In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gordon C. Ring, Attorney at Law:
Gordon C. Ring, Respondent. Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant,
disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
This is a reciprocal discipline matter. On June 25, 2019, the
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a two-count complaint
against Attorney Gordon C. Ring. Count one alleged that by
virtue of Attorney Ring's recent two-year license
suspension by the Illinois Supreme Court, Attorney Ring
should be subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin
pursuant to SCR 22.22. Count two alleged by failing to notify
the OLR of his disbarment in Illinois within 20 days of the
effective date of the imposition of such discipline, Attorney
Ring violated Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22(1),
After service of the complaint, the parties stipulated to the
imposition of reciprocal discipline. We approve the
stipulation, and we therefore order a two-year suspension of
Attorney Ring's Wisconsin law license.
Attorney Ring's law license history is as follows. He was
admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in May 1984, and in
Illinois in November 1977. His Wisconsin disciplinary history
consists of a six-month suspension in 1992, as discipline
reciprocal to that imposed on him by the Illinois Supreme
Court for professional misconduct. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Ring, 168 Wis.2d 817, 484 N.W.2d 336
(1992) . Attorney Ring did not petition for reinstatement of
his Wisconsin law license; it remains suspended. Attorney
Ring's Wisconsin law license was also administratively
suspended in 1985 for failure to comply with continuing legal
education requirements, and in 2011 for failure to pay State
Bar dues. His license remains administratively suspended.
On September 20, 2018, the Illinois Supreme Court suspended
Attorney Ring's Illinois law license for two years,
effective October 11, 2018, for multiple counts of
misconduct, and ordered him to reimburse the Illinois Client
Protection Program Trust Fund for any payments arising from
his misconduct prior to the end of his suspension. According
to the allegations in the OLR's complaint and the
Illinois disciplinary records attached to the complaint,
Attorney Ring's misconduct in Illinois included
misappropriation of over $124, 000 in two client matters,
and, in a third matter, failing to work on a case after the
filing of the complaint, causing the case to be dismissed.
Attorney Ring did not tell his client that he had failed to
work on the case or that it had been dismissed, and he later
used funds in his client trust account belonging to others to
make a $10, 000 payment to his client to resolve the matter.
By his conduct, Attorney Ring violated Rules 1.3, 1.4(a) (3),
1.15(a), 3.2, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the Illinois Rules of
On July 15, 2019, after the OLR's complaint had been
served on Attorney Ring but before a referee had been
appointed, Attorney Ring entered into a stipulation with the
OLR whereby he agreed that the facts alleged in the OLR's
complaint supported a two-year suspension of his Wisconsin
law license as reciprocal discipline to that imposed by the
Illinois Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Rule 22.22(3) states as follows:
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical discipline
or license suspension unless one or more of the following is
(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.
Attorney Ring does not claim that any of the defenses found
in SCR 22.22(3) apply. Attorney Ring further states that the
stipulation did not result from plea bargaining; that he
understands the allegations against him; that he understands
the ramifications should the court impose the stipulated
level of discipline; that he understands his right to contest
this matter; that he understands his right to consult with
counsel, and represents that he has consulted with counsel;
that his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and
voluntarily; and that his entry into the stipulation
represents his decision not to contest the misconduct alleged
in the complaint or the level and type of discipline sought
by the OLR's director.
Upon our review of the matter, we accept the stipulation and
impose discipline identical to that imposed by the Illinois
Supreme Court; i.e., a two-year suspension of Attorney
Ring's Wisconsin law license. Because this matter was
resolved by means of a stipulation, the OLR has not sought
the imposition of costs, and we impose none.
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Gordon C. Ring to practice
law in Wisconsin is suspended for two ...