Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Stephan Walter Addison
Citation: 2012 WI 38
Docket Number: 2010AP003014-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: April 4, 2012

2012 WI 38 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP3014-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Stephan Walter Addison, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Stephan Walter Addison, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ADDISON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 4, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
ROGGENSACK, J., dissents (Opinion filed).  
CROOKS, J., joins dissent.    
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: BRADLEY, J., withdrew from participation.    
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 38
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2010AP3014-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Stephan Walter Addison, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Stephan Walter Addison, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 4, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a companion case to In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Butler, 
2012 
WI 
37 
(No. 2010AP3013-D), which is being released at the same time as 
this opinion.  Both cases involve the same underlying set of 
facts and one or more criminal convictions arising from those 
facts.  As in Butler, we determine whether discipline reciprocal 
to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois, which in this 
case would be a 60-day suspension, should be imposed on Attorney 
No. 
2010AP3014-D   
 
2 
 
Stephan Walter Addison.  Although the conduct of Attorney 
Addison at issue here, like the conduct of Attorney Benjamin C. 
Butler, is both unprofessional and unseemly, and although we may 
have imposed a more severe level of discipline if the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) had prosecuted this matter directly in 
the first instance rather than filing a reciprocal discipline 
complaint, given the standards in our rules that apply to 
reciprocal discipline situations, we impose the same 60-day 
suspension on Attorney Addison's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin that was imposed in Illinois.  Because Attorney 
Addison agreed to the imposition of reciprocal discipline before 
a referee was appointed, we do not impose costs on him for this 
proceeding. 
¶2 
On 
December 
14, 
2010, 
the 
OLR 
filed 
a 
formal 
disciplinary 
complaint 
against 
Attorney 
Addison 
for 
the 
imposition of reciprocal discipline and a motion requesting the 
court to issue an order to show cause to Attorney Addison.  On 
March 31, 2011, the court ordered Attorney Addison to inform the 
court of any claim, predicated on the grounds set forth in 
SCR 22.22(3),1 why the imposition of discipline identical to that 
                                                 
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. 
No. 
2010AP3014-D   
 
3 
 
imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois would be unwarranted, 
and of the factual basis for any such claim.  On April 11, 2011, 
Attorney Addison filed a response stating that he was not making 
any claim under SCR 22.22(3) and that he was not raising any 
objection to the imposition of discipline identical to that 
imposed in Illinois. 
¶3 
Because this matter involves allegations of serious 
misconduct that occurred in Wisconsin and resulted in Attorney 
Addison's December 2006 criminal convictions in a Wisconsin 
court, on September 23, 2011, this court issued an order 
directing the OLR to advise the court as to why it had chosen in 
this matter to seek the imposition of reciprocal discipline 
under SCR 22.22 rather than to conduct its own investigation and 
pursue its own disciplinary complaint under SCRs 22.11 through 
22.16.   
¶4 
The OLR filed a response to the court's order on 
October 12, 2011.  Its response states that it first learned of 
the criminal charges against Attorneys Addison and Butler in 
December 2005.  It opened grievance investigations against them 
at that time, but placed those investigations on hold pending 
the result of the criminal actions in Green Lake County, 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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. 
2010AP3014-D   
 
4 
 
Wisconsin.  The OLR's response indicates that, for a number of 
reasons, it will commonly place investigations in which there 
are pending criminal charges on hold until those criminal 
charges have been resolved. 
¶5 
In this situation, after the OLR received notice of 
the convictions and sentences imposed on Attorneys Addison and 
Butler in December 2006, it reopened its investigations.  
Approximately one month later, however, it was notified that the 
Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (the 
Illinois Commission) had also opened a grievance investigation 
against Attorneys Addison and Butler.  The Illinois Commission 
expressly informed the OLR that it had set aside resources to 
conduct an investigation of the matter that would go beyond the 
record compiled in the criminal case and that it intended to 
conduct 
supplemental 
interviews 
of 
the 
victim 
and 
other 
witnesses. 
¶6 
The OLR's response states that after it was informed 
of the Illinois Commission's investigation, the OLR director 
made the decision to allow the Illinois Commission to take the 
lead role in investigating the conduct of Attorneys Addison and 
Butler and in seeking discipline because both attorneys were 
practicing law primarily in Illinois for Illinois law firms.  
The OLR further explains that it wanted to avoid the duplicative 
use of investigatory resources in the two jurisdictions.  It 
states that it is common for it and other lawyer regulatory 
agencies 
in 
other 
jurisdictions 
to 
allow 
the 
"primary 
jurisdiction," i.e., the jurisdiction in which the attorney is 
No. 
2010AP3014-D   
 
