Opinion
June 7, 1963 —
June 28, 1963.
ORIGINAL ACTION upon the complaint of the Board of State Bar Commissioners seeking the discipline of defendant, George A. Hartman, Jr., an attorney. Adjudged, defendant's conduct merits discipline. Discipline imposed.
For the plaintiff there was oral argument by Rudolph P. Regez of Monroe, counsel for the Board of State Bar Commissioners.
For the defendant there was oral argument by A. W. Lueck of Beaver Dam.
The complaint in this proceeding was made and filed pursuant to sec. 256.28 (8), Stats. In substance it alleges as follows: That the defendant is an attorney-at-law licensed to practice law in Wisconsin; that on November 23, 1962, an information was filed in the United States district court for the Eastern district of Wisconsin, charging the defendant with wilfully and knowingly failing to make federal income-tax returns for the year 1959 within the time prescribed by law; that defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and was convicted; that defendant was guilty as charged, and his conduct was an intentional violation of the tax laws of the United States, and as such constitutes unprofessional conduct.
Defendant answered, admitting in substance the facts alleged, but denying that he intentionally violated the law and that his acts constitute unprofessional conduct. Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings. At the hearing on the motion, defendant consented to determination of the matter on the pleadings and representations on his behalf as to character and competence as a lawyer, without referring the matter to a referee under sec. 256.28 (12), Stats.
The defendant George A. Hartman, Jr., is an attorney, age thirty-seven. He is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin. He has practiced in Juneau since his admission to the bar in 1954. He is presently family court commissioner for Dodge county. His counsel presented affidavits of judges before whom he appears attesting his ability and integrity.
Although originally charged with failure to file returns for the years 1957 and 1958, those charges were dismissed on motion of the government. On the count relating to 1959, he was sentenced to thirty days' imprisonment and fined $1,000.
Defendant's deliberate failure to file income-tax returns constituted unprofessional conduct and subjected him to discipline by this court.
State v. Roggensack (1963), 19 Wis.2d 38, 119 N.W.2d 412; State v. Bunge, ante, p. 493, 122 N.W.2d 369.
Upon consideration of all the circumstances, we deem a reprimand and imposition of costs sufficient discipline in this instance.
See State v. Bunge, ante, for the general principles considered.
Therefore, it is ordered and adjudged, that the defendant be reprimanded for his unprofessional conduct in failing to timely file his federal income-tax return for 1959, and that he pay the costs and expenses of these proceedings, including the fees and disbursements of the attorney for plaintiff.