Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Stephanie C. Stoltman
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2018AP000810-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 24, 2018

2018 WI 91 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2018AP810-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Stephanie C. Stoltman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Stephanie C. Stoltman, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STOLTMAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 24, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2018 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.   2018AP810-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Stephanie C. Stoltman,  
Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Stephanie C. Stoltman, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 24, 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 Stephanie C. Stoltman have filed a stipulation 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 that Attorney 
Stoltman 
should 
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. 
 
Given 
the 
comprehensive stipulation, which avoided the need to litigate 
No. 
2018AP810-D   
 
2 
 
this matter and to appoint a referee, we do not impose any costs 
in this proceeding. 
¶2 
Attorney Stoltman was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1984 and in Arizona in 2001.  Her Wisconsin 
license has been administratively suspended since October 31, 
2005, for failure to pay bar dues and assessments.  She has most 
recently practiced law in Arizona. 
¶3 
The OLR filed a complaint and order to answer in this 
matter on May 1, 2018.  The complaint alleged two counts of 
professional misconduct:  (1) that by virtue of a 2010 censure 
and a 2017 admonition imposed by the disciplinary authorities in 
Arizona, Attorney Stoltman was subject to reciprocal discipline 
in this state, pursuant to SCR 22.22(3), and (2) that Attorney 
Stoltman had failed to notify the OLR of either Arizona 
discipline 
within 
the 
required 
time, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 22.22(1).   
¶4 
On May 24, 2018, before a referee was appointed, the 
OLR and Attorney Stoltman filed a stipulation, in which Attorney 
Stoltman stipulated to the two counts set forth in the OLR's 
complaint.  The OLR filed a memorandum in support of the 
stipulation.   
¶5 
The parties assert that the stipulation was not the 
result of plea bargaining.  In the stipulation Attorney Stoltman 
states that she does not contest the factual assertions and 
misconduct charges alleged by the OLR nor does she contest the 
discipline requested by the OLR, namely a public reprimand.  She 
represents that she fully understands the allegations of 
No. 
2018AP810-D   
 
3 
 
misconduct alleged by the OLR; that she understands the 
ramifications of the stipulated level of discipline; that she 
understands her right to contest the allegations of misconduct 
and her right to consult counsel regarding those allegations; 
and that she enters the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily.   
¶6 
In 
reciprocal 
discipline 
situations, 
SCR 
22.221 
mandates that this court impose discipline identical to that 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 provides: 
(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: 
(continued) 
No. 
2018AP810-D   
 
4 
 
imposed by the other jurisdiction, unless one or more of three 
exceptions apply.  In the stipulation Attorney Stoltman states 
that she is not claiming that any exception in SCR 22.22(3) 
applies to this matter. 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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. 
(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint filed 
under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a report 
and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16. At the 
hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the 
imposition 
of 
discipline 
or 
license 
suspension 
different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction 
to demonstrate that the imposition of identical 
discipline or license suspension by the supreme court 
is unwarranted. 
(6) If the discipline or license suspension 
imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any 
reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by 
the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the 
stay expires. 
No. 
2018AP810-D   
 
5 
 
¶7 
We turn now to the substance of the misconduct and the 
discipline imposed in the State of Arizona.  This reciprocal 
disciplinary 
proceeding 
relates 
to 
two 
instances 
where 
discipline was imposed on Attorney Stoltman in Arizona. 
¶8 
The first instance of discipline was a censure2 imposed 
by the Supreme Court of Arizona in January 2010, based on 
Attorney Stoltman's stipulation.  The conduct underlying this 
discipline involved Attorney Stoltman's improper handling of her 
client trust account.  The disciplinary authorities determined 
that she had failed to maintain proper trust account records and 
that she had made a number of improper disbursements in excess 
of the funds in her trust account for particular clients, 
resulting in the conversion of funds belonging to other clients, 
in violation of ER 1.15 of the Arizona Rules of Professional 
Conduct.  The improper disbursements resulted in a shortfall of 
slightly more than $1,000 in her client trust account.  The 
disciplinary authorities, however, determined that the improper 
disbursements and accounting errors had been negligent, not 
intentional, and that Attorney Stoltman had not intended to keep 
funds that did not belong to her.  In addition to censuring 
                                                 
2 Under the rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona at the 
time of this discipline, there were two forms of discipline that 
did not involve the suspension or revocation of an attorney's 
license:  "censure" and "informal reprimand."  Effective 
January 1, 2011, the Supreme Court of Arizona amended its rule, 
whereby "censures" were renamed "reprimands" and "informal 
reprimands" were renamed "admonitions."  Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order 
No. R-09-0044 (June 30, 2010). 
No. 
2018AP810-D   
 
6 
 
Attorney Stoltman for her misconduct, the Supreme Court of 
Arizona also placed her on probation with a series of conditions 
for a period of one year (from January 2010 to January 2011).   
¶9 
The second instance of discipline was an admonition 
imposed on Attorney Stoltman in August 2017 by the Arizona 
Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee (the Arizona 
Discipline Committee).  This admonition arose from Attorney 
Stoltman's 
conduct 
as 
a 
court-appointed 
arbitrator 
in 
a 
particular matter.  Attorney Stoltman conducted an arbitration 
hearing, but she failed to prepare a decision and order based on 
the hearing.  The appointing court ordered her to show cause why 
she had failed to prepare a decision and order, but she did not 
appear at the hearing.  The Arizona Discipline Committee 
concluded that her failure to perform her duties as an 
arbitrator had violated ER 8.4(d) of the Arizona Rules of 
Professional Conduct, which prohibits an attorney from engaging 
in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.  In 
addition to imposing the admonition, the Arizona Discipline 
Committee placed Attorney Stoltman on probation for a period of 
18 months, beginning in August or September 2017 (starting at 
the time the order of admonition was served on Attorney 
Stoltman).   
¶10 In the parties' stipulation in this court and the 
supporting memorandum filed by the OLR, the parties acknowledge 
that 
Attorney 
Stoltman 
is 
subject 
to 
the 
imposition 
of 
reciprocal discipline in this state by virtue of the two 
instances of discipline imposed in Arizona.  The OLR asks this 
No. 
2018AP810-D   
 
