Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Eric Leighton Crandall
Citation: 2006 WI 6
Docket Number: 2005AP002568-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: January 20, 2006

2006 WI 6 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP2568-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Eric Leighton Crandall, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Eric Leighton Crandall, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CRANDALL 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 20, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2006 WI 6
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This order is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
 
 
 
No.  2005AP2568-D  
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Eric Leighton Crandall, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Eric Leighton Crandall, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 20, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has filed a complaint 
asking this court, pursuant to SCR 22.22, to suspend Attorney 
Eric Leighton Crandall’s license to practice law in Wisconsin 
for a period of 90 days as discipline reciprocal to that imposed 
upon Attorney Crandall in Minnesota. 
 
Attorney Crandall was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin 
in 1991.  He was admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 1988.   
 
On July 28, 2005, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered that 
Attorney Crandall be indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
law, with the right to seek reinstatement after three months, 
for professional misconduct consisting of neglecting client 
matters, failing to appear at his clients’ court hearings, 
failing to comply with the rules of discovery, and failing to 
No.  2005AP2568-D 
 
2 
cooperate fully with the Director of the Office of Lawyers 
Professional Responsibility.  The OLR’s complaint alleges that 
by virtue of having received public discipline imposed by the 
Minnesota Supreme Court for his violation of the Minnesota Rules 
of Professional Conduct, Attorney Crandall is subject to 
reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22.  The 
complaint also alleges that by failing to notify the OLR of the 
suspension of his Minnesota law license within 20 days of the 
effective date of that jurisdiction’s imposition of a suspension 
for professional misconduct, Attorney Crandall violated SCR 
22.22(1).   
 
SCR 22.22(3) provides that this court shall impose the 
identical discipline or license suspension unless the procedure 
in the 
other 
jurisdiction 
was so 
lacking 
in 
notice or 
opportunity to be heard as to constitute a due process 
violation; there was such an infirmity of proof establishing the 
misconduct that this court could not accept as final the 
misconduct finding; or the misconduct justifies substantially 
different discipline here. 
 
Attorney Crandall filed a letter response to the OLR’s 
complaint on November 29, 2005 stating two reasons why he 
believes reciprocal discipline to be inappropriate.  First, he 
says the punishment imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court 
exceeds the punishment that the court would impose under similar 
circumstances. 
 
He 
says, 
“Three 
months 
suspension 
for 
essentially missing 
three 
court appearances 
is 
excessive.  
Additionally two of the seven Minnesota Supreme Court Justices 
disagreed with the length of the suspension.”  (Two justices 
would have allowed Attorney Crandall to seek reinstatement after 
two months.)  Second, Attorney Crandall says he does not believe 
it is appropriate for this court to impose discipline for acts 
or omissions outside the state’s borders. 
 
None of the three exceptions set forth in SCR 22.22(3) for 
imposing reciprocal discipline exists here.  The documents 
relating to the Minnesota disciplinary action that are attached 
to the OLR’s complaint indicate that Attorney Crandall had the 
opportunity to be heard in the Minnesota action.  There is no 
showing that there was such an infirmity of proof establishing 
the misconduct that this court could not accept as final the 
misconduct findings made by the Minnesota Supreme court.  While 
Attorney 
Crandall 
argues 
that 
the 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially different discipline in Wisconsin, it appears that 
a 90-day suspension of an attorney’s license is consistent with 
what 
would 
be 
imposed 
on 
Wisconsin 
lawyers 
for 
similar 
No.  2005AP2568-D 
 
3 
misconduct.  We conclude that it is appropriate to impose 
reciprocal discipline to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme 
Court. 
 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Eric Leighton 
Crandall to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for three 
months, effective February 20, 2006, and until the further order 
of this court; 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Crandall shall comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
 
 
 
No.  2005AP2568-D 
 
4