5 
 
primarily practicing, to investigate and impose discipline in 
the first instance, with the other applicable jurisdictions then 
seeking the imposition of reciprocal discipline. 
¶7 
The 
OLR's 
response 
further 
asserts 
that 
it 
communicated periodically with the Illinois Commission during 
the more than three years in which the Illinois Commission 
conducted its investigation and its prosecution of the Illinois 
disciplinary action.  The OLR notes that it was ultimately able 
to review the more than 1,700 pages of discovery from the 
criminal actions that Attorneys Addison and Butler provided to 
the Illinois Commission, plus copies of a video discovery 
deposition of a witness, the discovery depositions of the two 
respondent attorneys, expert witness information, and other 
video and audio evidence.  In addition, the Illinois Commission 
provided to the OLR another 1,400 pages of documents from its 
own investigation.  The OLR asserts that, following the 
conclusion of the Illinois disciplinary proceeding, it reviewed 
and evaluated these voluminous documents before it reached the 
determination not to conduct its own independent investigation 
and instead to seek the imposition of reciprocal discipline.   
¶8 
Because the record in this proceeding still did not 
contain information regarding the factual basis for the felony 
to which Attorney Addison ultimately pled no contest, we issued 
a second order directing the OLR to state the factual basis for 
the felony charge and to provide public documents from the 
criminal case that related to the factual basis.  The OLR's 
response contained a stipulation filed in the Green Lake County 
No. 
2010AP3014-D   
 
6 
 
action at the time Attorney Addison entered his plea to a 
reduced charge, as well as the transcripts of the plea and 
sentencing hearings.  The content of the criminal stipulation 
will be discussed later in this opinion. 
¶9 
Given that this matter has been presented to us in the 
context 
of 
a 
request 
for 
the 
imposition 
of 
reciprocal 
discipline, we are constrained to follow the rules that we have 
adopted for such proceedings.  See SCR 22.22.  We therefore 
shall impose the identical discipline imposed in the other 
jurisdiction 
unless 
we 
determine 
that 
one 
of 
the 
three 
exceptions set forth in SCR 22.22(3) applies.  In assessing 
whether one of those exceptions applies, we further are limited 
to the record in this matter, which primarily consists of the 
OLR's complaint, the documents from the Illinois disciplinary 
proceeding that have been filed by the OLR, and the documents 
relating to Attorney Addison's no contest plea to the felony 
charge in the Green Lake County criminal action that have also 
been submitted by the OLR.  In particular, the stipulations 
entered in the Green Lake County criminal cases and in the 
Illinois disciplinary proceeding are the only sources in the 
record of this proceeding of facts that have been proven or 
stipulated regarding the underlying events.  The factual 
recitation 
that 
follows 
is 
primarily 
taken 
from 
those 
stipulations. 
¶10 Attorney Addison was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in June 2004.  He was also admitted in 2004 to the 
practice of law in Illinois.  The Report and Recommendation of 
No. 
2010AP3014-D   
 
7 
 
the Illinois Commission's Hearing Board2 stated that as of the 
time of the Illinois Report, Attorney Addison was engaged as an 
outside consultant for a private equity company in Wisconsin.  
He also maintained a solo legal practice that focused on real 
estate transactions in Wisconsin and Illinois. 
¶11 Prior to August 5, 2005, while he was practicing for a 
large Chicago law firm, Attorney Addison made plans with 
Attorney Butler, a law school classmate, for a weekend reunion 
at a summer house in Green Lake, Wisconsin, that was owned by 
Attorney Addison's family.  On Friday, August 5, 2005, Attorneys 
Addison and Butler picked up supplies for the weekend, including 
alcoholic beverages such as beer, vodka, and whiskey.   From 
that Friday afternoon through the daytime hours of Saturday, 
Attorneys Addison and Butler and their friends socialized and 
drank alcohol.  At approximately 11:00 p.m. on August 6th, they 
drove to a tavern in Green Lake, where they consumed additional 
alcoholic beverages.  At approximately 1:00 a.m. on Sunday, 
August 7th, the group drove to another tavern in Ripon, where 
they continued to consume alcoholic beverages. 
¶12 Shortly before the 2:00 a.m. bar closing time, 
Attorney Addison met a woman, D.P., on the dance floor.  After 
the bar closed, D.P. agreed to drive Attorneys Addison and 
Butler back to Green Lake to the Addison summer house.     
                                                 
