Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John M. Curtin
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2014 WI 90 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2013AP2705-D Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. John M. Curtin, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CURTIN OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: July 24, 2014 2014 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. 2013AP2705-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED Complainant, v. JUL 24, 2014 John M. Curtin, Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney publicly reprimanded. ¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a stipulation filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney John M. Curtin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12. The stipulation requests this court to publicly reprimand Attorney Curtin as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the Arizona Supreme Court. ¶2 Attorney Wisconsin in 1987. Curtin was admitted to practice law in His Wisconsin license is currently in good standing but inactive. practice law in Arizona. Attorney Curtin is also admitted to No. ¶3 2013AP2705-D According to the stipulation, on May 13, 2013, the Arizona Supreme Court reprimanded Attorney Curtin for failing to maintain adequate trust required standards for account records performance and failing regarding to trust meet account control and supervision after the staff member who maintained Attorney Curtin's trust account records falsified, destroyed, and stopped maintaining some trust account records to enable substantial theft from Attorney Curtin's trust account. Arizona Supreme ER 1.15(a) of Court the found Arizona that Rules Attorney The violated Professional of Curtin Conduct, Rule 42, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct., and Rules 43(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)-(C), and (b)(2)(A)-(D). agreed that a Attorney Curtin admitted the allegations and reprimand and a year of probation and participation in a trust account ethics program was appropriate. Attorney Curtin did not notify the OLR of the Arizona reprimand within 20 days of its effective date. The OLR did receive notice from Attorney Curtin on December 11, 2013. ¶4 On December 10, 2013, the OLR filed a complaint alleging two counts of misconduct: [Count One] By virtue of the Arizona reprimand, Curtin is subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22. [Count Two] By failing to notify OLR of his reprimand in Arizona for professional misconduct within 20 days of the effective date of its imposition, Curtin violated SCR 22.22(1). ¶5 On February stipulation whereby appropriate for 11, 2014, Attorney this court the Curtin to 2 parties agreed impose a entered that public it into a would be reprimand as No. 2013AP2705-D discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Arizona Supreme Court. The stipulation properly provides that it did not result from plea bargaining. Attorney Curtin says he does not contest the facts of misconduct alleged by the OLR or the discipline that the OLR's director is seeking in this matter. Attorney Curtin further states that he fully understands the misconduct allegations and the ramifications should this court impose the stipulated level of discipline. He also states that he fully understands his right to contest the matter and he understands his right to consult with counsel. Attorney Curtin states that his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily and represents alleged in the his decision OLR's not complaint to or contest the the level misconduct and type of discipline sought by the OLR director. ¶6 Based upon our independent review of the matter, we conclude that the SCR 22.12 stipulation should be accepted and that Attorney discipline Court. Curtin identical to should be publicly that imposed by the reprimanded Arizona as Supreme Since Attorney Curtin entered into a stipulation with the OLR and there was no need to appoint a referee, we conclude that no costs should be assessed. ¶7 IT IS ORDERED that John reprimanded. 3 M. Curtin is publicly No. 1 2013AP2705-D
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
