Public Discipline
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, provides discipline summaries for educational purposes. Find the full text of these summaries at www.wicourts.gov/olr.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against B.C. Fischer
On Feb. 22, 2022, the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended the Wisconsin law license of B.C. Fischer for 120 days as discipline reciprocal to a suspension of Fischer’s Minnesota law license imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court also required Fischer to comply with other terms of the Minnesota Supreme Court order (successful completion of the written examination required for admission to the practice of law on the subject of professional responsibility and satisfaction of continuing legal education (CLE) requirements) and to rectify Wisconsin administrative suspension of his law license for failure to pay mandatory bar dues and complete his trust account certification, and failure to comply with CLE reporting requirements, before his Wisconsin law license can be reinstated. Disciplinary Proc. Against Fischer, 2022 WI 10.
The Minnesota Supreme Court found Fischer committed misconduct when he failed to adequately communicate with a client, diligently pursue the client’s case, and inform the client of his suspension; engaged in the unauthorized practice of law; failed to comply with the terms of probation; and failed to cooperate with the Minnesota Director’s investigation. Fischer did not notify the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) of the Minnesota suspension within 20 days after its effective date.
Fischer’s Wisconsin disciplinary history consists of a 90-day reciprocal suspension in 2019 and a reciprocal public reprimand in 2014.
Private Discipline
The Wisconsin Supreme Court permits the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) to publish, for educational purposes, a summary of facts and professional conduct rule violations in matters in which the OLR imposed private reprimands. The summaries do not disclose information identifying the reprimanded attorneys. The summaries of selected private reprimands are printed to help attorneys avoid similar misconduct problems.
Criminal Act Reflecting Adversely on Fitness to Practice
Violation of SCR 20:8.4(b)
In summer 2020, a lawyer received two separate citations for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI). The first citation was issued after police officers observed the lawyer driving the wrong way on a one-way street. The second citation was issued approximately three weeks later when police officers stopped the lawyer’s car in response to a citizen’s report of a car being driven erratically. Due to a prior OWI (1st) conviction 14 years earlier, the two citations resulted in the lawyer’s conviction for a second OWI (2nd) and a charge of OWI (3rd).
The lawyer acknowledged breaking the law by driving while intoxicated and that the conduct violated SCR 20:8.4(b), which states: “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to … commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.” The misconduct was mitigated by the lawyer’s lack of prior discipline and by the lawyer’s participation in treatment programs to address underlying health issues. The lawyer also voluntarily stepped away from the practice of law to focus on treatment and recovery.
Failure to Communicate; Failure to Promptly Refund Fees
Violations of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) and SCR 20:1.16(d)
A lawyer represented a client after the client had been found guilty of felony bail jumping and first-degree recklessly endangering safety in separate cases. The lawyer did not represent the client at trial or for sentencing. The client paid the lawyer an advanced fee of $6,000 for representation in the cases. Thereafter, the client paid the lawyer an additional $4,000 advanced fee to file a motion for postconviction relief. Ultimately, the lawyer did not file the motion for postconviction relief and did not respond to the client’s letters.
In a Jan. 26, 2020 letter to the lawyer, the client requested a refund of the additional $4,000 because the lawyer did not file a motion for postconviction relief. The lawyer did not respond to the client’s letter, nor refund the $4,000 advanced fee until June 22, 2020.
By failing to keep the client reasonably informed regarding the status of the case, and by failing to respond to the client’s letters requesting information, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).
By failing to timely refund the $4,000 unearned portion of the advanced fee, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.16(d).
The lawyer had a prior public reprimand.
Criminal Act Reflecting Adversely on Fitness to Practice
Violation of SCR 20:8.4(b)
A lawyer consumed alcohol at a social event at a restaurant. Upon leaving the event, the lawyer operated a vehicle in which the lawyer’s spouse and 15-year-old child were passengers. When exiting the parking lot, the lawyer turned too quickly and drove into a shallow culvert separating the parking lot from the road. While the lawyer was attempting to call for a tow truck, a passing police officer stopped and observed that the lawyer was exhibiting signs of intoxication. The lawyer admitted to the officer having had too much to drink. After cooperating with performing field-sobriety tests, the lawyer was arrested on suspicion of operating while intoxicated. Following the arrest, the lawyer consented to a breath-alcohol test, the result of which showed the lawyer’s blood-alcohol level to be .12 g/210L.
