Court Opinion

ID: 9910356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 15:13:16.155722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:25.292679
License: Public Domain

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,                                                  FILED
            Complainant,
                                                                         DEC 15, 2023
      v.
                                                                          Samuel A. Christensen
                                                                         Clerk of Supreme Court
Gary King,

            Respondent.

      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

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."

                                         2
                                                                         No.     2022AP745-D

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
                                              3
                                                                           No.    2022AP745-D

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

                                                 4
                                                                   No.        2022AP745-D

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
                                            5
                                                                       No.     2022AP745-D

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:
                                              6
                                                                     No.        2022AP745-D

              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

       SCR 20:1.1 provides:
       2                      "A lawyer shall provide competent
representation to a client.    Competent representation requires
the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation
reasonably necessary for the representation."

                                           7
                                                                          No.      2022AP745-D

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
                                               8
                                                                         No.    2022AP745-D

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,

                                             9
                                                                               No.    2022AP745-D

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

                                                10
                                                                      No.     2022AP745-D

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

      3SCR 20:8.4(g) provides:    "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to violate the attorney's oath."
      4SCR 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)."
      5SCR 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."

                                          11
                                                               No.     2022AP745-D

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

                                      12
                                                                            No.     2022AP745-D

       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

                                              13
                                                                No.   2022AP745-D

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
                                         14
                                                                   No.       2022AP745-D

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

                                             15
                                                                                No.    2022AP745-D

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.

                                                  16
                                                      No.   2022AP745-D

    ¶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).

                                 17
    No.   2022AP745-D

1