Will Forgeries Draw Suspension
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended an attorney for 30 months
In this disciplinary proceeding, there is no dispute that Attorney John P. Buran committed professional misconduct by forging the name of a former employee of his law firm as a witness to nine wills and then submitting six of those wills to probate, as alleged in the three counts of the complaint. The dispute in this matter centers on the appropriate level of discipline to be imposed. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has appealed Referee Sue E. Bischel’s recommendation that we suspend Attorney John P. Buran’s license to practice law in Wisconsin for 18 months as discipline for his professional misconduct.
The OLR had sought revocation
The OLR seeks the ultimate sanction that this court can impose. To be blunt, this is not a revocation case. It is a case that calls for a substantial suspension. Attorney Buran’s misconduct is extremely serious. Rather than take the necessary step of finding the required number of witnesses to sign certain of his clients’ wills, he forged a signature of a witness to make it appear that the legal requirements for witnessing a will had been satisfied. He then compounded his misconduct by filing those wills in the probate courts of this state. Moreover, this was not an isolated course of conduct; he did this multiple times over a period of at least 13 years. The number of times this misconduct occurred, the repeated pattern of this misconduct, the length of time over which this misconduct occurred, and the undermining of the judicial probate process all constitute aggravating factors that call for a substantial suspension to impress the seriousness of his misconduct on Attorney Buran and to deter other attorneys in this state from taking similar actions.
Sanction considerations
We now turn to the subject of the appeal, which is the appropriate level of discipline in this proceeding. The OLR challenges the referee’s findings/statements regarding Attorney Buran’s lack of intent to deceive and his remorse. We acknowledge that the OLR raises legitimate issues regarding a referee’s statements concerning mitigating/aggravating factors and the proper level of discipline. We need not address those issues here, however, to determine the appropriate level of discipline that should be imposed on Attorney Buran for his professional misconduct. We save for another day the issues regarding what a referee may utilize for finding the presence of aggravating and mitigating factors.
In particular, the OLR criticizes the referee for finding, based on statements by Attorney Buran in his sanction memorandum, that he was remorseful for his misconduct and that he attempted to rectify the consequences of his misconduct with one client. We need not address these arguments because we are able to reach a decision on the appropriate level of discipline without relying on any finding that Attorney Buran expressed true remorse for his misconduct. It is clear from the record of this case that Attorney Buran accepted responsibility for his misconduct. His answer admitted all of the material factual allegations of the OLR’s complaint. When the OLR then moved for summary judgment on the basis that those facts demonstrated the ethical violations alleged, Attorney Buran did not oppose the OLR’s motion. He acknowledged, both before the referee and in his appellate brief, that he had committed misconduct and that it was serious. He did not dispute his actions and did not attempt to evade responsibility for them. Whether one could further state that he also was remorseful for his misconduct (that he felt genuine guilt and regret for what he had done) does not change the calculus enough in this instance to require a different level of discipline.
Bottom line
Ultimately, we conclude that a 30-month suspension of Attorney Buran’s license is the appropriate level of discipline under the particular facts of this case and given our prior decisions. A suspension of two and one-half years is sufficient to impress upon Attorney Buran the unquestionable seriousness of his misconduct. It is also a warning to other attorneys who might be tempted to follow the same short-cut when faced with the need to locate witnesses for the execution of a will that such misconduct will have grave consequences for their privilege of practicing law in this state and for their livelihood.
(Mike Frisch)