has remained administratively suspended up to the date of this 

opinion.

¶3 The OLR's summary of the pending investigations 

involving Attorney Stubbins that is attached to the petition for 

consensual revocation indicates that the OLR has received three 

grievances regarding four separate client matters. They will be 

briefly summarized below.

¶4 The first investigation involves E.W., who was a 

partner in the law firm where Attorney Stubbins worked. E.W. 

requested that the firm represent him in foreclosing on a land 

contract for a piece of real property that E.W. and his wife 

owned. In approximately the spring of 2009, the firm assigned 
No. 2014AP1622-D 

3

Attorney Stubbins to work on the foreclosure of the land 

contract. 

¶5 After Attorney Stubbins began working on the first 

foreclosure, E.W. and his wife entered into a second land 

contract for the property. The buyers under this second 

contract also defaulted. Consequently, Attorney Stubbins was 

directed to begin pursuing another foreclosure action against 

these second buyers.

¶6 Attorney Stubbins was to have filed the foreclosure 

complaints by October 2009. He did not do so, however, until 

July 2011. During the intervening nearly two years, Attorney 

Stubbins made multiple misrepresentations regarding the status 

of the matters, including falsely suggesting that certain 

actions, such as the service of a complaint, had been 

accomplished. By his evasion of certain questions and his 

misrepresentations, Attorney Stubbins led E.W. to believe that 

foreclosure actions had been initiated and were proceeding. 

Attorney Stubbins, however, filed the two foreclosure complaints 

in July 2011 only after E.W. had made numerous requests for 

information about the status of the foreclosure actions. 

Shortly after the complaints were filed, E.W. terminated the law 

firm's representation on both foreclosure matters and retained 

other counsel.1

 

1 At some point during the time Attorney Stubbins was 

working on the foreclosure matters, E.W. left the law firm.
No. 2014AP1622-D 

4

¶7 The OLR's investigation summary indicates that it is 

investigating possible violations of SCRs 20:1.3, 20:1.4(a)(3), 

20:1.4(a)(4), and 20:8.4(c) in this matter.

¶8 The second and third client representations at issue 

have been addressed in a consolidated OLR investigation. Both 

of those matters were brought to the OLR's attention by the 

former general counsel of the law firm.

¶9 In the second client representation, the law firm 

represented a company that was a holdover tenant on a commercial 

lease. The firm assigned Attorney Stubbins to terminate the 

tenancy, return the keys to the landlord, and assist with the 

computation of damages connected to rent payments during the 

holdover period. Attorney Stubbins failed to return the keys to 

the landlord, which led to the client being held responsible for 

seven months of double rent charges and the law firm having to 

make a claim on its malpractice insurance policy. In addition 

to not doing everything that he was tasked to do, Attorney 

Stubbins also billed the client for work that he never 

performed. This ultimately caused the law firm to reduce the 

client's bill by $11,000.

¶10 In the third client representation, the firm assigned 

Attorney Stubbins to defend an auto finance company against a 

claim that the finance company had improperly seized the 

plaintiff's vehicle and then had sold it at auction. 

¶11 During the pretrial phase of the litigation, the 

plaintiff's counsel served on Attorney Stubbins a notice of 

deposition for a finance company representative. After the 
No. 2014AP1622-D 

5

plaintiff's counsel sent a subsequent confirming letter, 

Attorney Stubbins responded that he had lost the deposition 

notice and would be unable to appear on the scheduled date. The 

plaintiff's counsel thereafter scheduled the representative's 

deposition for three separate subsequent dates. Each time 

Attorney Stubbins falsely told plaintiff's counsel that the 

client representative was ill and could not be deposed. On the 

last occasion, Attorney Stubbins went so far as to claim that 

the client representative was seriously ill and required kidney 

dialysis. When the deposition finally took place, the client 

representative testified that she had been unaware of the 

previously scheduled dates for her deposition, that she did not 

have any kidney-related health problems, and that she was not on 

dialysis.

¶12 Attorney Stubbins also made other misrepresentations 

to opposing counsel. For example, he told opposing counsel that 

he would produce certain information in discovery but that he 

could not do so yet because the client had not yet provided that 

information to him. The client subsequently acknowledged that 

it had provided the information at issue to Attorney Stubbins 

prior to his statement regarding the inability to produce.

¶13 The circuit court denied a summary judgment motion 

drafted by Attorney Stubbins and granted partial summary 

judgment as to liability to the plaintiff, leaving only the 

issue of damages to be tried. Attorney Stubbins failed to 

advise his client of these rather significant developments in 

the client's case. 
No. 2014AP1622-D 

6

¶14 In addition to filing the partial summary judgment 

motion, the plaintiff also filed a motion for sanctions against 

Attorney Stubbins. The circuit court granted the motion, which 

ultimately resulted in a sanction of $9,600 being paid by 

Attorney Stubbins personally. Attorney Stubbins also failed to 

advise his client that he had been sanctioned by the circuit 

court. 

