Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Gary King
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2022AP000745-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 15, 2023

2023 WI 77 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2022AP745-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gary King, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Gary King, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KING  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 15, 2023   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per curiam.  
  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2023 WI 77
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2022AP745-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gary King, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Gary King, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 15, 2023 
 
Samuel A. Christensen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of referee David A. 
Piehler recommending that this court suspend Attorney Gary 
King's license to practice law in Wisconsin for one year and 
require him to pay the full costs of this disciplinary 
proceeding, which are $5,927.83 as of September 20, 2023.  
Because no appeal has been filed, we review the referee's report 
and 
recommendation 
pursuant 
to 
Supreme 
Court 
Rule 
(SCR) 
No. 
2022AP745-D   
 
2 
 
22.17(2).1  Upon careful review of the matter, we agree with the 
referee's recommendations in all respects. 
¶2 
Attorney 
King 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin in 1998.  He has no prior disciplinary history.  The 
most recent address he furnished to the State Bar of Wisconsin 
is in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. 
¶3 
In 2012, Attorney King ran for and was elected Eau 
Claire County District Attorney.  He was re-elected in 2016 and 
2020. 
¶4 
On May 5, 2022, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
filed a complaint against Attorney King alleging two counts of 
misconduct, both arising out of his conduct as the Eau Claire 
County District Attorney. 
¶5 
Attorney King filed an answer to the complaint on May 
31, 2022.  Referee Piehler was appointed on July 14, 2022.  On 
June 27, 2023, the parties entered into a stipulation whereby 
Attorney King withdrew his answer, entered a plea of no contest 
to the two counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint, and 
agreed that the referee could use the allegations of the 
complaint as an adequate factual basis in the record for a 
determination of violations of supreme court rules as to both 
counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint.  The parties 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  "If no appeal is filed timely, the 
supreme court shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject 
or modify the referee's findings and conclusions or remand the 
matter to the referee for additional findings; and determine and 
impose appropriate discipline. The court, on its own motion, may 
order the parties to file briefs in the matter." 
No. 
2022AP745-D   
 
3 
 
agreed that the appropriate level of discipline for Attorney 
King's misconduct was a nine-month suspension of his license to 
practice law.  The parties filed a supplemental stipulation on 
July 28, 2023 in which Attorney King identified some potentially 
mitigating 
factors 
relating 
to 
the 
appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline. 
 
Specifically, 
Attorney 
King 
stated 
that 
he 
attributes his misconduct to personal or emotional problems he 
was experiencing at the time, and he described the two-year 
period detailed in the complaint as a particularly difficult 
time in his life, which included the deaths of family and 
friends and the isolation of the COVID quarantine.  Attorney 
King stated that he has sought comprehensive treatment to deal 
with those personal or emotional problems.  He also noted that 
he expressed remorse in his letter resigning as Eau Claire 
County District Attorney, saying "To the extent that any conduct 
fell short of the level expected of me, I sincerely apologize." 
¶6 
The referee issued his report and recommendation on 
September 1, 2023.  The referee found that Attorney King 
committed the misconduct alleged in OLR's complaint.  Rather 
than the nine-month suspension advocated by the parties, the 
referee concluded that a one-year suspension of Attorney King's 
law license was an appropriate sanction for his misconduct. 
¶7 
The allegations in OLR's complaint, which Attorney 
King admitted by virtue of his entry into the stipulation, 
detail problems concerning his behavior at work that began in 
2018.  E.H., the Office Manager for the Eau Claire County 
District Attorney's Office, reported to OLR that Attorney King 
No. 
2022AP745-D   
 
4 
 
regularly appeared at the office in an "altered state."  E.H. 
said he saw Attorney King slumped and sleeping in the office 
chairs of various attorneys and office staff, including during a 
discussion in E.H.'s office in which Attorney King fell asleep 
and remained sleeping for 10 to 15 minutes. 
¶8 
An Assistant District Attorney (ADA) reported that 
Attorney King would frequently come into attorneys' offices and 
interrupt their work, sometimes falling asleep in the attorney's 
office.  A former ADA wrote a letter to Wisconsin Governor Tony 
Evers saying that she had witnessed Attorney King sleeping and 
snoring 
in 
meetings 
and 
court 
proceedings. 
 
