Court Opinion

ID: 9945158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 14:16:40.934993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:24.095018
License: Public Domain

2024 WI 9

                  SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.:              2023AP1332-D

COMPLETE TITLE:        In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
                       Against Erick R. Tyrone, Attorney at Law:

                       Office of Lawyer Regulation,
                                 Complainant,
                            v.
                       Erick R. Tyrone,
                                 Respondent.

                           DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TYRONE

OPINION FILED:         February 27, 2024
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
   COURT:
   COUNTY:
   JUDGE:

JUSTICES:
Per curiam.

ATTORNEYS:
                                                                        2024 WI 9
                                                              NOTICE
                                                This opinion is subject to further
                                                editing and modification.   The final
                                                version will appear in the bound
                                                volume of the official reports.
No.   2023AP1332-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN                          :              IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Erick R. Tyrone, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,                                        FILED
               Complainant,
                                                               FEB 27, 2024
          v.
                                                               Samuel A. Christensen
                                                               Clerk of Supreme Court
Erick R. Tyrone,

               Respondent.

      ATTORNEY      disciplinary   proceeding.          Attorney's        license

suspended.

      ¶1       PER CURIAM.    The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and

Attorney Erick R. Tyrone have filed a stipulation pursuant to

Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12,1 that Attorney Tyrone's license to

      1   SCR 22.12 states:

      (1) The director may file with the complaint a
      stipulation of the director and the respondent to the
      facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and
      discipline to be imposed, together with a memorandum in
      support of the stipulation. The respondent may file a
      response to the director's memorandum within 14 days of
      the date of filing of the stipulation. The supreme court
                                                     No.   2023AP1332-D

practice law in this state should be suspended for a period of six

months, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Court of

Appeals of Maryland.    After reviewing the matter, we approve the

stipulation and impose the stipulated reciprocal discipline.       The

OLR does not seek costs, and we do not impose any.

     ¶2   Attorney Tyrone was admitted to the practice of law in

Wisconsin in 2009.     He was admitted to the practice of law in

Maryland in 2012 and in the District of Columbia in 2016.          His

Wisconsin law license has been suspended since 2012 for failure to

     may consider the complaint and stipulation without the
     appointment of a referee, in which case the supreme court
     may approve the stipulation, reject the stipulation, or
     direct the parties to consider specific modifications to
     the stipulation.

     (2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, it shall
     adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law and
     impose the stipulated discipline.

     (3) If the supreme court rejects a stipulation, a referee
     shall be appointed and the matter shall proceed as a
     complaint filed without a stipulation.

     (3m) If the supreme court directs the parties to consider
     specific modifications to the stipulation, the parties
     may, within 20 days of the date of the order, file a
     revised stipulation, in which case the supreme court may
     approve the revised stipulation, adopt the stipulated
     facts and conclusions of law, and impose the stipulated
     discipline.    If the parties do not file a revised
     stipulation within 20 days of the date of the order, a
     referee shall be appointed and the matter shall proceed
     as a complaint filed without a stipulation.

     (4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court has no
     evidentiary value and is without prejudice to the
     respondent's   defense  of   the  proceeding   or  the
     prosecution of the complaint.

                                 2
                                                                     No.    2023AP1332-D

pay   State    Bar    dues,     failure   to    file     an    OLR    trust    account

certification certificate, and failure to comply with continuing

legal    education        requirements.       Attorney    Tyrone      has     no   prior

discipline in Wisconsin.

      ¶3      On July 26, 2023, OLR filed a complaint alleging that on

September 7, 2021, the Court of Appeals of Maryland ordered the

Indefinite Suspension by Consent of Attorney Tyrone's license to

practice      law    in    Maryland,    with    the    right    to     petition      for

reinstatement after six months.               Attorney Tyrone was disciplined

in Maryland for failing to represent his client competently;

failing to safe-keep client funds in an attorney trust account;

engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of

justice; failing to comply with attorney trust account record

keeping; and prohibited transaction requirements and commingling

funds.

      ¶4      On September 30, 2022, the District of Columbia Court of

Appeals filed an order suspending Attorney Tyrone's license to

practice law in the District of Columbia on an interim basis.                        The
interim suspension was based on consideration of the order of the

Court of Appeals of Maryland suspending Attorney Tyrone's law

license indefinitely with the right to petition for reinstatement

after six months.

      ¶5      Count one of OLR's complaint alleged that by virtue of

the Maryland disciplinary suspension, Attorney Tyrone is subject

to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22. Count

two of OLR's complaint alleged that by failing to notify OLR of
the   Maryland      disciplinary       suspension      within    20    days    of   the
                                          3
                                                              No.    2023AP1332-D

effective    date   of    that   jurisdiction's       imposition     of   public

discipline for professional misconduct, Attorney Tyrone violated

SCR 22.22(1).2

     ¶6     Under   SCR    22.22(3),3       this   court   shall    impose   the

identical discipline imposed in another jurisdiction, unless one

or more of three exceptions apply.            In his stipulation with OLR,

Attorney Tyrone states that he is not claiming any of the defenses

found in SCR 22.22(3).

     ¶7     In the stipulation, Attorney Tyrone further represents

that the stipulation was not the result of plea bargaining and

that he does not contest the facts and misconduct alleged by OLR

or the reciprocal discipline OLR seeks in this matter.

     2 SCR 22.22(1) provides:      "An attorney on whom public
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for medical
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction shall promptly
notify the director of the matter. Failure to furnish the notice
within 20 days of the effective date of the order or judgment of
the other jurisdiction constitutes misconduct."
     3   SCR 22.22(3) provides:

     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.

     (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.

                                        4
                                                             No.    2023AP1332-D

       ¶8    After reviewing this matter, we accept the stipulation

and impose the identical discipline imposed by the Court of Appeals

of Maryland, namely a six-month suspension of Attorney Tyrone's

license to practice law in this state.

       ¶9    IT IS ORDERED that the license of Erick R. Tyrone to

practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six months,

effective the date of this order.

       ¶10   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not

already done so, Erick R. Tyrone 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.

       ¶11   IT   IS    FURTHER   ORDERED     that    compliance    with     all

conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.                See SCR

22.29(4)(c).

       ¶12   IT   IS    FURTHER    ORDERED     that    the    administrative

suspensions of Erick R. Tyrone's license to practice law in

Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay bar dues, failure to file an

OLR trust account certification certificate, and failure to comply
with   continuing      legal   education    requirements,    will   remain    in

effect until each reason for the administrative suspensions have

been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).

                                      5
    No.   2023AP1332-D

1