Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Stephen B. Manion
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2016AP001080-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 21, 2016

2016 WI 88 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP1080-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Stephen B. Manion, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Stephen B. Manion, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MANION 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 21, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 88
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP1080-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Stephen B. Manion, Attorney at Law:   
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
 
Complainant, 
 
 
v. 
 
Stephen B. Manion,   
 
 
Respondent.   
FILED 
 
OCT 21, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter. 
On May 31, 2016, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a 
complaint and motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22,1 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 provides:  Reciprocal discipline.  
(1) 
An 
attorney 
on 
whom 
public 
discipline 
for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
shall promptly notify the director of the matter. 
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.  
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP1080-D   
 
2 
 
requesting this court suspend Attorney Stephen B. Manion's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of six months, 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a judgment 
or order of another jurisdiction imposing discipline 
for misconduct or a license suspension for medical 
incapacity of an attorney admitted to the practice of 
law or engaged in the practice of law in this state, 
the director may file a complaint in the supreme court 
containing all of the following:  
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order from the 
other jurisdiction.  
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the 
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the 
grounds set forth in sub.(3) that the imposition of 
the identical discipline or license suspension by the 
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual 
basis for the claim.  
(3) 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.  
(4) 
Except 
as 
provided 
in 
sub.(3), 
a 
final 
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney 
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity 
shall 
be 
conclusive 
evidence 
of 
the 
attorney's 
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a 
proceeding under this rule.  
No. 
2016AP1080-D   
 
3 
 
as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the 
Arizona Supreme Court, and impose costs.  Upon review, we agree 
that it is appropriate to impose a six-month suspension, 
substantially identical to that imposed by the Arizona Supreme 
Court.  We decline to award costs. 
¶2 
Attorney Manion was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1998.  He was admitted to practice law in Arizona 
in 2009.  He resides in Arizona.  
¶3 
On March 14, 2016, the Supreme Court of Arizona 
accepted an agreement for discipline by consent by which 
Attorney Manion was suspended for six months and one day, 
effective April 15, 2016, for two counts of professional 
misconduct.  The following facts are taken from the documents 
attached to the OLR's complaint relating to the Arizona 
disciplinary proceedings. 
¶4 
Attorney Manion communicated with an inmate client in 
a criminal matter almost exclusively through another inmate who 
was serving a sentence for criminal fraud. Attorney Manion's 
client suffered financial harm at the hands of the inmate who 
Attorney Manion used as the intermediary.  Attorney Manion also 
transferred funds, at the direction of multiple inmates, in a 
manner that allowed the inmates to circumvent prison policy 
thereby violating multiple Arizona trust account rules including 
ER 
1.4, 
ER 
1.15(a), 
ER 
8.4(d), 
Rule 
43(b)(1)(A), 
Rule 
43(b)(a)(C) and Rule 43(b)(5).   
¶5 
In addition, Attorney Manion assisted an inmate client 
in collecting a share of an inheritance.  Attorney Manion 
No. 
2016AP1080-D   
 
4 
 
distributed the money at the client's direction in a manner that 
allowed the client to circumvent prison policy.  The client also 
suffered financial harm due to the fraudulent actions of the 
same inmate Attorney Manion used as the intermediary in Count 
One.  By these actions Attorney Manion violated ER 1.4, ER 1.6, 
ER 1.7, and ER 8.4(d).  See Manion, Stephen Brian #026912; PDJ-
2015-9109 
(http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/101/March%202016/Manion,%20Step
hen%20Brian%20026912%20PDJ-2015-9109.pdf).  
¶6 
Attorney Manion did not notify the OLR of the Arizona 
suspension within 20 days of its effective date.   
¶7 
The OLR complaint alleges that by virtue of the 
Arizona suspension, Attorney Manion is subject to reciprocal 
discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22, and, by failing 
to notify the OLR of his suspension in Arizona for professional 
misconduct within 20 days of the effective date of its 
imposition, Attorney Manion violated SCR 22.22(1).  The OLR asks 
this court to suspend Attorney Manion's Wisconsin law license 
for six months as discipline reciprocal to that imposed in 
Arizona, and to impose costs. 
¶8 
On August 10, 2016, this court directed Attorney 
Manion to inform the court in writing within 20 days of any 
claim by him, predicated upon the grounds set forth in SCR 
22.22(3), that the imposition of discipline reciprocal to that 
imposed in Arizona would be unwarranted, and of the factual 
basis for any such claim.  No response was received. 
No. 
2016AP1080-D   
 
5 
 
¶9 
Under SCR 22.22(3), in reciprocal discipline matters, 
this court shall impose the identical discipline unless one of 
the exceptions enumerated in the rule is shown.  There is no 
indication that any of those exceptions apply in this case. 
Therefore, we impose discipline substantially identical to that 
imposed by the Supreme Court of Arizona. 
¶10 We decline to impose the costs of this proceeding on 
Attorney Manion.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Hooker, 2012 WI 100, ¶26, 343 Wis. 2d 397, 816 N.W.2d 310 
(noting that in reciprocal discipline cases where a referee is 
not appointed, costs are generally not imposed as there are no 
referee expenses and the proceedings are less involved).   
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Stephen B. Manion to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Stephen B. Manion 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. 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order, as well as compliance with all 
conditions of the disciplinary orders imposed on him by the 
Arizona Supreme Court required for reinstatement.  See SCR 
22.29(4)(c). 
 
No. 
2016AP1080-D   
 
 
 
1