2 This opinion will refer to this document and this entity, 
respectively, as the "Illinois Report" and the "Illinois Hearing 
Board." 
No. 
2010AP3014-D   
 
8 
 
¶13 The Illinois stipulation of facts continues that a few 
blocks from the Addison summer home, D.P. pulled her car into a 
boat landing and placed the vehicle in park.  The stipulation 
does not provide details of what occurred next.  It merely 
states that Attorney Addison, "while intoxicated, engaged in 
sexual activity with [D.P.] while on the hood of a motor vehicle 
that was parked on a public boat ramp in Green Lake, Wisconsin."  
D.P. subsequently complained to the police about the actions of 
Attorneys Addison and Butler, and Attorney Addison gave a 
statement to law enforcement in response to her complaint.   
¶14 The State of Wisconsin initially charged Attorney 
Addison with five criminal offenses in Green Lake County circuit 
court:  three counts of first-degree sexual assault, one count 
of fourth-degree sexual assault, and one count of false 
imprisonment.  State v. Addison, Green Lake County Case No. 
05CF90.   
¶15 Ultimately, the State filed an amended information 
that charged Attorney Addison with three counts:  one felony 
count of second-degree reckless endangerment, contrary to Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 941.30(2), 
and 
two 
misdemeanor 
counts 
of 
sexual 
gratification in public, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 944.17(2)(a).  
Attorney Addison then pled no contest to the three counts set 
forth in the amended information.  The stipulation in the 
criminal case set forth the factual basis for the second-degree 
reckless endangerment count as follows: 
 
We have agreed that the factual basis underlying 
the plea to this charge is that on August 7, 2005, in 
No. 
2010AP3014-D   
 
9 
 
Green Lake County, Wisconsin, Stephan Addison and 
Benjamin Butler engaged in sexual activity with [D.P.] 
in such a manner that [D.P.] could have been harmed; 
more specifically, that the sexual activity occurred 
while [D.P.] was on the hood of an automobile on which 
she could have been injured and from which she could 
have fallen.  
¶16 On the felony reckless endangerment count, the circuit 
court imposed and stayed a sentence of five years of initial 
confinement and five years of extended supervision, and placed 
Attorney Addison on probation for a period of three years, with 
a condition that Attorney Addison complete 300 hours of 
community service.  On the two misdemeanor sexual gratification 
counts the circuit court sentenced Attorney Addison to 30 days 
in jail and ordered him to complete an additional 200 hours of 
community service. 
¶17 According to the Illinois Report, Attorney Addison 
completed his jail sentence and all of his community service 
obligations.  He was released from probation on December 9, 
2009. 
¶18 The 
Illinois 
Commission 
initiated 
a 
disciplinary 
proceeding against Attorney Addison as a result of his actions 
in 
August 
2005 
and 
his 
subsequent 
criminal 
convictions.  
Attorney Addison ultimately entered into a stipulation in that 
proceeding 
setting 
forth 
the 
facts 
described 
above 
and 
requesting the imposition of a 60-day suspension of his Illinois 
law license as discipline for his misconduct.  Citing a number 
of cases relied upon by the administrator of the Illinois 
Commission and Attorney Addison, the Illinois Hearing Board 
accepted the stipulation and recommended that Attorney Addison's 
No. 
2010AP3014-D   
 
