From Forgery to 30-Month Suspension: The Wisconsin Rule on Repeated Will-Witness Fraud Absent Broader Misconduct

Introduction

In Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John P. Buran, 2025 WI 40, the Wisconsin Supreme Court confronted an attorney who forged a former employee’s signature on nine wills over a 13-year span and filed six of those wills for probate without informing the courts. While Attorney Buran admitted the underlying facts, the disciplinary dispute centred on whether his license should be revoked (as sought by the Office of Lawyer Regulation “OLR”) or suspended (as recommended by the referee). The Court ultimately imposed a 30-month suspension, fashioning a new middle-ground benchmark for dishonest, repetitive will-related fraud committed by an otherwise discipline-free practitioner.

Summary of the Judgment

• Misconduct found: Violations of SCR 20:8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation) and SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) (false statement to a tribunal).
• Undisputed facts: Buran forged witness signatures on nine wills (2008–2021); six were filed in probate. No evidence that the wills were contested or that testators’ signatures were forged.
• Referee’s recommendation: 18-month suspension.
• OLR’s appeal: Sought revocation, relying chiefly on Strouse (2024) and Petros (2021).
• Supreme Court holding: Facts warrant a “substantial” suspension—not revocation—and 30 months better reflects the aggravating factors than the referee’s 18 months.
• Costs: Full costs ($9,102.97) assessed to Buran.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

1. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Acker, 2007 WI 117   • 18-month suspension for falsified closing certificates in seven estate files.
     • Court considered it the closest analogue but lengthened the suspension because Buran’s misconduct spanned a longer period and cast doubt on will validity itself.
2. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Strouse, 2024 WI 10   • License revoked for nine counts of misconduct, including stolen notary seal, repeated lies to judges, client abandonment, and a prior disciplinary record.
     • Distinguished: broader dishonesty, multiple practice areas, previous discipline.
3. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Petros, 2021 WI 55   • Revocation for pervasive misrepresentations and trust-account violations.
     • Cited by OLR to show “no place for” dishonest lawyers; Court found misconduct not “on par” with Petros.
4. Scanlan (2006), Sommers (2012), Kovac (2020), Moodie (2020), Widule (2003)   • Recited mainly for standards of review, burden of proving mitigation, and the four classic disciplinary factors.
5. ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions   • Distinguish between “intentional deception of court” (suggests revocation) and “knowing submission of false document” (suggests suspension). Court treated them as persuasive but not determinative.

Legal Reasoning

• Degree of Dishonesty. Forgery of witness signatures is serious because it jeopardises the validity of testamentary instruments and undermines probate integrity. However, unlike Strouse, it did not extend to multiple practice areas or involve lying directly to judges in open court.
• Pattern and Time Frame. Misconduct repeated over 13 years was a significant aggravator, justifying an enhanced suspension beyond Acker.
• Absence of Prior Discipline. Thirty-five years of otherwise unblemished practice mitigated against revocation.
• Intent to Deceive vs. Knowledge of Falsity. Court declined to decide whether Buran intended to deceive the probate courts; knowing submission of a forged document alone satisfied SCR 20:3.3(a)(1). That omission allowed the Court to sidestep disputed mitigation evidence yet still fix discipline.
• Role of Evidentiary Hearing. Referee accepted written submissions; OLR faulted the absence of sworn mitigation proof. Supreme Court reserved broader questions about referees’ reliance on unsworn statements for another case, signalling possible procedural guidance in future.
• Calibration of Sanction. • 18 months viewed as too low because length/pattern of misconduct “undermined judicial probate process.”
  • Revocation viewed as too harsh because misconduct was confined to a single dishonest practice and lacked prior discipline.
  • 30 months chosen as a new middle market signal: “substantial” yet not the profession’s ultimate condemnation.

Impact of the Decision

The judgment carves out a clear doctrinal space between suspension and revocation for forgery-based probate misconduct:

• Benchmark Suspension: Sets 2½ years as the presumptive upper-range suspension when an otherwise discipline-free lawyer repeatedly forges witness signatures on wills and submits them to court.
• Guidance on Revocation Requests: Clarifies that OLR must point to wider or more egregious dishonesty, prior discipline, or proven intent to deceive beyond knowledge of falsity to justify revocation.
• Probate Practice Alert: Estate lawyers now face a published baseline penalty for “short-cut” witness forgery, likely deterring the practice nationwide.
• Procedural Signals: Highlights tension between paper-only sanction proceedings and evidentiary hearings; practitioners and referees may expect forthcoming rules on establishing mitigation.
• Cross-Jurisdictional Influence: Other states referencing the ABA Standards may borrow the 30-month metric when balancing repeated but isolated dishonesty against the revocation threshold.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• SCR 20:8.4(c) – A catch-all ethics rule forbidding any lawyer conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
• SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) – Obligates lawyers to be truthful to courts and to correct false statements; knowingly filing a forged document violates this rule.
• Revocation vs. Suspension. • Revocation (often called “disbarment”) strips the lawyer’s license indefinitely; reinstatement requires a rigorous petition process after five years minimum.
  • Suspension removes the right to practise for a fixed term; the lawyer may petition for reinstatement upon meeting conditions.
• Referee. A court-appointed attorney who acts like a trial judge in disciplinary cases—making factual findings, conclusions of law, and a discipline recommendation.
• Summary Judgment. A procedural device allowing decision without a trial when no material facts are disputed.
• ABA Standards. Model guidelines suggesting sanction ranges, persuasive but not binding in Wisconsin.

Conclusion

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Buran supplies Wisconsin—and potentially other jurisdictions—with a concrete yard-stick: a 30-month suspension for repetitive will-witness forgery by a first-time offender. The Court balanced several forces: the gravity and duration of the dishonesty, the absence of prior discipline, comparability to earlier Wisconsin cases, and the need to deter probate-related fraud without overstretching the “most egregious case” rationale reserved for revocation. Additionally, the decision spotlights procedural questions about evidentiary hearings on mitigation—foreshadowing future clarifications. Overall, the ruling reinforces the judiciary’s intolerance for dishonest shortcuts while calibrating sanctions proportionally to the misconduct’s scope and the lawyer’s disciplinary history.