Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Stuart F. Roitburd

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 26, 2016No. 2014AP002801-DPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partShirley S. Abrahamson, J.

¶ 31. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). The OLR charged Attorney Roitburd with three violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. I agree with the per curiam that the three violations were established by virtue of Attorney Roitburd's default in these proceedings. I also agree that Attorney Roitburd should pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding. I agree, finally, that Attorney Roitburd's compliance with all conditions imposed in the per curiam, including satisfaction of the judgment entered by the circuit court against him in Estate of Shirley Roitburd,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against EisenbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  2. State v. Ramon G. GonzalezWisconsin Supreme Court · 2014
  3. In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against KrezminskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Disciplinary Proceedings Against GoldsteinWisconsin Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Office of Lawyer Regulation v. BoyleWisconsin Supreme Court · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API