Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Richard A. Kranitz
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2013AP002128-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: November 8, 2016

2016 WI 90 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP2128-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Richard A. Kranitz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Richard A. Kranitz, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KRANITZ 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 8, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 90
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP2128-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Richard A. Kranitz, Attorney at Law:  
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
 
Complainant,   
 
 
v. 
 
Richard A. Kranitz,   
 
 
Respondent.   
FILED 
 
NOV 8, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted 
upon conditions.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule (SCR) 22.33(3),1 a report filed by Referee James W. Mohr, 
Jr., recommending that the court reinstate the license of 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.33(3) provides that "[i]f no appeal is timely 
filed, the supreme court shall review the referee's report, 
order 
reinstatement, 
with 
or 
without 
conditions, 
deny 
reinstatement, or order the parties to file briefs in the 
matter." 
 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
2 
 
Richard A. Kranitz to practice law in Wisconsin.  Upon careful 
review of the matter, we agree that Attorney Kranitz's license 
should be reinstated, with the conditions described herein.  We 
agree that Attorney Kranitz should be responsible for the costs 
of this proceeding, which total $3,142.97. 
¶2 
Attorney Kranitz was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1969.  He practiced corporate law in the Milwaukee 
and Grafton areas.  He had no disciplinary history until the 
matter giving rise to this proceeding. 
¶3 
In 2013, Attorney Kranitz was convicted of one count 
of conspiracy to commit securities fraud in violation of 18 
U.S.C. § 1348, 1349, and 2.  See United States v. Kranitz, CR 
No. 11-10415-NMG (D. Mass.).  He was sentenced to 18 months at a 
federal prison camp in Duluth, Minnesota, and served 14 of the 
18 months, receiving time off for good behavior. 
¶4 
The conviction resulted in the summary suspension of 
his license to practice law pursuant to SCR 22.20.2  Thereafter, 
this court accepted a stipulation executed by Attorney Kranitz 
and the OLR, and suspended Attorney Kranitz's license to 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.20 provides as follows:   
(1) Upon receiving satisfactory proof that an 
attorney has been found guilty or convicted of a 
serious crime, the supreme court may summarily suspend 
the attorney's license to practice law pending final 
disposition of a disciplinary proceeding, whether the 
finding of guilt or the conviction resulted from a 
plea of guilty or no contest or from a verdict after 
trial and regardless of the pendency of an appeal. 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
3 
 
practice law for two years for the professional misconduct 
giving 
rise 
to 
the 
federal 
felony 
conviction. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Kranitz, 
2014 
WI 
47, 
354 Wis. 2d 710, 848 N.W.2d 292.   
¶5 
In March 2016, Attorney Kranitz filed a petition 
seeking reinstatement of his law license.  In June 2016, the OLR 
filed a response stating it did not oppose the reinstatement 
petition.  The referee conducted a public hearing in July 2016.  
At the hearing, Attorney Kranitz testified on his own behalf and 
called several witnesses, including several business associates, 
attorneys, and clients who knew, worked, or practiced law with 
him.  The referee filed his report and recommendation in August 
2016, recommending reinstatement.  No appeal was filed.   
¶6 
SCR 22.31(1)3 provides the standards to be met for 
reinstatement.  Specifically, the petitioner must show by clear, 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.31(1) provides: 
(1) 
The 
petitioner 
has 
the 
burden 
of 
demonstrating, by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 
evidence, all of the following:  
(a) That he or she has the moral character to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  
(b) That his or her resumption of the practice of 
law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest.  
(c) That his or her representations in the 
petition, including the representations required by 
SCR 
22.29(4)(a) 
to 
(m) 
and 
22.29(5), 
are 
substantiated.  
(continued) 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
4 
 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or she has the 
moral character to practice law, that his or her resumption of 
the 
practice 
of 
law 
will 
not 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
administration of justice or subversive to the public interest, 
and that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of 
the 
order 
of 
suspension. 
 