In 
a 
contemporaneously written memo dated December 20, 2019, the 
former ADA wrote that Attorney King's "speech was slurred, his 
breathing labored, face red and he had a faint odor about him 
that I could not determine if it was hand sanitizer or an 
intoxicant."  The memo went on to say that a few minutes later 
the former ADA heard loud snoring and observed Attorney King 
sleeping and asked two other people in the office to wake him. 
¶9 
T.G., the Eau Claire County Criminal Justice Director, 
told 
OLR 
about 
a 
meeting 
on 
October 
21, 
2019 
with 
representatives of the Chicago Police Department in which 
Attorney King fell asleep for most of the meeting.  Current and 
former District Attorney's Office employees told OLR that, 
around this time, Attorney King's temperament changed, with his 
temper becoming explosive and his behavior erratic and abusive.  
These individuals told OLR of instances in which Attorney King 
No. 
2022AP745-D   
 
5 
 
yelled, swore, and shouted at his staff, leaving them feeling 
intimidated and afraid they would be fired. 
¶10 On January 11, 2021, Attorney King missed a status 
conference.  E.H. was contacted by a court staff member saying 
the court was waiting for Attorney King to appear.  E.H. 
discovered Attorney King "slumped in his office chair at his 
computer, snoring and obviously asleep."  E.H. was unable to 
awaken Attorney King, so he found an ADA to cover for Attorney 
King's failure to appear for the proceeding. 
¶11 On February 16, 2021, Attorney King appeared in court.  
According to Deputy M.S., Attorney King could barely walk down 
the hall and had to brace against the wall to get to court.  In 
her report to the Eau Claire County Sheriff, Deputy M.S. 
reported that Attorney King was not wearing a mask, which was 
unusual given that he had imposed strict mask policies for his 
staff.  J.B., the Coordinator of the Office of Victim Services, 
was monitoring the hearing on Zoom and told OLR that Attorney 
King could not even say the word "Wisconsin" as he was 
"completely intoxicated." 
¶12 Attorney King went to J.B.'s office after the hearing.  
J.P. told OLR that Attorney King "was slouched in his chair," 
with only "one eye open and his speech was heavily slurred."  
Attorney King stood up from his chair and was "unstable and ran 
into [J.B.'s] open door." 
¶13 Sheriff Ron Cramer was advised about Attorney King's 
condition.  Sheriff Cramer met with Attorney King and confronted 
him about his behavior and his appearing in court under the 
No. 
2022AP745-D   
 
6 
 
influence of an intoxicant.  Attorney King started to cry, rant, 
yell and scream, at which point J.B. and other office employees 
were evacuated to a safe location and sent home for the 
remainder of the day.  Sheriff Cramer asked Attorney King to 
submit to a Preliminary Breath Test (PBT).  Attorney King 
refused. 
¶14 On June 1, 2021, Attorney King came to work appearing 
to be under the influence of an intoxicant.  In a grievance 
filed with OLR, Judge Michael Schumacher said he observed 
Attorney King "nod off, jerk his head, and lose his balance for 
the next forty minutes."  Judge Schumacher reported that 
Attorney King "appeared to be either suffering a serious medical 
incident or was severely intoxicated."  Two Sheriff's Department 
personnel went to Attorney King's office on June 1, 2021 to 
perform a welfare check.  They also asked Attorney King to 
submit to a PBT.  He refused. 
¶15 Judge Sarah Harless, apprised by Judge Schumacher that 
Attorney King appeared to be either ill or intoxicated, met with 
Attorney King prior to a sentencing hearing.  Judge Harless 
asked Attorney King to submit to a PBT.  An officer performed 
the PBT and obtained a "weak breath sample."  The test showed a 
reading of .047.  Judge Harless adjourned the sentencing hearing 
and filed a grievance with OLR.  In the grievance, Judge Harless 
reported that "[Attorney] King's eyes were red and bloodshot and 
I also observed a faint odor of intoxicants." 
¶16 OLR's 
complaint 
alleged 
the 
following 
count 
of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney King's behavior at work: 
No. 
2022AP745-D   
 
7 
 
 Count One:  By sleeping through a January 2021 court 
hearing, appearing in a February 2021 court hearing 
while under the influence of intoxicants or otherwise 
impaired, and appearing in a June 2021 court hearing 
while under the influence of intoxicants or otherwise 
impaired, Attorney King violated SCR 20:1.1.2 
¶17 The complaint also detailed incidents of sexual 
harassment by Attorney King directed toward J.B.  The Office of 
Victim Services is a special unit within the Eau Claire County 
District 
Attorney's 
Office 
that 
is 
designed 
to 
provide 
information, support, and advocacy to all crime victims, 
witnesses, and family members of adult and juvenile offenders.  
J.B. is the Coordinator of the Office of Victim Services and 
supervises the department, which includes five employees.  J.B. 
was also part of Attorney King's management team.  She reported 
directly to the Office Manager, E.H., as well as Attorney King. 
¶18 From the time J.B. began employment at the District 
Attorney's Office in 2013 until July 2019, J.B.'s interactions 
with 
Attorney 
King, 
although 
limited, 
were 
cordial 
and 
professional. 
¶19 In July 2019, J.B. and her husband attended the 
wedding of an office employee.  J.B. told OLR that Attorney King 
also attended the wedding and that he was intoxicated.  Attorney 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.1 provides:  "A lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client.  Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
No. 
2022AP745-D   
 
