Wisconsin Lawyer: Lawyer Discipline:

State Bar of Wisconsin

Sign In

Top Link Bar

    Our online store, Marketplace.wisbar.org, will be unavailable on August 20 starting at 5 p.m. until 11 p.m. for system maintenance.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​  Access to our other sites will not be affected.​

    Wisconsin LawyerWisconsin Lawyer

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY

    Lawyer Discipline

    The Office of Lawyer Regulation, an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, provides these summaries for educational purposes.


    Share This:

    The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, provides these summaries for educational purposes. The OLR assists the court in supervising the practice of law and protecting the public from misconduct by lawyers. Find the full text of these summaries at www.wicourts.gov/olr.

    Disciplinary Proceeding Against Jason C. Gonzalez

    On Nov. 8, 2018, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Jason Gonzalez, Madison. In addition, the court ordered that Gonzalez pay the full $9,733.36 cost of the disciplinary proceeding. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gonzalez, 2018 WI 104.

    Gonzalez committed misconduct in two client matters. In the first matter, Gonzalez represented a client on operating while intoxicated (OWI) charges filed against him in March 2013 and on two municipal citations issued in November 2013. In the OWI matter, Gonzalez failed to communicate with the client and did not respond substantively to requests for information, thereby violating SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).

    With respect to the municipal citations, Gonzalez violated SCR 20:1.3 by failing to enter not-guilty pleas on the client’s behalf despite telling him that he had done so. The client, relying on Gonzalez’s claim that not-guilty pleas were entered on his behalf, was found in default when he did not appear for his initial court date. After the citations were reopened, Gonzalez did nothing to defend the client. Gonzalez made a misrepresentation to the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) regarding contact with the client and further misrepresented to the OLR that he did not represent the client on the municipal citations, in violation of SCR 22.03(6) (enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h)).

    In the second matter, Gonzalez represented a client on charges of sexual assault of a child and child enticement and in an ongoing paternity and child support matter. In January 2015, the court in the paternity matter ordered that the client be allowed telephone contact with his daughter. Gonzalez was responsible for preparing the court order in that regard but never did so, thereby violating SCR 20:1.3. Opposing counsel drafted the order in April 2015 and then moved for attorney fees and sanctions against Gonzalez. The court granted the motion.

    In response to the client’s grievance, Gonzalez misrepresented that the client had not attempted to contact him since the client’s 2014 incarceration and that it was up to the client, not Gonzalez, to arrange telephone contact between the client and his daughter. By falsely claiming a lack of contact from the client and by not disclosing to the OLR that he was responsible for preparing the court order at issue, Gonzalez again violated SCR 22.03(6) (enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h)).

    Gonzalez had no prior discipline.

    Public Reprimand of Antoni Apollo

    The OLR and Antoni Apollo, Wauwatosa, entered into an agreement for the imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A supreme court-appointed referee approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand on Nov. 10, 2018, in accordance with SCR 22.09(3).

    Apollo formerly worked as an assistant district attorney in the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s (DA’s) office. At all times relevant to the public reprimand, Apollo no longer worked in the Milwaukee County DA’s office, but he remained friends with another lawyer who was a Milwaukee County assistant DA.

    The other lawyer was scheduled to work another job when she was assigned on-duty DA responsibilities, to include carrying a county-issued cell phone (“the duty DA phone”), which allowed the on-duty assistant DA to answer questions and assist law enforcement officers during nonbusiness hours. So as to work her other job, the other lawyer gave the duty DA phone to Apollo, who at that time had no authority to carry and answer the duty DA phone.

    While Apollo was in possession of the duty DA phone, police officers for a Milwaukee County municipality were involved in the arrest of a man for first-offense OWI and obstructing an officer. The man refused to consent to a blood draw. One of the police officers attempted to make contact with the other lawyer, whom the officer knew to be the on-duty DA, but Apollo answered the call and advised the officer to obtain a search warrant for the arrested man’s blood. Apollo represented himself as an intern in the Milwaukee County DA’s office and provided the name of an actual former intern.

    The arrested man was cited for municipal, noncriminal first-offense OWI and charged with misdemeanor obstructing an officer in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. The other lawyer, who was then assigned to the Special Crimes Division (and thus would not typically handle an obstructing case), appeared on behalf of the state at the initial appearance in the matter for the sole purpose of moving to dismiss the criminal case. The motion was granted. The other lawyer provided no explanation to the court for seeking dismissal.

    The other lawyer was not immediately forthcoming with the municipality’s police or prosecutor regarding the source of the advice provided to the officer involved in the arrest, but she eventually identified Apollo.

    Based on his conduct, Apollo was convicted of misdemeanor attempted misconduct in public office (party to a crime). By engaging in the conduct leading to the criminal conviction, Apollo violated SCR 20:8.4(b).

    Apollo had no prior discipline.

    Public Reprimand of Kristin Schrank

    The OLR and Kristin Schrank, Muskego, entered into an agreement for the imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A supreme court-appointed referee approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand on Oct. 27, 2018, in accordance with SCR 22.09(3).

    Schrank was employed as an assistant district attorney in the Milwaukee County DA’s office at all times relevant to the public reprimand. Schrank was scheduled to work another job when she was assigned on-duty DA responsibilities, to include carrying a county-issued cell phone (“the duty DA phone”), which allowed the on-duty assistant DA to answer questions and assist law enforcement officers during nonbusiness hours.

    So as to work her other job, Schrank gave the duty DA phone to another lawyer she knew, who had previously worked as an assistant DA in the Milwaukee County DA’s office, but at that time had no authority to carry and answer the duty DA phone.

    While the duty DA phone was in the possession of the other lawyer, police officers for a Milwaukee County municipality were involved in the arrest of a man for first-offense OWI and obstructing an officer. The man refused to consent to a blood draw. One of the police officers attempted to make contact with Schrank, whom the officer knew to be the on-duty DA, but the other lawyer answered the call and advised the officer to obtain a search warrant for the arrested man’s blood. The lawyer represented himself as an intern in the Milwaukee County DA’s Office and provided the name of an actual former intern.

    The arrested man was cited for municipal, noncriminal first-offense OWI and charged with misdemeanor obstructing an officer in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. Schrank, who was then assigned to the Special Crimes Division (and thus would not typically handle an obstructing case), appeared on behalf of the state at the initial appearance in the matter for the sole purpose of moving to dismiss the criminal case. The motion was granted. Schrank provided no explanation to the court for seeking dismissal.

    Schrank was not immediately forthcoming with the municipality’s police officers or prosecutor regarding the source of the advice provided to the officer involved in the arrest, but she eventually identified the other lawyer.

    Based on her conduct, Schrank was convicted of misdemeanor attempted misconduct in public office (party to a crime). By engaging in the conduct leading to the criminal conviction, Schrank violated SCR 20:8.4(b).

    By proceeding in the criminal case involving the man arrested by the police officer who sought advice from the duty DA, while compromised by her personal interests, Schrank violated SCR 20:1.7(a)(2).

    Schrank had no prior discipline.




Server Name