The lawyer was charged with misdemeanor counts of operating while intoxicated (OWI) and operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC), both first offense with a child under 16 in the vehicle. The lawyer pleaded guilty to the OWI count, and the PAC count was dismissed. The lawyer’s sentence included five days in jail and revocation of the lawyer’s driver’s license for 12 months. The lawyer was also ordered to undergo an alcohol or other drug assessment and pay a fine and costs.
By engaging in conduct leading to a misdemeanor conviction of first-offense OWI with a child under 16 in the vehicle, the lawyer violated SCR 20:8.4(b).
The lawyer has no prior discipline.
Failure to Provide Written Fee Agreement or Accounting; Lack of Competence, Diligence, and Communication; Failure to Return File
Violations of SCR 20:1.1, SCR 1.3, SCR 1.4(a)(3), SCR 1.5(b)(1), (2), and (h)(1), and SCR 1.16(d)
A lawyer represented a client in a divorce case. The lawyer accepted advanced fees totaling $2,500 but did not provide the client a written fee agreement, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2). The lawyer also withdrew funds from the lawyer’s trust account for the purpose of paying fees without providing the client with an invoice or accounting, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(h)(1).
When commencing the divorce case, the lawyer filed an unsigned petition and affidavit. The lawyer also failed to file an admission of service on the respondent, in violation of SCR 20:1.1.
The court issued a temporary order that differed from a proposed temporary order filed by the lawyer. The lawyer did not provide the client with the temporary order, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3). The client unknowingly took action that was in violation of the order and was found in contempt. Further, the lawyer prepared a motion for contempt on behalf of the client but failed to timely file and serve it so that it could be heard by the court, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.
The client hired successor counsel who requested the client’s file from the lawyer. The lawyer failed to provide successor counsel a complete copy of the client’s file in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).
The lawyer received a public reprimand in 2009.
Lack of Competence; Lack of Candor Toward the Tribunal
Violations of SCR 20:1.1 and SCR 20:3.3(a)
A prosecutor sought similar sanctions against two minors in two separate juvenile court cases. Before the first juvenile’s hearing, the juvenile’s case worker informed the prosecutor that the case worker thought the sanctions sought were not available under the applicable statute. The prosecutor disregarded the case worker’s statement and stipulated with the juvenile’s lawyer to the sanctions, which the court subsequently approved. The prosecutor later learned that the sanctions obtained were not available under the applicable statute. By failing to identify whether the sanctions sought were available under the applicable statute the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.1, which requires a lawyer to provide competent representation.
Before the second juvenile’s hearing, the prosecutor and the juvenile’s lawyer identified that the sanction being sought was not available under the applicable statute. The prosecutor withdrew the sanction request during the hearing but informed the court that the sanction request was being withdrawn in exchange for concessions made by the juvenile. The juvenile’s lawyer informed the court that the sanction was not available under the applicable statute. The prosecutor then confirmed that fact. By misrepresenting the reason for withdrawing the sanction request the lawyer violated SCR 20:3.3(a), which prohibits an lawyer from making a false statement to a tribunal.
Lack of Competence; Failure to Supervise Nonlawyer Assistant
Violations of SCR 20:1.1 and SCR 20:5.3(b)
A lawyer was retained to prepare estate planning documents that involved a transfer-on-death deed granting the clients’ home to their children. One of the clients’ children was intentionally excluded as a grantee and that child’s spouse was named instead of the child. After both clients passed away, the lawyer was retained to assist the grantees in selling the home.
The lawyer assigned the matter to a legal assistant who did not recognize the name of the child’s spouse and believed that the exclusion of this child was due to a typographical error. The legal assistant prepared a correction instrument replacing the spouse’s name with the child’s name. The lawyer signed and filed the correction instrument without reviewing the file or remembering that the child had been intentionally excluded as a grantee. By failing to review the file and confirm whether the legal assistant’s correction instrument was necessary, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.1, which requires a lawyer to provide competent representation, and SCR 20:5.3(b), which requires a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to ensure that a nonlawyer assistant’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer.
The lawyer then failed to send statutorily required written notice of the corrective instrument to all the grantees. By failing to provide the required notice, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.1, which requires a lawyer to provide competent representation. Once the error was recognized, the lawyer filed a second corrective instrument reestablishing the child’s spouse as the grantee. However, before this, an individual with a judgment against the child was able to obtain a lien against the property. The lien was eventually removed after a settlement was reached.