10 
 
Illinois law license be suspended for 60 days for professional 
misconduct that consisted of (1) violating Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the 
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (IRPC) by committing a 
criminal 
act 
that 
reflects 
adversely 
on 
his 
honesty, 
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (2) 
engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of 
justice, in violation of IRPC Rule 8.4(a)(5); and (3) engaging 
in conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice 
or bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute, in 
violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 770. 
¶19 The Illinois Report also included some stipulated 
evidence 
offered 
in 
mitigation 
for 
Attorney 
Addison's 
misconduct.  Specifically, the Illinois Report noted that, like 
Attorney Butler, Attorney Addison had been forced to resign as 
an associate with a large Chicago law firm.  The Illinois Report 
also stated that Attorney Addison had not been previously 
disciplined, had expressed remorse, and had cooperated with the 
Illinois disciplinary process.  The Illinois Report noted that 
Attorney Addison had fulfilled his community service obligations 
by doing manual labor for the Town of Brooklyn and by providing 
pro bono services to a number of law-related non-profit entities 
in Wisconsin and Illinois.  The Illinois Report also stated that 
if the matter had proceeded to a contested hearing, Attorney 
Addison would have presented character witness testimony from at 
least six witnesses, including attorneys familiar with his 
reputation in both Chicago and Madison.  The Illinois Report 
stated that Attorney Addison "is ashamed of his actions and 
No. 
2010AP3014-D   
 
11 
 
recognizes that his conduct was unacceptable."  Finally, there 
is no mention in the Illinois Report of any aggravating factors. 
¶20 The 
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Illinois 
accepted 
the 
recommendation of the Illinois Hearing Board and suspended 
Attorney Addison's license to practice law in that state for a 
period of 60 days. 
¶21 The OLR's complaint in this matter asks that Attorney 
Addison's license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 
an identical period of 60 days as reciprocal discipline under 
SCR 22.22(3).  As noted above, Attorney Addison does not object 
to the OLR's request. 
¶22 The initial allegations made against both Attorney 
Addison 
and 
Attorney 
Butler 
in 
the 
respective 
criminal 
complaints against them were extremely troubling.  Those 
allegations, however, have not been proven, and we are bound by 
the facts as they have been proven or stipulated in the record 
before us.  In the criminal action the state eliminated any 
charges of sexual assault.  Thus, there is no finding of fact in 
any proceeding, whether criminal or disciplinary, in this state 
or in Illinois, that Attorney Addison engaged in sexually 
assaultive conduct.  Although Attorney Addison was convicted of 
a felony that involves placing another person in danger of death 
or great bodily harm, the stipulated factual basis for that 
crime was that Attorney Addison's contact with the victim 
created a risk that she might have fallen off the hood of an 
automobile and become injured.  While the Illinois Hearing Board 
properly concluded that the three criminal charges to which 
No. 
2010AP3014-D   
 
12 
 
Attorney Addison ultimately pled no contest are serious matters 
that reflect adversely on his trustworthiness or fitness as a 
lawyer in other respects, we must base our decision on these 
facts as they have been stipulated and not on what the factual 
findings might possibly have been.     
¶23 Moreover, it is important to remember that this matter 
is being presented to us in the context of a reciprocal 
discipline matter, not as a review of a referee's report or a 
stipulation in the first instance.  As commonly occurs in such 
situations, the OLR allowed the Illinois Commission to take the 
lead 
in 
investigating 
and 
prosecuting 
Attorney 
Addison's 
professional misconduct because Illinois was his primary place 
of practice and Illinois committed significant resources to 
investigating the matter.  According to the OLR, it maintained 
communication with the Illinois Commission throughout the three-
year pendency of the Illinois investigation and disciplinary 
proceeding.  In addition, it reviewed the voluminous documents 
provided by the Illinois Commission before it ultimately 
determined to seek the imposition of reciprocal discipline.   
¶24 In a reciprocal discipline matter our rules require us 
to impose the identical discipline rendered by the other 
jurisdiction unless one of the three listed exceptions applies.  
Keeping in mind that the OLR has not asserted that Attorney 
Addison's conduct requires a substantially different level of 
discipline in this state, see SCR 22.22(3)(c), we do not find 
that any exception applies.  Consistent with our rules, 
therefore, we impose a 60-day suspension of Attorney Addison's 
No. 
2010AP3014-D   
 
13 
 
license to practice law in Wisconsin, as discipline reciprocal 
to that imposed in Illinois.  Moreover, as is often the case in 
reciprocal 
discipline 
matters, 
because 
Attorney 
Addison 
essentially agreed to the imposition of reciprocal discipline 
and it was not necessary to appoint a referee, we do not require 
him to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶25 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Stephan Walter 
Addison to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of 60 days, effective as of May 7, 2012. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Stephan Walter Addison 
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. 
¶27 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., withdrew from participation. 
 
