Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Fischer (In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against B.C. Fischer)

400 Wis.2d 583

970 N.W.2d 29

2022 WI 10

In the MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST B.C. FISCHER, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant,

v.B.C. Fischer, Respondent.

No. 2021AP1297-D

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Opinion Filed: February 22, 2022

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 In this reciprocal discipline matter, governed by Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22,¹ Attorney B.C. Fischer has entered into a stipulation with the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). In the stipulation, the parties agree that it would be appropriate for this court to impose the level of discipline sought by the OLR as being reciprocal to the discipline imposed on Attorney Fischer by the Minnesota Supreme Court; namely, a 120-day suspension of Attorney Fischer's license to practice law in Wisconsin.

¶2 After reviewing the matter, we approve the stipulation and impose the stipulated reciprocal discipline. Additionally, although the stipulation does not expressly request that we require Attorney Fischer to comply with the conditions imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court's disciplinary order, we impose those conditions here, consistent with the requirement in SCR 22.22(3) that this court impose "the identical discipline" as imposed by the other jurisdiction. Given the fact that Attorney Fischer entered into a comprehensive stipulation before the appointment of a referee, we do not require him to pay the costs of this proceeding.

¶3 Attorney Fischer was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 2002. He was admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 2003 under the name Brian Campbell Fischer. The address he has on file with the State Bar of Wisconsin is in Duluth, Minnesota.

¶4 Attorney Fischer's Wisconsin law license is under administrative suspension. Specifically, effective October 31, 2016, Attorney Fischer's Wisconsin law license was administratively suspended for failure to pay bar dues and to provide a required trust account certification. Effective May 31, 2017, Attorney Fischer's Wisconsin law license was administratively suspended for failure to comply with continuing legal education reporting requirements.

¶5 Attorney Fischer's professional disciplinary history in Wisconsin includes a 2014 public reprimand imposed as discipline reciprocal to that imposed in Minnesota for professional misconduct. That misconduct involved failing to supervise a suspended attorney and assisting a suspended attorney in the unauthorized practice of law; failing to provide the Minnesota Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility with timely notice of employment of a suspended attorney; using misleading advertising and law firm signage and letterhead; neglecting and failing to communicate with two clients; failing to comply with a court order; failing to return client files; failing to expedite litigation; and noncooperation in disciplinary investigations. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fischer, 2014 WI 107, ––– Wis. 2d ––––, 852 N.W.2d 487. In addition, in 2019, this court imposed a 90-day suspension reciprocal to that imposed in Minnesota for misconduct that involved neglecting six client matters, failing to communicate with those clients, making false statements to a client, failing to return a client's file, and failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigations. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fischer, 2019 WI 36, 386 Wis. 2d 202, 925 N.W.2d 536.

¶6 On October 20, 2020, the Minnesota Supreme Court indefinitely suspended Attorney Fischer's right to practice law in that state with a right to petition for reinstatement after 120 days. The Minnesota Supreme Court also imposed certain conditions upon Attorney Fischer's reinstatement, discussed below. The Minnesota Supreme Court's disciplinary order resulted from professional misconduct that involved failing to adequately communicate with a client, failing to diligently pursue a client's case, failing to inform the client of his suspension, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to comply with the terms of probation, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.

¶7 On July 27, 2021, the OLR filed a complaint and motion pursuant to SCR 22.22, alleging that Attorney Fischer is subject to reciprocal discipline and that, by failing to notify the OLR of his October 20, 2020 suspension in Minnesota for professional misconduct within 20 days of the effective date of its imposition, Attorney Fischer violated SCR 22.22(1). The OLR asked this court to suspend Attorney Fischer's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 120 days as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

¶8 In a stipulation filed December 14, 2021, Attorney Fischer admitted that the Minnesota Supreme Court had indefinitely suspended his right to practice law in that state with a right to petition for reinstatement after 120 days.

¶9 Under SCR 22.22(3), this court shall impose the identical discipline or license suspension imposed in another jurisdiction, unless one or more of three exceptions apply. In the stipulation, Attorney Fischer states that he does not claim that any such exception applies to his case.

¶10 Given the nature of the Minnesota suspension, the OLR and Attorney Fischer agree that it would be appropriate for this court to impose a 120-day suspension of Attorney Fischer's license to practice law in Wisconsin. The stipulation further contains a number of statements and representations by the parties. The parties state that the stipulation was not the result of plea bargaining, that Attorney Fischer does not contest the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR, and that Attorney Fischer does not contest the level of reciprocal discipline sought by the director of the OLR in this matter. Attorney Fischer further represents that he fully understands the misconduct allegations against him, that he fully understands the ramifications of the stipulated level of discipline, that he fully understands his right to consult with counsel and to contest this matter, that he is entering into the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily, and that his entry into the stipulation represents his decision not to contest the misconduct alleged or the discipline sought by the OLR.

¶11 After carefully reviewing this matter, we accept the stipulation and impose the stipulated level of discipline. We agree that the closest manner in which to replicate the suspension imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court is to suspend the license of Attorney Fischer to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 120 days.

¶12 There is another matter beyond the imposition of a 120-day suspension that must be addressed. The Minnesota Supreme Court's disciplinary order provided that, in order to be reinstated, Attorney Fischer must successfully complete the professional responsibility portion of the written examination required for admission to practice law in Minnesota and to satisfy the relevant...