7 
 
court to impose a public reprimand as the appropriate reciprocal 
discipline.  It contends that the Arizona censure is analogous 
to a public reprimand in this state and that the admonition is 
analogous to a private reprimand.3  It correctly notes that in a 
similar situation where this court became aware of two public 
reprimands in another jurisdiction well after they had been 
imposed, this court publicly reprimanded the attorney in a 
single proceeding, while noting that there had been two 
reprimands in the other jurisdiction.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Omdahl, 2010 WI 3, 322 Wis. 2d 92, 777 
N.W.2d 634, reconsideration denied, 2010 WI 18, 324 Wis. 2d 1, 
781 
N.W.2d 228 
(publicly 
reprimanding 
Attorney 
Omdahl 
as 
reciprocal discipline for two public reprimands imposed by the  
Michigan Attorney Discipline Board).  We agree that the proper 
way 
to 
effectuate 
the 
reciprocal 
discipline 
mandate 
of 
SCR 22.22(3) in this instance is to impose a single public 
reprimand of Attorney Stoltman that encompasses both of the 
Arizona disciplinary actions. 
¶11 There is another matter beyond the imposition of a 
public reprimand that must be addressed.  In both instances of 
discipline, the Arizona disciplinary orders placed Attorney 
Stoltman on probation and required her to comply with certain 
                                                 
3 Unlike a private reprimand in Wisconsin, however, the 
order of admonition issued to Attorney Stoltman indicates that 
it is not confidential.  Thus, it appears that in Arizona a 
censure (or now a reprimand) and an admonition (or previously an 
informal reprimand) are two forms of public reprimands. 
No. 
2018AP810-D   
 
8 
 
terms of probation.  The one-year period of probation imposed by 
the 2010 order of the Supreme Court of Arizona has long since 
expired so we do not address that here.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 2012 WI 18, ¶10 n.3, 338 
Wis. 2d 753, 809 N.W.2d 379 (declining to order attorney to 
comply with portion of disciplinary order in other jurisdiction 
that imposed period of probation because the probationary period 
had already expired).  The 18-month period of probation imposed 
by the 2017 order of admonition imposed by the Arizona 
Discipline Committee, however, remains in effect as of the date 
of this decision.  In similar situations, where the other 
jurisdiction has imposed a form of discipline that this court 
does not impose, such as probation, we have ordered the 
respondent attorney to comply with the terms and conditions of 
the disciplinary order in the other jurisdiction.  See, e.g., In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gillette, 2017 WI 48, ¶¶14-
17, 
375 
Wis. 2d 112, 
895 
N.W.2d 1; 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Hooker, 2010 WI 13, ¶11, 322 Wis. 2d 552, 
779 N.W.2d 419; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moree, 
2004 WI 118, 275 Wis. 2d 279, 684 N.W.2d 667.  We will do so 
again here.4 
                                                 
4 The stipulation does state that Attorney Stoltman agrees 
that it would be appropriate to impose a public reprimand, as 
sought by the OLR Director, but it also states that Attorney 
Stoltman agrees that, by virtue of the Arizona censure and 
admonition, she is subject to reciprocal discipline pursuant to 
SCR 22.22.  Subsection (3) of that rule requires this court to 
impose "the identical discipline."  Merely imposing a public 
reprimand when the other jurisdiction has imposed additional 
(continued) 
No. 
2018AP810-D   
 
9 
 
¶12 Finally, because this matter has been resolved through 
a stipulation without the appointment of a referee or the 
expense of litigation and because the OLR does not request the 
imposition of costs, we do not impose them in this proceeding. 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Stephanie C. Stoltman is 
publicly 
reprimanded 
for 
her 
professional 
misconduct, 
as 
reciprocal discipline for the censure and admonition imposed by 
the Arizona attorney disciplinary authorities.5 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Stephanie C. Stoltman shall 
comply with all of the terms and conditions set forth in the 
August 30, 2017 Order of Admonition, Probation, (LOMAP and 
Costs), and Costs issued by the Attorney Discipline Probable 
Cause Committee of the Supreme Court of Arizona. 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
forms of discipline would not constitute the imposition of "the 
identical discipline."  By stipulating that she is subject to 
reciprocal discipline under SCR 22.22, Attorney Stoltman is 
acknowledging that this court may order her to comply with the 
order of probation imposed by the Arizona Attorney Discipline 
Probable Cause Committee. 
5 This public reprimand does not affect the administrative 
suspension of Attorney Stoltman's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  In order for Attorney Stoltman to practice law in 
Wisconsin once more, she will need to complete the process for 
reinstatement from an administrative suspension for failure to 
pay bar dues and assessments. 
No. 
2018AP810-D   
 
 
 
1