Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John J. Pangallo
Citation982 N.W.2d 924, 405 Wis. 2d 151, 2022 WI 108
Date Filed2022-12-22
Docket2022AP000830-D
Cited0 times
StatusPublished
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
2022 WI 108
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2022AP830-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against John J. Pangallo, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
John J. Pangallo,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PANGALLO
OPINION FILED: December 22, 2022
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
Per Curiam.
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2022 WI 108
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2022AP830-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against John J. Pangallo, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant, DEC 22, 2022
v. Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Supreme Court
John J. Pangallo,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. This is a reciprocal discipline
matter. On May 17, 2022, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR)
filed a complaint and motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
(SCR) 22.22,1 requesting this court suspend Attorney John J.
1 SCR 22.22 provides:
(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for
misconduct or a license suspension for medical
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the
(continued)
No. 2022AP830-D
effective date of the order or judgment of the other
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a
judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for
medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the
practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in
this state, the director may file a complaint in the
supreme court containing all of the following:
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order
from the other jurisdiction.
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the
grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of
the identical discipline or license suspension by the
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual
basis for the claim.
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of
the following is present:
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to
constitute a deprivation of due process.
(b) There was such an infirmity of proof
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that
the supreme court could not accept as final the
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical
incapacity,
(c) The misconduct justifies substantially
different discipline in this state.
(4) Except as provided in sub. (3), a final
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity
shall be conclusive evidence of the attorney's
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a
proceeding under this rule.
(continued)
2
No. 2022AP830-D
Pangallo's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of
three years, as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed
by the Supreme Court of Florida.
¶2 Attorney Pangallo and the OLR executed a stipulation,
whereby Attorney Pangallo agrees that he should be suspended for
a period of three years as discipline reciprocal to that imposed
by the Supreme Court of Florida. Upon our review of the matter,
we accept the stipulation and suspend Attorney Pangallo's
license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of three
years. Because the parties were able to resolve this matter
without the need for appointment of a referee, no costs will be
imposed.
¶3 Attorney Pangallo was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1992. His Wisconsin law license is currently
suspended for failure to comply with continuing legal education
reporting requirements and for failure to pay annual bar dues.
(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint filed
under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a report
and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16. At the
hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the
imposition of discipline or license suspension
different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction
to demonstrate that the imposition of identical
discipline or license suspension by the supreme court
is unwarranted.
(6) If the discipline or license suspension
imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any
reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by
the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the
stay expires.
3
No. 2022AP830-D
¶4 Attorney Pangallo is also admitted to practice law in
Florida. On May 25, 2017, the Supreme Court of Florida
suspended Attorney Pangallo's Florida law license for three
years. The Florida court found that Attorney Pangallo had
withdrawn trust account funds for his own purposes, including
making payments to himself and third parties. The court found
those acts violated Florida Rules of Professional Conduct with
respect to trust accounts and safekeeping property. The Florida
Court required Attorney Pangallo to complete specific continuing
education courses, including a trust accounting class and ethics
school, as well as serve three years of probation in the event
his Florida license is reinstated.
¶5 Attorney Pangallo provided notice to the State Bar of
Wisconsin of his Florida suspension, but he did not realize that
was the incorrect disciplinary authority and that the OLR should
have received notification. Accordingly, notice of his Florida
suspension was not effective under SCR 22.22(1).
¶6 In its complaint, the OLR alleged that Attorney
Pangallo is subject to reciprocal discipline and that, by
failing to notify the OLR of his suspension in Florida for
professional misconduct within 20 days of the effective date of
its imposition, Attorney Pangallo violated SCR 22.22(1).
¶7 On September 7, 2022, Attorney Pangallo and the OLR
filed a stipulation, agreeing that by virtue of his Florida
suspension, Attorney Pangallo is subject to reciprocal
discipline in Wisconsin. Attorney Pangallo agrees that it would
be appropriate for this court to suspend his Wisconsin law
4
No. 2022AP830-D
license for a period of three years. The parties state that the
stipulation did not result from plea bargaining. Attorney
Pangallo does not contest the facts and misconduct alleged by
the OLR, and he agrees to the level of discipline sought by the
OLR. Attorney Pangallo also represents and verifies that he
fully understands the misconduct allegations; he fully
understands the ramifications should this court impose the
stipulated level of discipline; he fully understands his right
to contest the matter; he fully understands his right to consult
with and retain counsel; and he states that his entry into the
stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily. Attorney
Pangallo also stipulates that he does not claim any of the
potential defenses set forth in SCR 22.22(3)(a)–(c).
¶8 Upon our review of the matter, we accept the
stipulation and impose a three-year suspension of Attorney
Pangallo's Wisconsin law license, reciprocal to that imposed by
the Supreme Court of Florida.
¶9 Because this matter was resolved by stipulation
without the need for appointment of a referee, no costs are
imposed.
¶10 IT IS ORDERED that the license of John J. Pangallo to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of three
years, effective the date of this order.
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative
suspension of John J. Pangallo's license to practice law in
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues and
failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements,
5
No. 2022AP830-D
will remain in effect until each reason for the administrative
suspension has been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not
already done so, John J. Pangallo shall comply with the
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.
6
No. 2022AP830-D
1