Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Bradford A. Borman
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2016AP000217-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: April 15, 2016

2016 WI 25 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP217-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Bradford A. Borman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Bradford A. Borman, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BORMAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 15, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 25
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP217-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Bradford A. Borman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Bradford A. Borman, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 15, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is reciprocal discipline matter.  
On January 29, 2016, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed 
a complaint against Attorney Bradford A. Borman, seeking the 
imposition of discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Maine 
Board of Overseers of the Bar.  On October 8, 2015, the Maine 
Board of Overseers of the Bar publicly reprimanded Attorney 
Borman based on two counts of misconduct. 
No. 
2016AP217-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Attorney Borman was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2001.  He was admitted to practice law in Maine in 
2007.  His Wisconsin law license was administratively suspended 
in 2008, for failure to comply with continuing legal education 
(CLE) requirements.  His Wisconsin license remains suspended.   
¶3 
On February 24, 2016, Attorney Borman and the OLR 
entered into a stipulation whereby Attorney Borman agrees it 
would be appropriate for this court to impose the level of 
discipline sought by the OLR director, namely, a public 
reprimand.  The stipulation notes that Attorney Borman's 
misconduct in Maine consisted of his failure to file an 
affidavit demonstrating that he notified relevant parties of the 
administrative suspension of his Maine law license and his 
failure to respond to Maine disciplinary authorities.  A Bar 
Grievance Commission panel of the Maine Board of Overseers of 
the Bar found that Attorney Borman violated Maine Bar Rules by: 
(a) failing to file an affidavit certifying that he 
provided 
notice 
to 
certain 
parties 
after 
an 
administrative 
suspension, 
in 
violation 
of 
Rule 
7.3(i)(2)(B) of the Maine Rules; and 
(b) failing to respond to Bar Counsel during their 
investigation of his misconduct, in violation of Rules 
8.1(b) and 8.4(a)(d) of the Maine Rules. 
¶4 
Supreme Court Rule (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:  
No. 
2016AP217-D   
 
3 
 
(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.  
(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. 
¶5 
Attorney Borman does not claim that any of the 
defenses found in SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c) apply.  Attorney Borman 
further states that his entry into the stipulation did not 
result from plea bargaining.  He represents that he fully 
understands the misconduct allegations; he fully understands the 
ramifications should this court impose the stipulated level of 
discipline; he fully understands his right to contest this 
matter; he fully understands his right to consult with counsel; 
and his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and 
voluntarily, and represents his decision not to contest the 
misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint or the level and type 
of discipline sought by the OLR director. 
¶6 
After fully reviewing the matter, we accept the 
parties' stipulation.  We agree that it is appropriate to impose 
the discipline identical to that imposed by the Maine Board of 
Overseers of the Bar, namely, a public reprimand.  Since this 
matter was resolved by means of a stipulation, the OLR has not 
sought the imposition of costs and we do not assess any costs. 
¶7 
IT IS ORDERED that Bradford A. Borman is publicly 
reprimanded. 
No. 
2016AP217-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Bradford A. Borman's Wisconsin law license for 
failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements 
remains in effect. 
 
No. 
2016AP217-D   
 
 
 
1