Conflict of Interest – Prohibited Transaction; Unlawfully Altering a Document Having Potential Evidentiary Value; Conduct Involving Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation
Violations of SCR 20:1.8(e), SCR 20:3.4(a), and SCR 20:8.4(c)
A lawyer represented a client in a divorce case. The lawyer and the client applied for and obtained insurance for the client’s car by adding the client and the client’s car to the lawyer’s existing automobile insurance policy. The lawyer and the client were listed as named insureds on a declarations page, and the lawyer’s own address was listed for both the lawyer and the client.
During the divorce proceeding, opposing counsel made a discovery request for proof of insurance for the client’s car. The lawyer served opposing counsel with a proof of insurance without informing opposing counsel that the lawyer had altered the declarations page by whiting out the lawyer’s own name and address and thus making it appear as if the client was the only named insured. Thereafter, opposing counsel subpoenaed the original declarations page from the insurance company.
By adding the client and the client’s car to the lawyer’s automobile insurance policy, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.8(e).
By altering the automobile insurance policy declarations page, the lawyer violated SCR 20:3.4(a).
By altering the declarations page to remove the lawyer’s name and address and thereby conceal that the lawyer added the client and the client’s car to the lawyer’s automobile insurance policy, the lawyer violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
The lawyer had no prior discipline.
Conduct Involving Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation
Violation of SCR 20:8.4(c)
A lawyer was self-represented in a family law case. The lawyer emailed the court reporter to obtain a copy of a hearing transcript. The lawyer stated in the email, “Is there a way for me to get the recording also? I recorded the hearing but if I cannot hear everything, I may need your recording also.” In response to the lawyer’s request, the court issued an order stating that the lawyer did not ask for permission to record the hearing and this was contemptuous and insolent behavior. The court ordered the lawyer to surrender the recordings within 10 days.
In response to the court’s order, the lawyer stated, “I never recorded any hearings, I never had any such recordings, and therefore, cannot possibly produce something that I never had. If I had any recordings I would gladly provide them to you, but I do not.” The lawyer proceeded to state, “I only wrote in the email that I recorded a hearing because, after many requests and four weeks waiting, the court reporter would not produce the transcript… I was hoping to make sure the court reporter would accurately transcribe what was said at the hearings. To be clear – I have never made and have never had any audio recordings of the hearings in the above matter.”
By making a false statement to the court reporter that the lawyer had recorded the hearing, the lawyer violated SCR 20:8.4(c), which states, “It is professional misconduct for the lawyer to (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”
The lawyer received private reprimands in 2003 and 2013.
Criminal Act Reflecting Adversely on Fitness to Practice
Violation of SCR 20:8.4(b)
A lawyer was arrested and charged with felony carrying a concealed weapon in another jurisdiction. The lawyer pleaded guilty to an amended charge of misdemeanor transporting or possessing firearm in or upon motor vehicle. The court deferred prosecution, and the case was dismissed without prejudice after the lawyer paid a fine.
By engaging in conduct leading to his arrest for felony carrying a concealed weapon, and eventual guilty plea to misdemeanor transporting or possessing firearm in or upon motor vehicle, the lawyer violated SCR 20:8.4(b). The lawyer had no prior discipline.
Diligence; Communication; Scope of Representation
Violations of SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) and (3) and (b), and SCR 20:1.2(a)
A lawyer represented a client who was also a friend in several transactions. Another lawyer (the agent), a mutual friend of the lawyer and the client, served as the client’s agent under a power of attorney and handled the client’s finances. The lawyer mistakenly believed the agent and the client had blended their finances and that the agent kept the client appraised of financial matters, including details regarding a condominium purchased with the client’s funds but titled jointly in the client’s and the agent’s names.
By failing to take steps necessary to understand the source of funds used to purchase and invested in the condominium and the fair market value of the client’s interest in the condominium, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.3.
By failing to discuss with the client in detail the source of funds used to purchase and invested in the condominium and the fair market value of the client’s interest in the condominium, so the client could make informed decisions regarding the purchase of the condominium and whether to transfer her interest in the condominium to the agent and at what price, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.4(b).
In June 2015, a woman attempted to contact the client because she believed she was the client’s biological daughter. The agent asked the lawyer to respond to the woman’s letter. The lawyer knew the agent did not give the woman’s letter to the client. The lawyer never told the client about the letter or the contacts with the woman.
By holding herself out to the woman as the client’s lawyer without the client’s consent and without first consulting with the client, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.2(a).
