Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Craig M. Hunt
Citation: 2011 WI 91
Docket Number: 2011AP001139-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 5, 2011

2011 WI 91 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP1139-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  Craig M. Hunt, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Craig M. Hunt, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HUNT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 5, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
2011 WI 91
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP1139-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Craig M. Hunt, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Craig M. Hunt, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
OCT 5, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter.  
We review the stipulation entered by Attorney Craig M. Hunt and 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) for the imposition of 
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of 
California.  After our review of the matter, we accept the 
stipulation.  By virtue of having been disbarred by the Supreme 
Court of California for professional misconduct, Attorney Hunt 
is subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to 
No. 
2011AP1139-D   
 
2 
 
SCR 22.22.1  We revoke Attorney Hunt's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  The OLR does not seek costs.  Accordingly, no costs 
will be imposed.  
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 provides, in part: 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.  
(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.  
No. 
2011AP1139-D   
 
3 
 
¶2 
Attorney Hunt was admitted to the State Bar of 
Wisconsin in March 1964.  He was admitted to practice law in 
California on January 7, 1971.  Attorney Hunt's Wisconsin law 
license was suspended on May 13, 1974, for nonpayment of state 
bar dues.  
¶3 
On or about November 4, 2007, the Supreme Court of 
California ordered that Attorney Hunt be disbarred from the 
practice of law in California.  Attorney Hunt's misconduct upon 
which his California disbarment consisted of multiple acts of 
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, moral turpitude, 
and violations of the conditions of his probation related to 
prior discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of California.  In 
re Craig M. Hunt on Discipline, State Bar Court of California 
Case No. 02-O-14794 (02-O-15949; 03-O-311; 03-O-1352; 03-O-
02422); 04-N-11190 Cons.  Attorney Hunt failed to notify the OLR 
of the Supreme Court of California's imposition of public 
discipline within 20 days of the effective date of the 
California discipline. 
¶4 
Attorney Hunt and the OLR stipulate to the revocation 
of Attorney Hunt's license to practice law in Wisconsin, 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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. 
2011AP1139-D   
 
4 
 
reciprocal to the discipline imposed in California.  The parties 
stipulate that the terms of the stipulation were not bargained 
for nor negotiated between the parties.  The stipulation 
consists 
of 
Attorney 
Hunt's 
admission 
to 
the 
facts 
and 
misconduct alleged by the OLR and Attorney Hunt's agreement to 
the level of discipline that the OLR Director is seeking in this 
matter.  Attorney Hunt represents and verifies that he fully 
understands the misconduct allegations, he fully understands the 
ramifications should the court impose the stipulated level of 
discipline, he fully understands his right to contest this 
matter, he fully understands his right to consult with and 
retain counsel, and in fact he is represented in this matter, 
and that his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and 
voluntarily.  Attorney Hunt also stipulates that he does not 
claim 
any 
of 
the 
potential 
defenses 
articulated 
in 
SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c).  
¶5 
Upon 
our 
review 
of 
the 
matter, 
we 
accept 
the 
stipulation and impose discipline identical to that imposed by 
the Supreme Court of California.  See SCR 22.22(3).  
¶6 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Craig M. Hunt to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order. 
¶7 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Craig M. Hunt 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. 
2011AP1139-D   
 
 
 
1