In 
addition, 
SCR 
22.31(1)(c) 
incorporates the statements that a petition for reinstatement 
must contain pursuant to SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m).4  Thus, the 
                                                                                                                                                             
(d) That he or she has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
with the requirements of SCR 22.26. 
4 SCR 22.29(4)(a) through (4m) provides that a petition for 
reinstatement must show all of the following: 
(a) 
The 
petitioner 
desires 
to 
have 
the 
petitioner's license reinstated.  
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during 
the period of suspension or revocation.  
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
will 
continue 
to 
comply 
with 
them 
until 
the 
petitioner's license is reinstated.  
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and 
learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities.  
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension 
or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach.  
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of 
and attitude toward the standards that are imposed 
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with the standards.  
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to 
the legal profession, the courts and the public as a 
(continued) 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
5 
 
petitioning 
attorney 
must 
demonstrate 
that 
the 
required 
representations in the reinstatement petition are substantiated.  
¶7 
When 
reviewing 
referee 
reports 
in 
reinstatement 
proceedings, we utilize standards of review similar to those we 
use for reviewing referee reports in disciplinary proceedings.  
We do not overturn a referee's findings of fact unless they are 
clearly erroneous.  On the other hand, we review a referee's 
legal conclusions, including whether the attorney has satisfied 
the criteria for reinstatement, on a de novo basis.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jennings, 2011 WI 45, ¶39, 
                                                                                                                                                             
person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 
them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence and in general to aid in the administration 
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 
the courts.  
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26.  
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license 
if reinstated.  
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation.  
(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 
petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to 
the Wisconsin lawyers’ fund for client protection for 
all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the 
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability 
to do so. 
 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
6 
 
334 Wis. 2d 335, 801 N.W.2d 304; In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gral, 2010 WI 14, ¶22, 323 Wis. 2d 280, 779 N.W.2d 168. 
¶8 
The referee found that Attorney Kranitz demonstrated 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence all of the 
requirements for reinstatement of his Wisconsin law license.  
The referee found that Attorney Kranitz has not practiced law 
during the period of his suspension;5 that he has complied fully 
with the terms of the order of suspension and will continue to 
do so until his license is reinstated; that he has maintained 
competence and learning in the law;6 that his conduct since the 
suspension has been exemplary and above reproach; that he has a 
proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that 
are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with those standards; and that he can be safely recommended to 
the legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit 
to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise 
act in matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in 
the administration of justice as a member of the bar and an 
officer of the courts.   
                                                 
5 During his suspension, Attorney Kranitz was a business 
consultant from December 15, 2014, following the period of 
incarceration and home confinement, and from April 2015 to the 
present he was a business consultant adviser and coach with 
Advicoach, a national business coaching service.  He also 
manages a private charitable foundation in the Village of 
Grafton, Wisconsin.   
6 On March 29, 2016, the Board of Bar Examiners filed a 
memorandum indicating that Attorney Kranitz is currently in 
compliance with continuing legal education requirements. 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
7 
 
¶9 
The referee urged reinstatement of Attorney Kranitz's 
license to practice law, conditioned upon his compliance with 
the terms of two consent orders issued by the United States 
Securities and Exchange Commission that are included in the 
record in this matter.  See In re Richard Kranitz, Securities & 
Exch. Comm'n, No. 3-16149 (Sec. Exch. Act of 1934, Release No. 
73169, Sept. 22, 2014) (https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/201
4/34-73169.pdf); In re Richard Kranitz, Securities & Exch. 
Comm'n, No. 3-16149 (Sec. Exch. Act of 1934, Release No. 73170, 
Sept. 22, 2014) (https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2014/34-
73170.pdf).  The consent orders provide that Attorney Kranitz is 
suspended from appearing or practicing before the Securities and 
Exchange 
Commission 
pursuant 
to 
Rule 
102(e)(2) 
of 
the 
Commission's Rules of Practice, and is barred from acting as an 
officer or director of any public corporation registered under 
the Exchange Act, and barred from participating in any capacity 
in any offerings of penny stocks. The referee noted that 
Attorney Kranitz is aware of both of those consent orders and 
has stated he will abide by them.   
¶10 In rendering his recommendation, the referee noted 
that Attorney Kranitz was sincere, forthright, credible, and 
entirely candid in his testimony.  Attorney Kranitz affirmed 
that he will not do any further securities work, but stated that 
he would like to train clients and others in various types of 
financing transactions; and to do contract, estate planning, 
mergers and acquisitions, and other family corporation type 
transactions.  The referee noted that Attorney Kranitz is "more 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
8 
 
