Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Barry S. Wagner
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2017AP002427-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: April 17, 2018

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 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