Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Capistrant (In re Capistrant), 2020AP1007-D
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Citation | 397 Wis.2d 101,959 N.W.2d 339,2021 WI 46 |
| Docket Number | No. 2020AP1007-D,2020AP1007-D |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Joseph Michael CAPISTRANT, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Joseph M. Capistrant, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 25 May 2021 |
397 Wis.2d 101
959 N.W.2d 339
2021 WI 46
In the MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Joseph Michael CAPISTRANT, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant,
v.
Joseph M. Capistrant, Respondent.
No. 2020AP1007-D
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Opinion Filed: May 25, 2021
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended.
PER CURIAM.
¶1 This is a reciprocal discipline matter. On June 12, 2020, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint and motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22, asking this court to suspend Attorney Joseph M. Capistrant's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 60 days, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, yet consistent with Supreme Court of Wisconsin precedent and to order Attorney Capistrant to pay restitution of $547 to his client. Upon careful review, we agree that it is appropriate to suspend Attorney Capistrant's law license for a period of 60 days. Since this matter did not require submission to a referee, we impose no costs.
¶2 Attorney Capistrant was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 2007. He was admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 1987. The most recent address Attorney Capistrant has furnished to the State Bar of Wisconsin is in Osseo, Minnesota. Attorney Capistrant's Wisconsin law license has been administratively suspended since June 12, 2012 for failure to comply with Wisconsin continuing legal education requirements and since October 31, 2012 for failure to pay state bar dues and file a trust account certification.
¶3 In 2015, this court suspended Attorney Capistrant's law license for 90 days. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Capistrant, 2015 WI 88, 364 Wis. 2d 530, 868 N.W.2d 595. He has not been reinstated from that disciplinary suspension.
¶4 On March 14, 2017, the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (OLPR) petitioned the Supreme Court of Minnesota to discipline Attorney Capistrant. In 2014, D.Y. hired Attorney Capistrant to probate his son's estate and make changes to some family documents. D.Y. paid Attorney Capistrant $547 for expected expenses. Attorney Capistrant did not deposit the money into his trust account, did not use the funds toward their intended purpose, and did not file the probate action. Attorney Capistrant also did not respond to D.Y. or his daughter's communications about the matter, did not refund the $547, and did not respond to the OLPR's attempt to investigate his client's grievance.
¶5 On January 10, 2018, the Supreme Court of Minnesota disbarred Attorney Capistrant. Attorney Capistrant did not inform the OLR of the 2018 Minnesota disbarment within 20 days. The OLR's complaint averred that the OLR's director
determined that Wisconsin precedent justifies a 60-day suspension of Attorney Capistrant's Wisconsin Law license.
¶6 On November 10, 2020, this court directed Attorney Capistrant to inform the court in writing within 20 days of any claim by him that the imposition of reciprocal discipline, as requested in the OLR's complaint, would be unwarranted. Attorney Capistrant did not file a response.
¶7 On February 24, 2021, this court directed the parties to inform the court in more detail why a 60-day suspension, rather than revocation, which
would be comparable to the sanction imposed in Minnesota, would be an appropriate level of discipline. The OLR filed a response on March 17, 2021.
¶8 The OLR's response states that Minnesota's disciplinary system uses a different method of "counts" and rule violations than does Wisconsin. The OLR explains that in Minnesota, the misconduct related to Attorney Capistrant's handling of the D.Y. matter is one count, and his non-cooperation is another count. The OLR says within these counts, the Minnesota action combined multiple violations into one unofficial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mutschler (In re Mutschler), 2010AP1939-D
...and paid toward restitution, potentially benefitting dozens of his former clients. The referee also notes that Attorney Mutschler 959 N.W.2d 339 will have no involvement with billing or fees at the law firm and he will be strictly handling a motion practice.¶25 For all of these reasons, the......