Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Eric K. Graf
Citation: 2003 WI 122
Docket Number: 2002AP002196-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: August 12, 2003

2003 WI 122 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-2196-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Eric K. Graf, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Eric K. Graf,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GRAF 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 12, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 122 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-2196-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Eric K. Graf, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Eric K. Graf,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
AUG 12, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney Eric K. Graf's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin 
be 
suspended 
for 
a 
period 
of 
two 
years 
for 
professional misconduct. The referee also recommended that 
Attorney Graf be required to pay the costs of the proceeding.  
Attorney Graf did not appeal this report and recommendation.   
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and agree that the seriousness of Attorney 
No. 
02-2196-D   
 
2 
 
Graf's professional misconduct warrants the suspension of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of two years.  
We further agree that he should pay the costs of this 
proceeding.   
¶3 
Attorney Graf was admitted to practice in 1981.  His 
license to practice law in Wisconsin is presently under 
suspension.  Attorney Graf was administratively suspended on 
June 2, 1998, for failing to establish compliance with mandatory 
Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements.  He later 
submitted a petition for reinstatement in which he averred that 
his practice during his period of suspension had been "very 
infrequent."  Upon investigation the Board of Professional 
Responsibility 
(Board) 
concluded 
that 
Attorney 
Graf 
had 
practiced law during his suspension.  Attorney Graf also failed 
to cooperate with the Office of Lawyer Regulations' (OLR) 
subsequent efforts to investigate him.  By order dated August 
27, 2001, Attorney Graf was privately reprimanded for that 
misconduct and ordered to pay the costs of the OLR proceeding. 
He failed to pay the OLR costs and, by order dated February 26, 
2002, his license was again suspended. 
¶4 
The facts giving rise to this disciplinary matter 
arise 
from 
the 
OLR's 
investigation 
into 
Attorney 
Graf's 
extensive unauthorized practice of law and other misconduct with 
respect to several client matters during the various periods he 
was under suspension.  Attorney Graf has not responded to the 
OLR's attempts to investigate him.  Despite numerous attempts, 
No. 
02-2196-D   
 
3 
 
the OLR was unable to effect service of the complaint upon 
Attorney Graf, either in person or by mail.   
¶5 
Ultimately, the matter was submitted to Referee Janet 
Jenkins and, on October 10, 2002, the OLR filed a Motion for 
Default.  A hearing on the OLR's motion was held on January 2, 
2003.  Attorney Graf did not appear at the hearing.  The referee 
made the following findings of fact and recommendations based on 
the complaint and the evidence presented by the OLR at the 
hearing, and ultimately granted the OLR's motion. 
¶6 
The OLR presented substantial evidence of Attorney 
Graf's misconduct with respect to a grievance involving his 
representation of Andrea Utrie (Ms. Utrie), who formerly taught 
in the Beaver Dam Unified School District (School District). 
¶7 
In April 1999 the School District reassigned Ms. Utrie 
to another school within the district.  Ms. Utrie was unhappy 
about this action and retained Attorney Graf to represent her.  
In July 1999 the School District informed Attorney Graf that the 
Beaver Dam Education Association (Teachers' Union) was Ms. 
Utrie's exclusive representative for grievances against the 
School District. 
¶8 
Ms. Utrie accepted a job as a teacher with another 
school district in the summer of 1999 but she advised Attorney 
Graf that she wished to pursue her grievance against the School 
District.  
¶9 
The School District denied Ms. Utrie's grievance in 
September 1999 and the Teachers' Union declined to pursue the 
matter.    
No. 
02-2196-D   
 
