Court Opinion

ID: 9871702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 20:40:43.049883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:21.349947
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
¶ 60. (concurring). I join the per curiam but write separately to state that I would have the court address count 4, namely giving false testimony at a deposition.
f 61. When Attorney Willihnganz was asked at a deposition if he had been disciplined only once by this court, he responded "Yes," apparently referring to a public reprimand he had received from this court.
¶ 62. In addition to the public reprimand, Attorney Willihnganz had received a private reprimand from this court.
f 63. The referee decided to dismiss count 4 but raised questions about the scope of a lawyer's obligation to affirmatively disclose a private reprimand to a tribunal.
¶ 64. I do not object to the referee's recommendation to dismiss count 4.1 do, however, conclude that the court ought to answer whether an attorney should consider a private reprimand as discipline by this court in answering questions about court discipline. Lawyers, as well as the Office of Lawyer Regulation and referees, ought to know the answer to this question for the future.