8 
 
King made a number of statements to J.B.'s husband complimenting 
J.B.  J.B. found the comments odd since she did not often 
interact with Attorney King. 
¶20 After the July 2019 wedding, Attorney King began 
paying extra attention to J.B.  He would frequent her office, 
whereas in the past he would communicate with her and other 
staff members mostly through email.  He would comment on J.B.'s 
hair and clothes and express opinions on how her hair was styled 
or how she dressed.  On one occasion, Attorney King told J.B. 
she could not wear a particular dress because it was "too 
distracting."  J.B. said Attorney King then "looked me up and 
down."  J.B. was confused by the interaction and asked a 
colleague if the comment was sexual or simply "joking."  Neither 
J.B. nor her colleague believed J.B.'s dress was inappropriate 
for work or revealing.  Attorney King's comments about J.B.'s 
appearance continued, and at some point before the end of 2019, 
J.B. told her supervisor and the Deputy District Attorney that 
the comments were making her uncomfortable. 
¶21 As time passed, Attorney King's comments to J.B. 
became more sexual.  In March 2020, Attorney King took J.B. to 
breakfast and talked "dirty" with her.  He joked that they 
should stop by a local hotel, take a picture outside the hotel 
or inside a room and send it to E.H.  J.B. consulted with E.H. 
since she felt the conduct was inappropriate and more than just 
"joking." 
¶22 In other incidents during 2020, Attorney King told 
J.B. repeatedly that she was appearing in his dreams and that 
No. 
2022AP745-D   
 
9 
 
she "needed to stay out of his dreams."  On another occasion, 
Attorney King hugged J.B. twice, then pulled out her ponytail 
and began playing with her hair.  Attorney King mentioned to 
J.B. the possibility of having a "threesome" with someone who 
lived near the District Attorney's Office. 
¶23 In another incident, Attorney King suggested to a 
female administrative specialist that they "make out" in her 
office, a comment that stunned her.  This comment echoed a 
similar comment Attorney King had made to J.B. after another 
wedding event that J.B. did not attend.  Attorney King said J.B. 
"was supposed to be there because he and [J.B.] were going to 
sit in the corner and make out so everybody could start talking 
about us." 
¶24 On another occasion, Attorney King approached J.B. in 
her office, took off her shoes, and began rubbing her feet.  By 
this time, office employees had initiated an informal safety 
plan because Attorney King was regularly coming into J.B.'s 
office and closing the door.  The plan involved employees coming 
to J.B.'s office and interrupting Attorney King's interactions 
with her. 
¶25 In January 2021, Attorney King appeared in J.B.'s 
office and started to cry.  He pulled J.B. from behind and made 
her sit in his lap, prevented her from leaving, and patted her.  
When J.B. got up and returned to her desk, Attorney King told 
her that he loved her.  He then approached her while she was 
sitting in her chair, hugged her from behind, took off her mask, 
No. 
2022AP745-D   
 
10 
 
and tried to kiss her on the lips.  J.B. immediately told E.H. 
about the interaction. 
¶26 Attorney King's attentions to J.B. continued in 
February 2021.  He asked J.B. about her sex life with her 
husband and said "if you came to me in a vulnerable state, I 
could not say no to you."  Attorney King told J.B. that he "used 
to think she was the kind of girl he could take to the Super 8 
but now knows he has to take her somewhere fancier like the 
Lismore."  He told her he wanted "to be with you in your 
lifestyle."  He suggested that he send an email to staff 
suggesting that the two of them, both married, were "together." 
¶27 On another occasion, Attorney King commented on 
another female employee's shirt and touched her and the shirt in 
a lingering, inappropriate manner.  Attorney King told the woman 
that she looked "really saucy" and ran his eyes up and down her 
body. 
¶28 On February 10, 2021, J.B. contacted human resources 
to report that Attorney King was sexually harassing her.  Eau 
Claire County commenced an investigation into J.B.'s complaint.  
After interviewing multiple witnesses, Attorney Mindy Dale wrote 
a report to the Eau Claire County Human Resources Director 
concluding that Attorney King "did make inappropriate comments 
to women, most notably [J.B.], which made them uncomfortable.  
Further, he should not have kissed [J.B.] on the cheek or pulled 
her on to [his] lap, regardless of the emotions he was feeling 
at the time."  Attorney Dale recommended that a copy of her 
No. 
2022AP745-D   
 