4 
 
¶10 At this time Attorney Graf advised Ms. Utrie that her 
claim was against the Teacher's Union and would likely be an 
expensive endeavor.  Ms. Utrie indicated that she did not wish 
to sue the Teachers' Union.  She wanted to continue her claims 
against the School District. 
¶11 In November 1999 Attorney Graf drafted a complaint 
against the School District alleging wrongful acts on the part 
of the School District against Ms. Utrie and seeking itemized 
damages for lost compensation.  Ms. Utrie signed the complaint 
on November 15, 1999.   
¶12 Attorney Graf never filed the claim against the School 
District.  Nonetheless, he repeatedly assured Ms. Utrie that he 
had obtained sheriff's service of the claim on the School 
District.  In addition, he represented to Ms. Utrie and 
subsequently to OLR in a March 31, 2001, submission, that he had 
conducted witness interviews with potential witnesses.  However, 
he failed to produce any interview notes or documentation of 
such interviews when requested to do so.  
¶13 In the spring of 2000 Attorney Graf failed to respond 
to numerous telephone calls and e-mails from Ms. Utrie in which 
she sought information about the progress of her claim against 
the School District. 
¶14 On May 11, 2000, Attorney Graf provided a written 
response to Ms. Utrie's stated desire to settle her claim 
against the School District, asking her specifically what relief 
she requested. 
No. 
02-2196-D   
 
5 
 
¶15 On June 9, 2000, Attorney Graf and Ms. Utrie had a 
meeting.  At this time Attorney Graf was under CLE suspension 
but he did not tell Ms. Utrie of his license suspension.  Ms. 
Utrie requested a copy of the claim she was told had been filed 
against the School District, proof of service, and copies of 
witness statements.  Attorney Graf again reiterated that he had 
obtained service on the School District and had contacted 
witnesses, and that documentation of such would be provided 
later.  He never gave Ms. Utrie anything to support his 
assertions that the claim against the School District had been 
filed and served.   
¶16 On July 3, 2000, Ms. Utrie learned that there was no 
record of any claim having been served on the School District. 
In response to Ms. Utrie's questions Attorney Graf stated that 
he had sent a "short" notice of claim by registered mail and 
that he must have sent along the "legal" version by regular 
mail. 
¶17 On July 7, 2000, Ms. Utrie sent Attorney Graf a 
certified letter terminating his representation and demanding 
that he return $1500 of the $2000 retainer she had paid.  She 
further demanded an itemized statement of services rendered and 
the return of certain portions of the file.  Attorney Graf did 
not respond to Ms. Utrie's letter.  
¶18 Ms. Utrie then asked another attorney to represent 
her.  This attorney contacted Attorney Graf by telephone and 
asked him to forward the case file.  Although he promised to do 
so, Attorney Graf never sent anything to the attorney and the 
No. 
02-2196-D   
 
6 
 
attorney informed Ms. Utrie that he could not help her because 
he could not obtain the necessary information. 
¶19 On January 31, 2001, Attorney Graf sent Ms. Utrie a 
memo, in which he stated that there was nothing further 
remaining that he could do for her in this matter.  Ms. Utrie 
responded with a memo, disputing his contentions and again 
demanding the return of her case file. 
¶20 Attorney Graf also represented Ms. Utrie in connection 
with a potential worker's compensation claim against the School 
District regarding denial of certain medical benefits relating 
to a leave of absence taken during the 1998-1999 school year. 
¶21 On July 1, 1999, Attorney Graf filed a request for 
hearing with the Department of Workforce Development (DWD).  
Attorney Graf later informed Ms. Utrie, on several occasions, 
that he had filed the necessary worker's compensation appeal 
regarding the denial of medical benefits.  However, Attorney 
Graf never filed anything or took any action to further Ms. 
Utrie's worker's compensation claim. 
¶22 Following their June 9, 2000, meeting, Attorney Graf 
wrote to Ms. Utrie on June 13, 2000, with instructions as to how 
she could obtain relevant records from the School District under 
the Wisconsin public records law.  This legal advice was 
provided at a time when he was under a CLE suspension. 
¶23 The referee also made detailed findings relating to 
Attorney Graf's misrepresentation to the Board of Bar Examiners 
(BBE), and failure to cooperate with the OLR. 
No. 
02-2196-D   
 