By failing to tell the client the woman was attempting to contact the client and failing to provide the woman’s letter to the client, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) and (3) and SCR 20:1.4(b).
The lawyer was privately reprimanded in 1988, 1989, and 1999.
Lack of Diligence; Failure to Communicate in an Estate Matter
Violations of SCR 1.3 and SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)
A lawyer took over representation of an estate from another lawyer.
During two one-year intervals, the lawyer failed to respond to multiple inquiries seeking information regarding the status of the estate, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).
In violation of SCR 20:1.3, the lawyer failed to promptly take steps necessary to close the estate. During the time the lawyer represented the estate, there were more than a dozen adjourned order-to-show-cause hearings. The lawyer finally closed the estate almost six years after taking over the case, with some of the later delays being attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The lawyer had no prior discipline.
Failure to Comply with Advanced-Fee-Placement Alternative; Failure to Respond to Client’s Inquiry Regarding Fees and Expenses; Failure to Protect Client’s Interests
Violations of SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) and (g)(1) and (2) and SCR 20:1.16(d)
A lawyer engaged in misconduct while representing two clients.
In the first matter, the lawyer accepted an advanced fee to provide criminal representation. The lawyer deposited the funds into the lawyer’s business account. At the outset of the representation, the lawyer failed to provide the client with all of the written notices required under SCR 20:1.5(g)(1). The client terminated the representation and hired successor counsel. The lawyer failed to deliver to the client a final accounting and the written notices required under SCR 20:1.5(g)(2) and failed to respond to the client’s first written request for an itemized bill and refund in violation of SCR 20:1.5(b)(3).
In the second matter, the lawyer accepted an advanced fee to provide criminal and divorce representation. The lawyer deposited the funds into the lawyer’s business account. The client terminated the representation and hired successor counsel. The lawyer failed to deliver to the client a final accounting and the written notices required under SCR 20:1.5(g)(2) and failed to provide the client with a copy of the client file, as requested by the client, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).
As a condition of imposition of the private reprimand, the lawyer was required to submit the fee dispute with the client in the first matter to the State Bar of Wisconsin’s fee arbitration program, agree to abide by the panel’s decision, and pay the applicable fee for the client to participate in fee arbitration. The lawyer fulfilled the condition.
The lawyer had no prior discipline.
Engaging in Conduct Involving Dishonesty or Misrepresentation
Violation of SCR 20:8.4(c)
A lawyer represented a client in a civil case during a remote deposition via Zoom videoconferencing. During the deposition of his client, and on a separate computer, the lawyer received and sent emails to the client regarding his testimony. This communication was not disclosed to any of the other parties in the deposition. The lawyer sent an email to opposing counsel but the email was meant for the lawyer’s client. Based on this email, the opposing counsel requested records from the lawyer regarding his emails during the time of the deposition. The opposing counsel then filed a motion for judgment as a sanction for gross misconduct by the lawyer (with the client’s complicity).
The lawyer filed a response admitting the communication and claiming it was a “lapse in judgment and conduct.” A hearing was held on the motion and the judge issued a written decision sanctioning the lawyer $25,000 for the dishonest conduct and finding the lawyer had “intentionally tampered with the administration of justice by impeding and frustrating the fair examination of a key witness in a key line of questioning....”
By secretly communicating with his client regarding the substance of the client’s testimony via a separate computer during a remote deposition, the lawyer engaged in conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).
Lack of Competence; Lack of Communication
Violations of SCR 20:1.1 and SCR 20:1.4(a)
A lawyer was appointed to represent a client in license-revocation proceedings. After the revocation order was issued, the client requested that the lawyer file an administrative appeal. The lawyer prepared a draft of an administrative appeal for the client but failed to file it. By failing to file the administrative appeal, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.1, which requires a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client.
The client sent multiple letters over the following months requesting an update on the status of the appeal. The lawyer responded with a letter that failed to explain the status of the appeal and included extraneous and irrelevant information. By providing the client with incomplete, irrelevant, and extraneous information, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.4(a), which requires a lawyer to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to respond to reasonable requests for information. Once the lawyer’s error was recognized, the State Public Defender’s Office assigned another lawyer to reopen the matter and file an appeal.
Competency; Unreasonable Fees; Failure to Refund Fees
Violations of SCR 20:1.1, SCR 20:1.5(a), and SCR 20:1.16(d)
A client hired a lawyer to adjust the client’s immigration status to permanent resident via a spousal petition. Previously, the client had been placed in removal proceedings, but the proceedings had been administratively closed because the client was granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).
