Forged Witness Signatures and the Threshold for Revocation:
A Commentary on Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John P. Buran, 2025 WI 40

1. Introduction

In Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John P. Buran, the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed the appropriate disciplinary response when an attorney repeatedly forges a witness’s signature on testamentary documents and later files those documents in probate proceedings. Although the respondent, Attorney John P. Buran, conceded the factual allegations of forgery, the key controversy concerned the sanction: the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) sought permanent revocation whereas the referee recommended an 18-month suspension. The Court ultimately imposed a 30-month suspension, articulating a new mid-range benchmark that clarifies when misconduct—although grave—falls short of the “most egregious” category that triggers revocation.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Misconduct found: Nine instances of forging former employee Penny Fabian’s signature as will witness; six forged wills filed in probate; violations of SCR 20:8.4(c) (dishonesty) and SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) (false statement to tribunal).
• Undisputed facts: Attorney admitted the forgeries, did not contest summary judgment; no prior discipline in 35-year career.
• Referee’s recommendation: 18-month suspension.
• OLR’s position on appeal: Revocation.
• Supreme Court holding: Forgery constituted “extremely serious” misconduct warranting a 30-month suspension plus full costs ($9,102.97); revocation unwarranted because the facts did not match the breadth and history of cases such as Strouse and Petros.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Acker, 2007 WI 117
      • Closely analogous: attorney filed falsified probate documents; 18-month suspension.
      • Court used Acker as baseline but increased penalty to 30 months because Buran’s misconduct spanned 13 years and affected will validity.
  • In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Strouse, 2024 WI 10
      • Revocation for pervasive dishonesty, stolen notary seal, lies to judges, prior discipline.
      • Distinguished: Strouse’s multi-faceted deceit and disciplinary history exceeded Buran’s narrower, first-time misconduct.
  • In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Petros, 2021 WI 55
      • Revocation for repeated misrepresentations to tribunals.
      • Court found Buran’s conduct “like” Petros but not equivalent in scope.
  • Additional Wisconsin references: Scanlan (disciplinary factors), Sommers, Kovac, Moodie, Widule, Inglimo, Cooper – cited for methodology, burden of proof, and guiding principles.
  • ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions
      • Distinguish between “intentional deception of a tribunal” (suggests revocation) and “knowing submission of false document” (suggests suspension).
      • Court concluded record insufficient to prove intent to deceive beyond filing knowing false documents; therefore suspension appropriate.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

  1. Undisputed Liability
      Summary judgment proper because Buran admitted all material facts and offered no opposing evidence.
  2. Aggravating Factors
      • Multiple instances; pattern over 13 years; experienced practitioner; undermined probate integrity.
      • Court accepted these aggravators but declined to find “intent to deceive” or lack of remorse dispositive.
  3. Mitigating Considerations
      • No prior discipline; admitted wrongdoing early; limited to one type of conduct.
      • Court sidestepped disputed findings on remorse, holding sanction outcome unchanged even if remorse unproven.
  4. Calibration of Sanction
      • Compared with Acker (18-month) and Strouse (revocation).
      • Decided misconduct was more serious than Acker (will validity jeopardized, longer duration) but less pervasive than Strouse (no broad deceit, no prior record).
      • Result: 30-month suspension as “substantial, but short of ultimate sanction.”

3.3 Potential Impact of the Decision

  • Establishes a 30-month suspension benchmark for repeated document-forgery misconduct without prior discipline, filling a gap between 18-month suspensions and revocations.
  • Clarifies that knowledge of falsity plus filing may not, by itself, establish the “intent to deceive” threshold that ABA Standards treat as warranting revocation.
  • Warns practitioners in estate planning that shortcuts in witnessing wills can trigger multiyear suspensions and cost recovery.
  • Signals to OLR and referees that detailed evidentiary records on mitigation and aggravation will be scrutinized—yet the Supreme Court retains discretion to set sanction regardless of imperfect mitigation findings.
  • Provides probate courts and litigants assurance that forged witness issues will be met with serious, but proportionate, professional discipline.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Revocation vs. Suspension
    Revocation terminates an attorney’s license indefinitely; re-entry requires a rigorous reinstatement process after five years. Suspension is a temporary ban—here, 30 months—after which the lawyer may apply for reinstatement subject to conditions.
  • Referee
    An appointed lawyer-judge who functions like a trial judge in disciplinary proceedings: finds facts, recommends sanction, but the Supreme Court has final say.
  • Summary Judgment in Discipline
    Procedural device allowing the OLR to obtain findings when material facts are undisputed, avoiding a full evidentiary hearing.
  • SCR 20:8.4(c) (“dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation”) and SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) (false statement to tribunal) are core ethics rules; violations almost always lead to significant discipline because they strike at the heart of lawyer candor.
  • Aggravating/Mitigating Factors
    Circumstances that respectively increase or decrease the severity of sanction. Attorneys bear the burden of proving mitigation.

5. Conclusion

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Buran reinforces the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s calibrated approach to lawyer discipline. It condemns prolonged dishonesty in estate practice with a stern 30-month suspension, yet reserves revocation for attorneys whose misconduct is broader, repeated across practice areas, or compounded by prior discipline. The decision supplies clear guidance on (1) how forging witness signatures—and subsequently filing forged wills— will be treated, (2) the evidentiary expectations for establishing mitigation, and (3) the analytical framework for distinguishing suspension from revocation. Future disciplinary panels, counsel for respondents, and the OLR will likely invoke Buran when confronting misconduct that is grave but does not irrevocably destroy trust in an attorney’s overall fitness to practice law.