No.  2010AP3014-D.pdr 
 
1 
 
¶28 PATIENCE 
DRAKE 
ROGGENSACK, 
J. 
(dissenting).   I 
dissent because I would reject the parties' stipulation asking 
this court to suspend Steven Walter Addison's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin for 60 days as reciprocal discipline 
to that imposed by Illinois for his admitted acts of criminal 
conduct that occurred in Wisconsin, and I would require the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) to apply Wisconsin's Rules of 
Professional 
Conduct 
for 
Attorneys 
to 
Attorney 
Addison's 
conduct.   
¶29 Attorney Addison's convictions were the result of a 
plea bargain.  The criminal acts which he admitted committing 
constitute one count of second-degree reckless endangerment, 
contrary to Wis. Stat. § 941.30(2), which is a Class G felony, 
and two counts of sexual gratification in public, contrary to 
Wis. Stat. § 944.17(2)(a), which are Class A misdemeanors.  
¶30 In order to accept a plea and convict a defendant of 
second-degree reckless endangerment, the circuit court must 
determine that there are facts sufficient to prove that (1) 
Attorney Addison endangered the safety of another human being; 
and (2) he did so by criminally reckless conduct.  See Wis JI—
Criminal 1347.  "Criminal recklessness" is defined in Wis. Stat. 
§ 939.24(1) as conduct that "creates an unreasonable and 
substantial risk of death or great bodily harm to another human 
being and the actor is aware of that risk."  
¶31 Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22(3) directs this court 
in reciprocal discipline matters to impose identical discipline 
to that imposed by another state unless the misconduct justifies 
No.  2010AP3014-D.pdr 
 
2 
 
substantially 
different 
discipline 
in 
this 
state. 
 
SCR 
22.22(3)(c).  It seems probable that creating an "unreasonable 
and substantial" risk of great bodily harm when the defendant 
"is 
aware 
of 
that 
risk," 
together 
with 
two 
misdemeanor 
convictions, would have resulted in more than a 60-day license 
suspension if OLR had begun its own investigation in light of 
SCR 20:8.4(b),1 rather than relying on the judgment of the State 
of Illinois.   
¶32 My conclusion is supported by discipline meted out for 
past criminal convictions, which we have held violate SCR 
20:8.4(b).  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Compton, 
2010 WI 112, ¶¶1, 7, 329 Wis. 2d 318, 787 N.W.2d 831 (two years 
suspension based on conviction of possession of narcotic drugs, 
a Class I felony, and bail jumping, a Class H felony, based on 
the use of those drugs); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Soldon, 2010 WI 27, ¶¶1, 6, 324 Wis. 2d 4, 782 N.W.2d 81 (six 
months suspension based on retail theft read-in and conviction 
of fleeing a law enforcement officer, a Class I felony); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against George, 2008 WI 21 ¶¶3, 30, 308 
Wis. 2d 50, 746 N.W.2d 236 (four years and three months 
suspension based on federal conviction of conspiracy to commit 
offenses against federal programs in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4 provides in relevant part:  "It is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to: 
. . .  
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects[.]"  
No.  2010AP3014-D.pdr 
 
3 
 
§ 371); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gral, 2007 WI 22, 
¶¶1, 4, 299 Wis. 2d 160, 727 N.W.2d 495 (suspension of three 
years based on federal conviction of mail fraud).   
¶33 In my view, a conviction based conduct that creates an 
unreasonable and substantial risk of great bodily harm when the 
defendant is aware of that risk is at least as serious as the 
crimes that form the bases for the suspensions above.  Because I 
conclude that the convictions at issue here would justify 
substantially 
different 
discipline 
in 
Wisconsin 
than 
has 
resulted in Illinois and that SCR 22.22(3)(c) requires this 
court to reject the parties' stipulation on that basis, I 
respectfully dissent. 
¶34 I am authorized to state that Justice N. PATRICK 
CROOKS joins in this dissent. 
 
 
No.  2010AP3014-D.pdr 
 
 
 
1