¶15 Finally, Attorney Stubbins filed a notice of appeal 

from the grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiff 

without having obtained the client's consent to do so. The 

appeal was subsequently dismissed by the court of appeals.

¶16 The OLR states that for the second and third client 

matters, it is investigating potential violations of 

SCRs 20:1.3, 20:1.4(a), 20:3.4, 20:4.1(a), 20:8.4(c), and 

20:8.4(f).

¶17 In the final client representation, the law firm 

represented a defendant in a civil action. A mediation session 

was scheduled, but Attorney Stubbins failed to advise the client 

of that fact. He attended the mediation session on the client's 

behalf without being accompanied by a client representative. 

The mediation resulted in a written settlement agreement, which 

Attorney Stubbins signed on the client's behalf even though he 

had no authority from the client to enter into a settlement 

agreement. Although Attorney Stubbins had a number of 

subsequent email communications with the client over the next 

couple of weeks, he failed to inform the client that the 

mediation session had occurred and that he had entered into a 
No. 2014AP1622-D 

7

settlement agreement on behalf of the client. Indeed, Attorney 

Stubbins led the client to believe that the mediation had not 

yet occurred.

¶18 Attorney Stubbins's employment with the law firm ended 

several weeks after the mediation. The law firm and the client 

subsequently learned that Attorney Stubbins had settled the case 

without the client's knowledge or consent. The law firm was 

able to re-open the case and to settle the matter at a second 

mediation session on terms acceptable to the client.

¶19 The OLR states that potential violations arising out 

of this matter include violations of SCRs 20:1.2, 20:1.3, 

20:1.4(a), 20:4.1(a), 20:8.4(c), and 20:1.16(a)(2).

¶20 In its recommendation in support of Attorney 

Stubbins's petition, the OLR acknowledges that Attorney Stubbins 

has never been disciplined previously, but it emphasizes that 

Attorney Stubbins repeatedly lied to clients, to opposing 

counsel, and to members of his own law firm. He also engaged in 

a course of billing that was misleading and unethical. The OLR 

also points to two consensual revocation petitions that it 

contends involved misconduct that was similar or proportionate 

to the misconduct committed by Attorney Stubbins. See, e.g., 

In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Erlandson, 2005 WI 143, 

286 Wis. 2d 53, 704 N.W.2d 910 (granting consensual revocation 

petition involving allegations of ten potential violations); 

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Whitnall, 2003 WI 146, 

267 Wis. 2d 28, 673 N.W.2d 674 (granting consensual revocation 

petition involving six potential ethical violations). The OLR 
No. 2014AP1622-D 

8

asserts that Attorney Stubbins's behavior was a reflection of 

his character and demonstrates that he is not fit to engage in 

the practice of law in Wisconsin.

¶21 The OLR further states that it is not seeking 

restitution for any of Attorney Stubbins's misconduct. While it 

did find evidence that Attorney Stubbins had overbilled a client 

in one of the four matters, there was no evidence that Attorney 

Stubbins himself had ever been in possession or control of 

client funds, and the law firm subsequently reduced the client's 

bill.

¶22 As noted above, Attorney Stubbins's petition states 

that he cannot successfully defend himself against the 

misconduct allegations that have arisen from the OLR's 

investigations. In the petition Attorney Stubbins asserts that 

he is freely, voluntarily, and knowingly (1) giving up his right 

to contest the OLR's allegations of misconduct and (2) asking 

for the revocation of his license to practice law in this state. 

He also acknowledges that he has the right to retain counsel in 

this matter, but states that he has chosen to represent himself. 

Finally, Attorney Stubbins states that he is aware of the 

consequences of the revocation of his license, including his 

obligation to follow the requirements of SCR 22.26 and the need 

to complete the formal reinstatement process outlined in 

SCRs 22.29 through 22.33 in the event that he would ever seek 

the reinstatement of his license.

¶23 After reviewing the petition, the OLR's summary of 

misconduct allegations under investigation, and the OLR's 
No. 2014AP1622-D 

9

recommendation, we conclude that the petition should be granted. 

As shown by the OLR's summary of its investigations, Attorney 

Stubbins's repeated misrepresentations to his clients, to his 

law firm, and to opposing counsel; his billing for work that he 

never performed; his lack of diligence; and his multiple 

decisions to take legally significant actions (e.g., filing an 

appeal, settling a lawsuit, etc.) on behalf of his clients 

without their knowledge or consent demonstrates that Attorney 

Stubbins does not possess the necessary character to hold a 

license to practice law in this state. These were not one or 

two isolated instances, but rather a pattern of deceitful 

statements and unethical conduct.

¶24 Consistent with the OLR's recommendation, we do not 

impose any restitution obligation on Attorney Stubbins. While 

his conduct certainly harmed his clients, there is not a proper 

basis in this matter for an order requiring him to return money 

or property that he received from his clients.

¶25 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license 

revocation is granted.

¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Joshua F. 

Stubbins is revoked, effective the date of this order.

¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 

already done so, Joshua F. Stubbins shall comply with the 

provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 

license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.
No. 2014AP1622-D 

1