Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Hupy

333 Wis. 2d 612 (2011) · Supreme Court of Wisconsin · May 27, 2011

Summary

The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed attorney Michael F. Hupy's appeal from a referee's recommendation of a public reprimand and assessment of disciplinary costs. The court was evenly divided on an alleged violation involving a postcard, found a violation concerning a misleading 2006 advertising brochure, and rejected the alleged violation concerning a law-firm anniversary sticker. The court imposed a public reprimand and $35,000 in costs.

Holdings

  1. The court was evenly divided on whether the postcard statement violated SCR 20:8.4(c); consequently, the court did not resolve the issue or address the related constitutional challenges.
  2. Republishing the brochure in 2006 with the statement that Hausmann was still practicing law pending his appeal constituted conduct involving a misrepresentation in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).
  3. The brochure was commercial speech and the false statement was not protected by the First Amendment or Article I, section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution.
  4. SCR 20:8.4(c) provided sufficient notice of the prohibited conduct and was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Hupy's false advertising statement.
  5. Use of the 35th-anniversary sticker was not a violation of former SCR 20:7.1(a) or former SCR 20:7.5(a) because any discrepancy between a 30-year and 35-year founding date was not material.
  6. A public reprimand was appropriate for Hupy's violation arising from the 2006 brochure.
  7. Hupy was required to pay $35,000 in costs.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether republishing in 2006 a brochure stating that Charles Hausmann was still practicing law pending his criminal appeal constituted conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation under SCR 20:8.4(c).
  2. Whether the brochure constituted protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution.
  3. Whether SCR 20:8.4(c) was unconstitutionally vague or failed to provide adequate due process notice.
  4. Whether use of a 35th-anniversary sticker constituted a material misrepresentation in violation of former SCR 20:7.1(a) or SCR 20:7.5(a).
  5. What discipline and costs were appropriate.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (12)

  • In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶ 78, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910(followed)
  • In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶ 5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125(followed)
  • In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶ 44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686(followed)
  • Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 514 & n.31 (1984)(followed)
  • Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, 496 U.S. 91 (1990)(rejected)
  • Biskupic v. Cicero, 2008 WI App 117, ¶ 27, 313 Wis. 2d 225, 756 N.W.2d 649(not followed)
  • In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Beaver, 181 Wis. 2d 12, 22, 510 N.W.2d 129 (1994)(distinguished)
  • City of Milwaukee v. Blondis, 157 Wis. 2d 730, 735, 460 N.W.2d 815 (Ct. App. 1990)(distinguished)
  • Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 637-638 (1985)(followed)
  • In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Schalow, 131 Wis. 2d 1, 13, 388 N.W.2d 176 (1986)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 12.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Wisconsin Supreme Court