11 
 
letter and related reports be forwarded to the Department of 
Administration for "further consideration and disposition."  
¶29 Attorney King resigned as Eau Claire County District 
Attorney in August 2021. 
¶30 OLR's 
complaint 
alleged 
the 
following 
count 
of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney King's sexual harassment of 
female employees at work: 
 Count Two:  By making multiple inappropriate sexual 
comments to female employees in his office, and 
engaging 
in 
unwanted 
sexual 
contact 
with 
J.B., 
Attorney King violated SCRs 20:8.4(g),3 20:8.4(i),4 and 
40.15.5 
¶31 The referee found the factual statements contained in 
the 
complaint, 
the 
comprehensive 
stipulation, 
and 
the 
supplemental stipulation to be true.  The referee also found, 
based on the facts in the record, that Attorney King violated 
the Supreme Court Rules as alleged in the complaint.  The 
referee noted that in determining the appropriate sanction for 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:8.4(g) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to violate the attorney's oath." 
4 SCR 20:8.4(i) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to harass a person on the basis of sex, race, age, 
creed, religion, color, national origin, disability, sexual 
preference or marital status in connection with the lawyer's 
professional activities.  Legitimate advocacy respecting the 
foregoing factors does not violate par. (i)." 
5 SCR 40.15 states, in pertinent part:  "I will abstain from 
all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the 
honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by 
the justice of the cause with which I am charged." 
No. 
2022AP745-D   
 
12 
 
Attorney King's misconduct he must consider the seriousness, 
nature and extent of the misconduct; the level of discipline 
needed to protect the public; the need to impress on the 
attorney the seriousness of the misconduct; and the need to 
deter other attorneys from similar misconduct.  In concluding 
that a one-year suspension, rather than the nine months proposed 
by the parties, was the appropriate level of discipline for 
Attorney King's transgressions, the referee said: 
The aggravating factors of selfish motive, pattern of 
misconduct, substantial experience in the law, and 
vulnerable victim carry far more weight . . . than the 
mitigating factors of absence of prior discipline, 
personal or emotional problems, other consequences, 
and expression of remorse.  This is particularly so 
where the respondent was the District Attorney, 
responsible for overseeing law enforcement in his 
county.  As such, he should have upheld the highest 
standards of behavior, of which he fell short in his 
treatment of his staff.  In addition, when he was 
incapacitated (apparently due to his own choices), he 
was possessed of a staff to whom he could delegate 
duties which he could not personally carry out, yet 
did not do so. 
Turning 
to 
the 
factors 
relevant 
to 
assessing 
discipline, the seriousness, nature, and extent of 
misconduct and the level of discipline required to 
protect the public both militate for significant 
discipline.  Although the respondent's behavior never 
crossed the line into the realm of criminal activity, 
it 
was 
nonetheless 
substantial 
and 
prolonged.  
Further, the respondent's job was to competently 
represent the public, a task where he fell short. . . 
. I believe the need to impress on the respondent the 
seriousness of his misconduct is of lesser concern 
here.  His resignation from office made this point 
already.  The need for deterrence is, however, an 
important consideration.  Attorneys must understand 
that 
sexual 
misconduct, 
whether 
directed 
toward 
clients, employees, or the public, will not be 
No. 
2022AP745-D   
 
13 
 
tolerated.  It undermines the mission of the bar to be 
an instrument of justice, it degrades the profession, 
and it harms its victims. 
Considering the entirety of the facts of this matter, 
I deem a 9-month suspension inadequate and believe a 
one-year suspension is appropriate. 
¶32 We will affirm a referee's findings of fact unless 
they are clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 
747.  The court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit, 
regardless 
of 
the 
referee's 
recommendation. 
 See In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  There is no showing that any of the 
referee's findings of fact are clearly erroneous, and we adopt 
them.  We are also in accord with the referee's legal 
conclusions that Attorney King violated the Supreme Court Rules 
noted above. 
¶33 As to the appropriate level of discipline, after 
careful consideration we agree with the referee that a one-year 
suspension of Attorney King's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin is appropriate. 
¶34 Although we often say that no two disciplinary matters 
are identical, we strive to identify cases that are somewhat 
analogous and impose a similar level of discipline.  As the 
referee aptly points out, it is particularly difficult to 
compare 
cases 
involving 
sexual 
misbehavior 
by 
attorneys, 
especially since this court has recently stated that it is 
"applying increasing scrutiny to attorneys' sexual misconduct."  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against DeLadurantey, 2023 WI 
No. 
2022AP745-D   
 