7 
 
¶24 As 
noted, 
Attorney 
Graf 
was 
suspended 
for 
noncompliance with CLE requirements for a period of time that 
included June 5, 2000, through August 1, 2000.  During this time 
Attorney Graf filed a sworn petition for license reinstatement 
with the BBE, in which he averred: "I have not practiced law 
since being notified of ineligibility, this is causing a 
hardship, and I respectfully ask that prompt action be taken so 
as to permit me to resume the practice of law."   
¶25 On July 25, 2000, Attorney Graf filed with the BBE an 
amended sworn petition for license reinstatement in which he 
stated: "I have not practiced law after the close of business on 
June 2, 2000, and I first learned of ineligibility on June 9, 
2000."  These two sworn statements were false. 
¶26 By letter of August 30, 2000, the OLR informed 
Attorney Graf of Ms. Utrie's grievance and directed him to 
respond on or before September 25, 2000.  Attorney Graf did not 
respond.  The OLR sent an additional notice of the investigation 
by certified mail dated October 9, 2000, establishing a new 
response deadline of October 20, 2000. 
¶27 Upon learning that Attorney Graf had not picked up 
mail at the location where these notices were sent, the OLR sent 
a notice of the grievance investigation to Attorney Graf by 
regular and certified mail to his home address in Madison.  The 
OLR established a response deadline of November 17, 2000.   
¶28 Attorney Graf signed for the certified letter.  He did 
not, however, file a written response within the established 
deadline. 
No. 
02-2196-D   
 
8 
 
¶29 Eventually the OLR obtained a temporary suspension of 
Attorney Graf's law license for willful non-cooperation with the 
grievance investigation.  Following imposition of the suspension 
Attorney Graf finally submitted a written response. 
¶30 The referee also made findings regarding several other 
incidents 
of 
Attorney 
Graf 
practicing 
law 
while 
under 
suspension.  Specifically, while Attorney Graf was employed as 
counsel for the Wisconsin Physicians Service (WPS) he filed a 
motion to reopen a default judgment while under CLE suspension.  
He also filed a cross-claim in the same action, discussed 
settlement of claims with opposing counsel, and submitted a 
proposed stipulation with documents identifying Attorney Graf as 
WPS's attorney, all while under suspension. 
¶31 Attorney Graf admitted that he never informed his 
client, WPS, opposing counsel, or the court of his license 
suspension until he finally spoke with his supervisor on May 30, 
2001.  Attorney Graf further indicated that he performed legal 
work for WPS through May 30, 2001, although he did not make any 
court appearances subsequent to May 23, 2001. 
¶32 A grievance was filed against Attorney Graf regarding 
his representation of WPS.  Attorney Graf did not respond to the 
OLR's notice and request for a response in this matter. 
¶33 Following a search of online records available through 
the Wisconsin Court System's Consolidated Court Automation 
Programs (CCAP), Attorney Graf was identified as attorney of 
record in more than 70 circuit court cases during periods when 
his license was suspended.  The CCAP information revealed: 
No. 
02-2196-D   
 
9 
 
a. 
44 
cases 
pending 
in 
the 
Wisconsin Courts 
reflecting 
Graf's 
practice 
during 
the 
time 
of 
suspension related to dues nonpayment; 
b. 
22 cases reflecting practice of law by Graf 
during a CLE suspension; and  
c. 
64 cases reflecting Graf's practice of law during 
the 
suspension for 
willful non-cooperation 
of 
a 
grievance investigation. 
¶34 By letter dated December 20, 2001, the OLR staff 
provided Attorney Graf with a notice that an OLR inquiry was 
being commenced in connection with his practice of law while 
suspended.  The OLR letter requested Attorney Graf to provide a 
written response to the inquiry on or before January 16, 2002.  
It also advised him as to his duty to provide full and fair 
disclosure of all facts regarding the alleged misconduct. 
¶35 Attorney Graf did not respond.  A subsequent certified 
letter was returned to the OLR unclaimed.  Attorney Graf has 
never filed any written response to these allegations. 
¶36 Based on these facts the referee made the following 
conclusions of law.  First, the referee concluded that with 
respect to Ms. Utrie's potential claims arising from her 
employment with the School District, Attorney Graf failed to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.1  Attorney Graf failed to 
contact witnesses with potentially relevant information, failed 
to promptly ascertain the party or parties against whom to 
assert a claim, failed to pursue such a claim generally, and, in 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
02-2196-D   
 
