Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jon E. Stanek
On May 16, 2013, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an order suspending the Wisconsin law license of Jon E. Stanek, Eau Claire, for 30 days, effective June 13, 2013, as discipline reciprocal to a Nov. 26, 2012, Supreme Court of Minnesota order suspending Stanek’s Minnesota law license for 30 days. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stanek, 2013 WI 41.
The Minnesota suspension arose from Stanek’s failure to comply with a Minnesota conditional-admission consent agreement and making false statements to the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility during a disciplinary investigation. Stanek’s conduct violated Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4(c), 8.1(a) and (b), 8.4(c) and (d), and 25.
Stanek had no prior Wisconsin discipline.
Hearing to Reinstate Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks
On Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2013, at 10 a.m., a public hearing will be held before referee James G. Curtis at the Eau Claire County Courthouse, Room 2550, 721 Oxford Ave., Eau Claire, on the petition of Tracy Eichhorn-Hicks, St. Louis Park, Minn., to reinstate his Wisconsin law license. Any interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in support of or opposition to the petition for reinstatement.
Effective April 1, 2012, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Eichhorn-Hicks’ Wisconsin license for one year as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 2012 WI 18. The underlying Minnesota discipline was based on Eichhorn-Hicks’ misuse of a trust account, failure to maintain proper trust-account records, temporary misappropriation of funds, making a false certification on attorney registration statements, and making false statements to the director of the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
To be reinstated, Eichhorn-Hicks has the burden of substantiating, by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, that 1) he has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin, 2) his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest, 3) all representations in his reinstatement petition are substantiated, and 4) he has complied fully with the terms of the order of suspension or revocation and with SCR 22.26.
Relevant information may be provided to or obtained from Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) counsel, Wayne A. Arnold, 816 Colan Blvd., Rice Lake, WI 54868, (715) 790-7499.
Public Reprimand of James T. Martz
The OLR and James T. Martz entered into an agreement for imposition of a public reprimand. A supreme court-appointed referee approved the agreement, and issued the public reprimand on July 7, 2013.
Martz was charged with misdemeanor contempt of court, in violation of Wis. Stat. section 785.04(2)(a). State v. Martz, No. 2012CM5680 (Milwaukee Cnty. Circuit Ct.). The factual basis for the charge was as follows:
Martz represented a man facing charges related to a domestic incident.
A friend of the victim witnessed the alleged criminal conduct. The victim told the witness that the witness did not need to appear at the trial and asked the witness to call Martz.
After receiving a subpoena to appear at trial, the witness contacted a victim/witness specialist. It was arranged that the witness would call Martz and that the call would be monitored.
During his call with the witness, Martz discussed the fact that the witness had received her subpoena “in the mail.” Martz told her she had not been properly served, that she did not have to go to court, and that there would be no repercussions if she did not appear. Martz further stated that even if the witness had been properly served, nothing would happen to her if she did not appear, the case would be dismissed, “…and nobody cares.” At the end of the call, Martz said, while laughing, “I hope, I hope I never see you again.”
Martz appeared at the district attorney’s office and listened to a recording of the call. He acknowledged its accuracy.
Martz was removed as trial counsel.
Martz disputed several portions of the complaint against him. After a hearing, the parties stipulated to portions of the criminal complaint, along with other factors presented by Martz, as the factual basis for a no-contest plea. Martz was convicted of the single count contained in the criminal complaint.
Martz contends that his statement to the witness that she had not been properly served was accurate based on the facts presented to him and his understanding of the law.
Martz asserts that his statements to the witness that she would not face any consequences for not appearing at the trial were based on anecdotal evidence. He admits they were “less than appropriate” and “inartful.”
Martz contends his statement that he hoped never to see the witness again was made in “a laughing manner” and was not intended to be a directive or a threat.
Martz was sentenced to 10 days in jail. That sentence was stayed on condition that Martz pay a $1,000 fine plus costs and surcharges and perform 150 hours of community service, preferably with an agency serving domestic-violence victims.
By engaging in the conduct that led to his criminal conviction on a charge of misdemeanor contempt of court, Martz violated SCR 20:3.4(a) and SCR 20:8.4(b) and (c).
Martz has no prior discipline.
Reinstatement of Boris V. Ouchakof
On May 29, 2013, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reinstated the law license of Boris V. Ouchakof, Madison, conditioned on his entry into and compliance with a contract with the Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program (WisLAP) for the purpose of monitoring his compliance with recommendations of his health-care providers regarding his mental health. In addition, the court ordered that Ouchakof pay the cost of the reinstatement proceeding. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ouchakof, 2013 WI 48.
Ouchakof’s license was revoked in 2002 pursuant to a voluntary petition he filed in response to disciplinary proceedings. Ouchakof’s misconduct consisted of secretly charging and accepting fees without disclosing or submitting those fees to his law firm as his employment contract required; failing to diligently represent and communicate with clients, several who had retained him to assist in immigration matters; practicing law after his law license was suspended; and failing to cooperate with the OLR’s investigation.
The referee determined, based on Ouchakof’s steady employment since his revocation and his volunteer work at his church and as a youth soccer coach, that Ouchakof had demonstrated a genuine desire to contribute to the community and to live a life characterized by positive conduct. The referee concluded that Ouchakof met the requirements for reinstatement and could safely be recommended to return to the practice of law in Wisconsin. To address concerns about Ouchakof’s history of depression, the referee recommended the WisLAP monitoring, which the court ultimately imposed.