14 
 
17, ¶ 53, 406 Wis. 2d 62, 985 N.W.2d 788; In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Ritland, 2021 WI 36, ¶¶ 37, 39, 396 Wis. 2d 
509, 957 N.W.2d 540.  As a result, as the referee notes, and as 
OLR also recognized in its memorandum in support of the parties' 
comprehensive stipulation, if disciplinary decisions involving 
sexual misbehavior issued in years past were to come before the 
court today, the sanctions would likely be greater than the ones 
imposed.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Kratz, 2014 WI 31, 353 Wis. 2d 696, 851 N.W.2d 219.  (District 
Attorney's law license suspended for four months for six counts 
of misconduct that included sending sexually suggestive text 
messages to a domestic abuse crime victim and making sexually 
suggestive comments to social workers.)  
¶35 This court described then-District Attorney Kratz's 
conduct as "appalling," "exploitive," "crass," and "sanctionably 
sophomoric."  Id. at ¶ 47.  It discounted Attorney Kratz's claim 
that his misconduct resulted from various addictions.  Id, ¶ 48.  
Here, the referee noted that this court used the Kratz case as a 
measuring stick when deciding the appropriate sanction to impose 
in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Baratki, 2017 WI 89, 
378 Wis. 2d 1, 902 N.W.2d 250.  Attorney Baratki faced nine 
counts of misconduct, including sending a client flirtatious, 
sexual text messages and, during a meeting, lifting the client's 
shirt and kissing her abdominal area.  This court suspended 
Attorney Baratki's license for six months, saying, "Given his 
course of conduct, we deem it imperative that, to resume the 
practice of law in Wisconsin, Attorney Baratki show this court 
No. 
2022AP745-D   
 
15 
 
that he has taken steps to avoid similar misdeeds in the 
future."  Id., ¶ 34.  
¶36 In DeLadurantey, we made clear that, going forward, we 
would be more critically evaluating the appropriate sanction to 
impose in cases involving attorneys' sexual misconduct.  We 
explained: 
We do so because sexual harassment comes at a heavy 
price 
for 
victims 
who 
can 
suffer 
significant 
psychological effects as well as job-related costs, 
including job loss, reputational harm, impairment of 
professional opportunities, and irreparable damage to 
interpersonal relationships at work.  Attorneys should 
be on notice that sexual misconduct by attorneys, 
whether directed toward fellow lawyers, clients, or 
others, is not taken lightly.  
Id. ¶ 53. 
¶37 While he was serving as District Attorney, Attorney 
King harassed multiple women over whom he had supervisory 
authority.  His misconduct included not only verbal harassment 
but also unwelcome physical contact.  His harassment in the 
workplace created a hostile working environment that persisted 
over the course of two years.  Attorney King's behavior warrants 
a significant sanction. 
¶38 In addition to the sexual misbehavior, Attorney King, 
while serving as District Attorney, appeared in the office, as 
well as in court, while either intoxicated or otherwise 
impaired.  His coworkers reported that he was erratic and 
abusive.  Two judges reported Attorney King's erratic behavior.  
On one occasion the Sheriff was advised of the situation and 
confronted Attorney King.  That confrontation led to Attorney 
No. 
2022AP745-D   
 
16 
 
King becoming so upset and unbalanced that employees had to be 
evacuated to a safe location and sent home for the rest of that 
work day.  As OLR noted in its memorandum in support of the 
comprehensive stipulation: 
The fact that [Attorney] King was the top law 
enforcement official in the county heightens the 
concern that he was showing up in court and at work 
incapacitated——his 
constituents 
and 
his 
coworkers 
deserved more.  These allegations buttress OLR's 
conclusion that [Attorney] King's misconduct merits 
significant discipline. 
¶39 After careful review of this matter, we conclude that 
Attorney King's misconduct warrants a more severe sanction than 
was imposed in Kratz and Baratki.  We agree with the referee 
that a one-year suspension of Attorney King's license to 
practice law is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct.  
¶40 We now turn to the issue of costs.  Our general 
practice is to impose the full costs of a disciplinary 
proceeding on attorneys who are found to have committed 
misconduct.  See SCR 22.24(1m).  There is no reason to depart 
from that general practice here.  We therefore impose full 
costs. 
¶41 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Gary King to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, 
effective January 19, 2024. 
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Gary King shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $5,927.83. 
No. 
2022AP745-D   
 
17 
 
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gary King shall comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney 
whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See SCR 
22.29(4)(c).  
No. 
2022AP745-D   
 
 
 
1