10 
 
particular, failed to file a timely notice of claim against the 
School District.   
¶37 The 
referee 
also 
concluded 
that 
by 
failing 
to 
surrender case file materials to Ms. Utrie or her successor 
counsel, Attorney Graf failed to take steps to the extent 
reasonably practical to protect a client's interest in violation 
of SCR 20:1.16(d).2 
¶38 With respect to Ms. Utrie's worker's compensation 
claim, the referee concluded that by failing to file and 
otherwise pursue this claim, Attorney Graf failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3. 
¶39 In addition, by failing to affirmatively apprise a 
client of a case status and by failing to respond to inquiries 
from Ms. Utrie, Attorney Graf failed to keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with 
reasonable requests for information, in violation of SCR 
20:1.4(a).3 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. 
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: "A lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
No. 
02-2196-D   
 
11 
 
¶40 In addition, by misrepresenting to Ms. Utrie that a 
Notice of Claim had been served, Attorney Graf engaged in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).4 
¶41 The referee also concluded that by performing legal 
services on behalf of Ms. Utrie, including the client meeting 
with her on June 9, 2000, and sending a letter of June 13, 2000, 
to her concerning the open records law, Attorney Graf practiced 
law during a CLE suspension, in violation of SCR 31.10(1).5 
¶42 The referee also concluded that by failing to notify 
Ms. Utrie he was suspended and/or advising her to seek 
representation elsewhere, Attorney Graf failed to comply with 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: " It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 
5 SCR 31.10(1) provides:   
(1) If 
a 
lawyer 
fails 
to 
comply 
with 
the 
attendance requirement of SCR 31.02, fails to comply 
with the reporting requirement of SCR 31.03(1), or 
fails to pay the late fee under SCR 31.03(2), the 
board shall serve a notice of noncompliance on the 
lawyer. This notice shall advise the lawyer that the 
state 
bar 
membership 
of 
the 
lawyer 
shall 
be 
automatically suspended for failing to file evidence 
of compliance or to pay the late fee within 60 days 
after service of the notice. The board shall certify 
the names of all lawyers so suspended under this rule 
to the clerk of the supreme court and to each judge of 
a court of record in this state. A lawyer shall not 
engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while his 
or her state bar membership is suspended under this 
rule. 
No. 
02-2196-D   
 
12 
 
requirements imposed upon a lawyer following suspension, in 
violation of SCR 22.26(1)(a)(b).6 
¶43 The referee further concluded that by misrepresenting 
to BBE that he had not practiced subsequent to notice of a CLE 
suspension, 
Attorney 
Graf 
engaged 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶44 In addition, by failing to file a written response to 
a grievance investigation by OLR within 20 days of being served 
by ordinary mail with a request for a written response, Attorney 
Graf violated SCR 22.03(2).7 
                                                 
6 SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) provide: 
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere. 
7 SCR 22.03(2) provides:  
(2) Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated unless in the opinion of the 
director the investigation of the matter requires 
otherwise. The respondent shall fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 
by ordinary mail a request for a written response. The 
director 
may 
allow 
additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Following receipt of the response, the director may 
No. 
02-2196-D   
 
13 
 
¶45 Attorney Graf also violated SCR 31.108 by providing 
legal services on behalf of WPS at a time when he was under 
suspension.   By failing to notify WPS of his suspension status, 
Attorney Graf violated SCR 22.26(1)(a)(b).  And, by failing to 
notify the court or opposing counsel of his suspension status, 
he failed to comply with the duty imposed upon an attorney, in 
violation of SCR 22.26(1)(c).9 
                                                                                                                                                             
conduct further investigation and may compel the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
8 SCR 31.10 provides:  Noncompliance. 
(1) If 
a 
lawyer 
fails 
to 
comply 
with 
the 
attendance requirement of SCR 31.02, fails to comply 
with the reporting requirement of SCR 31.03(1), or 
fails to pay the late fee under SCR 31.03(2), the 
board shall serve a notice of noncompliance on the 
lawyer. This notice shall advise the lawyer that the 
state 
bar 
membership 
of 
the 
lawyer 
shall 
be 
automatically suspended for failing to file evidence 
of compliance or to pay the late fee within 60 days 
after service of the notice. The board shall certify 
the names of all lawyers so suspended under this rule 
to the clerk of the supreme court and to each judge of 
a court of record in this state. A lawyer shall not 
engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while his 
or her state bar membership is suspended under this 
rule.  
(2) If the board believes that a false report has 
been filed, the board may refer the matter to the 
office of lawyer regulation. 
9 SCR 22.26(1)(c) provides:  
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following:  
No. 
02-2196-D   
 
