Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Louis A. Stockman
Citation: 2012 WI 110
Docket Number: 2012AP001395-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 10, 2012

2012 WI 110 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP1395-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Louis A. Stockman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Louis A. Stockman, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STOCKMAN     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 10, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
  
 
 
2012 WI 110
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP1395-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Louis A. Stockman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Louis A. Stockman, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 10, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter.  
On June 22, 2012, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a 
complaint and motion pursuant to SCR 22.22 requesting that this 
court suspend the license of Attorney Louis A. Stockman for a 
period of five months as reciprocal discipline identical to that 
imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court. 
No. 
2012AP1395-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Attorney Stockman was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1999 and was previously admitted to practice law in 
Minnesota in 1993. 
¶3 
The OLR's complaint noted that on February 17, 2012, 
the 
Minnesota 
Supreme Court suspended Attorney Stockman's 
license to practice law in Minnesota with no right to petition 
for reinstatement for a minimum of five months, effective 
March 3, 2012.  The Minnesota Supreme Court found that Attorney 
Stockman's 
conduct 
violated 
multiple 
Minnesota 
Rules 
of 
Professional Conduct.  Attorney Stockman's misconduct consisted 
of negligent misappropriation and mishandling of client funds, 
commingling personal and client funds, failure to maintain 
required trust account records, sharing legal fees with a non-
lawyer assistant, failure to diligently resolve a client matter 
and return a contingent fee to his client trust account, failure 
to clearly communicate the basis and rate of fees, failure to 
provide a client with a settlement statement and remit personal 
funds to a client, and engaging in a pattern of client-related 
misconduct. 
¶4 
On July 17, 2012, following the OLR's filing of an 
affidavit of service of the complaint on Attorney Stockman, this 
court issued an order directing Attorney Stockman to show cause 
why the imposition of the identical discipline imposed by the 
Minnesota Supreme Court would be unwarranted.  Attorney Stockman 
failed to respond to the order to show cause. 
No. 
2012AP1395-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
Under SCR 22.22(3),1 in reciprocal discipline matters, 
this court shall impose the identical discipline unless one of 
the enumerated exceptions is shown.  There is no indication that 
any of those exceptions apply in this case. 
¶6 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Louis A. Stockman to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of five 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶7 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Louis A. Stockman shall 
comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to the 
duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin 
has been suspended. 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22(3) states as follows: 
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. 
2012AP1395-D   
 
 
 
1