Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Adam A. Gillette

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 11, 2017No. 2016AP002267-DPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

¶ 20.

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.

{concurring

in part and dissenting in part). I concur with the per curiam opinion accepting the stipulation between Attorney Gillette and OLR and suspending Attorney Gillette's license for 60 days as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota.

¶ 21. I dissent from the per curiam's order requiring Attorney Gillette to comply with the terms and conditions imposed by the disciplinary order in Minnesota to make the discipline identical under SCR 22.22(3).

¶ 22. This proceeding raises two questions for me.

¶ 23. First, the proceeding…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Disciplinary Proceedings Against MoreeWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Disciplinary Proceedings Against HookerWisconsin Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Eichhorn-HicksWisconsin Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jeffrey John AlemanWisconsin Supreme Court · 2015
  5. Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John H. PeissWisconsin Supreme Court · 2017

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API