14 
 
¶46 In addition, by continuing to represent WPS after 
suspension, 
in 
particular, 
by 
engaging 
in 
settlement 
negotiations and by submitting a stipulation and cover letter to 
another attorney, Attorney Graf violated SCR 22.26(2).10 
¶47 The referee concluded that Attorney Graf also violated 
SCR 22.03(2) by failing to file a written response to a 
grievance investigation within 20 days of being served by 
ordinary mail of a request for such a written response.  
Similarly, by failing to respond to an investigation within 20 
                                                                                                                                                             
(c) Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation. The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence. 
10 SCR 22.26(2) provides:  
(2) An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
No. 
02-2196-D   
 
15 
 
days of being served by ordinary mail with a request for a 
response, Attorney Graf violated SCR 22.03(6).11   
¶48 Attorney Graf also violated SCR 10.03(6)12 by serving 
as legal counsel of record in some 44 Wisconsin circuit court 
cases during a period of license suspension for dues nonpayment.  
He also violated SCR 31.10(1) by serving as legal counsel of 
record in 22 Wisconsin circuit court cases while his license was 
suspended for noncompliance with CLE requirements.  And, by 
serving as counsel of record in 64 Wisconsin circuit court cases 
while his law license was suspended for his willful failure to 
cooperate in an investigation, Attorney Graf violated SCR 
22.26(2). 
¶49 The 
referee 
considered 
a 
number 
of 
factors 
in 
evaluating 
the appropriate 
discipline 
for 
Attorney 
Graf's 
misconduct.  These included:  
(1) The 
nature 
of 
the 
conduct, 
including 
consideration of: (a) the duty violated; (b) the 
attorney's mental state at the time of the conduct; 
                                                 
11 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, 
the 
respondent's wilful 
failure 
to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
12 SCR 10.03(6) provides: "Penalty for nonpayment of dues. 
If the annual dues of any member remain unpaid 120 days after 
the payment is due, the membership of the member may be 
suspended in the manner provided in the bylaws; and no person 
whose membership is so suspended for nonpayment of dues may 
practice law during the period of the suspension." 
 
No. 
02-2196-D   
 
16 
 
and (c) 
the actual or potential injury caused by the 
conduct 
to 
any 
individual, 
the 
public 
or 
the 
profession; and 
(2) The 
existence 
of 
any 
aggravating 
or 
mitigating circumstances; and 
(3) The 
nature 
of 
the 
lawyer 
including 
consideration 
of: 
(a) the 
attorney's 
previous 
conduct/misconduct; 
(b) the 
attorney's 
attitude 
regarding 
the 
conduct; 
and 
(c) the 
attorney's 
rehabilitation potential; and 
(4) The sanctions imposed upon others for similar 
conduct. 
¶50 The referee then commented on the extensive facts 
presented by the OLR and set forth herein and observed that: 
"[Graf's] apparent willingness to blithely and repeatedly ignore 
his obligations to his clients and to the profession make the 
likelihood of rehabilitation minimal, at best."  The referee 
then accepted the OLR's recommendation that Attorney Graf be 
suspended for two years and required to pay the costs of the OLR 
proceeding, which totaled $779.12.   
¶51 We adopt the referee's report and recommendation.  The 
seriousness of Attorney Graf's misconduct with respect to his 
mishandling of numerous client matters warrants the suspension 
of his license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of two 
years. 
¶52 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Eric K. 
Graf to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 
two years, effective the date of this order. 
¶53 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this suspension does not 
affect the existing suspensions, including his failure to comply 
No. 
02-2196-D   
 
17 
 
with an order to reimburse OLR for the costs associated with a 
previous disciplinary proceeding. 
¶54 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Eric K. Graf shall 
comply, if he has not already done so, with the requirements of 
SCR 22.26 pertaining to activities following suspension. 
¶55 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Eric K. Graf pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs are not 
paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to this 
court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of Attorney Eric K. Graf to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of the court.  
¶56 PATIENCE D. ROGGENSACK, J., did not participate.  
 
No. 
02-2196-D   
 
 
 
1