Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Elizabeth Farrell
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2019AP001207-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: September 10, 2019

2019 WI 88 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP1207-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Elizabeth Farrell, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
v. 
 
Elizabeth Farrell, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FARRELL 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 10, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2019 WI 88
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2019AP1207-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Elizabeth Farrell, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
v. 
 
Elizabeth Farrell, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
SEP 10, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
and Attorney Elizabeth Farrell have filed a stipulation pursuant 
to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 that Attorney Farrell be 
publicly reprimanded, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed 
by the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon.  Because this 
matter was resolved without the need to appoint a referee, we do 
not impose any costs upon Attorney Farrell. 
¶2 
Attorney Farrell was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1999.  She was admitted to practice law in the 
No. 
2019AP1207-D   
 
2 
 
state of Oregon in 2001.  According to the stipulation, Attorney 
Farrell's most recent professional address was in the state of 
Oregon.   
¶3 
Attorney Farrell's Wisconsin law license was suspended 
in 2009 for failure to pay state bar dues and comply with 
signing the trust account certificate on her dues statement.  
Her Wisconsin law license remains suspended. 
¶4 
On May 17, 2019, the Supreme Court of the State of 
Oregon publicly reprimanded Attorney Farrell upon a finding that 
she failed to take necessary steps to protect her client's 
interests upon termination of representation.  Attorney Farrell 
failed to notify the OLR of the Oregon public reprimand within 
20 days of its effective date.  According to the stipulation, 
Attorney Farrell did not realize she was required to notify the 
OLR of the public reprimand, and she had been under the belief 
that her Wisconsin law license was inactive.   
¶5 
On July 3, 2019, the OLR filed a disciplinary 
complaint alleging that Attorney Farrell should be subject to 
reciprocal discipline due to the public reprimand imposed by the 
Supreme Court of the State of Oregon.1  The parties' stipulation 
was filed on July 30, 2019.  In the stipulation, Attorney 
Farrell agreed that the facts alleged in the OLR's complaint 
supported the imposition of a public reprimand as reciprocal 
discipline.   
                                                 
1 On July 23, 2019, the OLR filed an amended complaint which 
made ministerial changes to an exhibit. 
No. 
2019AP1207-D   
 
3 
 
¶6 
Under SCR 22.22(3), this court shall impose the 
identical discipline imposed in another jurisdiction, unless one 
or more of three exceptions apply.  In her stipulation with the 
OLR, Attorney Farrell states she does not claim any of the 
exceptions in SCR 22.22(3).  She agrees that this court should 
impose a public reprimand as sought by the OLR. 
¶7 
Attorney Farrell further states that the stipulation 
was not the result of plea bargaining, that she understands the 
misconduct allegations against her and her right to contest the 
matter, and that she is aware of the potential ramifications of 
the stipulated level of discipline.  She acknowledges her right 
to consult with counsel.  She asserts that she is entering into 
the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily, and that her entry 
into the stipulation represents her decision not to contest the 
misconduct allegations or the level of discipline sought by the 
OLR. 
¶8 
Having reviewed the matter, we accept the stipulation 
and impose a public reprimand, as discipline reciprocal to that 
imposed by the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon.  Because 
this matter has been resolved through a stipulation without the 
need to appoint a referee and the OLR has not sought the 
imposition of costs, we do not impose costs in this matter. 
¶9 
IT IS ORDERED that Elizabeth Farrell is hereby 
publicly reprimanded.  
 
No. 
2019AP1207-D   
 
 
 
1