than 
current" 
in 
all 
of 
his 
continuing 
legal 
education 
requirements, having taken more ethics credits than were 
required and has educated himself regarding the variety of 
criminal law issues involved in securities and corporate law 
practice.  
¶11 The referee noted that several witnesses appeared on 
behalf of Attorney Kranitz, including attorneys who have known 
Attorney Kranitz for a long time, and former clients.  The 
referee was particularly impressed by the clients' testimony.  
They described the extremely high ethical, moral and character 
standards that Attorney Kranitz adhered to prior to the 
indictment.  Although each of them was very surprised to hear of 
the indictment, they all testified that their exceedingly high 
opinion of Attorney Kranitz's character had not decreased and 
that they would still use him as their attorney, and would refer 
other clients to him. They described him as an exceptionally 
qualified attorney who can render a valuable service to the 
small business community in Wisconsin.  The two attorneys who 
testified in support of Attorney Kranitz's reinstatement were 
equally laudatory in their testimony.  They support his 
reinstatement petition and praised his extensive knowledge base, 
which they deem an asset to small businesses in this state.  
¶12 Upon review of the record, we agree that Attorney 
Kranitz has established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 
evidence that he has satisfied all the criteria necessary for 
reinstatement.  Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of 
fact and conclusions of law and we accept the referee's 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
9 
 
recommendation that we reinstate Attorney Kranitz's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin, subject to the conditions imposed by 
the consent orders described herein.   
¶13 The referee recommended that Attorney Kranitz should 
pay the costs associated with this reinstatement proceeding, 
which total $3,142.97 as of August 17, 2016.  Our general 
practice is to assess full costs against the respondent in a 
disciplinary 
proceeding, 
or 
against 
the 
petitioner 
in 
a 
reinstatement proceeding.  See generally SCR 22.24(1), (1m); see 
also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Webster, 2002 WI 
100, ¶¶51-52, 255 Wis. 2d 323, 647 N.W.2d 831.  We see no reason 
to deviate from our standard policy here and we impose the costs 
of this proceeding on Attorney Kranitz.  
¶14 Finally, we note that Attorney Kranitz, whose license 
is suspended, has assumed inactive membership status with the 
State Bar of Wisconsin.  Although his license to practice law is 
reinstated, effective the date of this order, Attorney Kranitz 
is reminded that he must make arrangements with the State Bar of 
Wisconsin to resume active or emeritus status before he resumes 
the active practice of law. 
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Richard A. Kranitz 
to practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date 
of this order. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of his 
reinstatement and as a condition of his continued practice of 
law, Attorney Kranitz is subject to the terms of two consent 
orders, the terms of which bar him from appearing or practicing 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
10 
 
before the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 
102(e)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, bar him from 
acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class 
of 
securities 
registered 
pursuant 
to 
Section 
12 
of 
the 
Securities and Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 781, or that is 
required to file reports pursuant to Section 15(d) of the 
Securities and Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 78o(d), and bar him 
from participating in any offering of a penny stock, including: 
acting as a promoter, finder, consultant, agent, or other person 
who engages in activities with a broker, dealer or issuer for 
purposes of the issuance or trading in any penny stock, or 
inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of any 
penny stock.  
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richard A. Kranitz shall 
promptly advise the Office of Lawyer Regulation of any change to 
the terms of the consent orders referenced in this opinion. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Richard A. Kranitz shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation costs in the amount of $3,142.97. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the 
terms of this order remain a condition of Richard A. Kranitz's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
 
 
No. 
2013AP2128-D   
 
 
 
1