The client signed a written fee agreement for the legal representation and agreed to pay $3,000 to the lawyer, plus filing fees and a medical examination fee. The client paid the full $3,000 in attorney fees, plus filing and other fees in the amount of $2,044.50.
The lawyer filed multiple petitions with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) seeking to adjust the client’s status. In one petition, the lawyer acknowledged that the client’s removal proceedings were “administratively closed” because of the client’s DACA status. However, an individual in removal proceedings cannot adjust status until the removal proceedings have been reopened and officially terminated through the immigration court.
After the USCIS denied the client’s petitions because the client remained in removal proceedings, the lawyer terminated his representation of the client, indicating he did not represent clients before the immigration court. The lawyer did not refund any fees.
By failing to provide competent representation to the client, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.1. By charging the client $3,000 in fees for representation that provided no value to the client and caused the client to unnecessarily incur an additional $2,044.50 in filing fees, the lawyer charged an unreasonable fee. By failing to refund any unearned fees or expenses to the client, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.16(d).
The lawyer refunded $5,044.50 to the client as a condition of the reprimand.
The lawyer had one prior unrelated private reprimand.
Competence; Diligence; Communication; Declining or Terminating Representation
Violations of SCR 20:1.1, SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (b), and SCR 20:1.16(d)
An inexperienced lawyer was appointed to represent a client in guardianship and protective placement proceedings.
The lawyer violated SCR 20:1.1 by failing to take steps to obtain knowledge necessary to competently represent the client, understand her obligations to the client after adverse decisions, and understand and accurately advise the client regarding postdisposition rights and availability of appointed appellate counsel.
The lawyer violated SCR 20:1.3 by failing to timely arrange for the client’s independent examination, obtain information regarding appointment of appellate counsel in protective placement cases, and file the client’s notice of intent to pursue postdisposition relief (NOI).
The lawyer violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (b) by failing to inform the client about efforts to arrange an evaluation and that the lawyer did not intend to file the client’s NOI.
The lawyer violated SCR 20:1.4(b) by failing to discuss with the client before the final hearing that the client was unlikely to defeat the proceedings without a more favorable evaluation and whether the lawyer should request a continuance or the court’s permission to withdraw.
The lawyer violated SCR 20:1.16(d) by failing to take steps to protect the client’s interests. This included failing to advise the client that the lawyer would not file the client’s NOI or that the lawyer intended to file a motion to withdraw. It also included advising the court in the lawyer’s motion to withdraw, “withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of [Client] as the matter for which the appointment was made has been resolved” and “[Client] expressed that she no longer wishes for me to represent her,” without also advising the court that the lawyer had received information that the client wanted the lawyer to file the client’s NOI but that the lawyer was uncertain of the client’s wishes, and that the lawyer had neither filed the client’s NOI nor given the client notice of the motion to withdraw.
The lawyer had no prior discipline.
Communication; Diligence; Fees; Declining or Terminating Representation
Violations of SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) and (b), SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.5(a), and SCR 20:1.16(d)
A lawyer who is only licensed in Wisconsin practices federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) matters in another state.
An individual hired the lawyer to bring a claim. The lawyer’s fee agreement (part contingent, part retainer) confused the client. The lawyer stated the client never raised any concerns.
The lawyer noted that he instructed the client several times to request “official time” from the employer to process her EEO complaint. The lawyer did not contact the client the day her affidavit was due nor schedule a meeting before the extended deadline. The client submitted an affidavit and a supplemental rebuttal without the lawyer’s review. The client said there were no discussions regarding representation objectives or how these objectives would be pursued.
After a few months, the client terminated the representation. The lawyer did not initially address the client’s request for the file or a refund, but the lawyer mailed a portion of the file several months later.
The OLR cited both Wisconsin and the other state’s Rules of Professional Conduct in the reprimand.
By failing to clearly explain the EEO process to the client and his role in that process, which led to the client filing documents without the lawyer’s review, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) and (b).
By failing to reschedule a time to discuss the client’s claims before an extended deadline, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.3.
By using confusing and conflicting language in the fee agreement, and using components of a contingent fee, an hourly fee, and a “retainer” to represent the client regarding the EEO claim, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.5(a).
By failing to return the client’s complete file upon termination of the representation, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.16(d).
The lawyer had no prior discipline.
Lack of Competence; Lack of Diligence; Failure to Update Office Address
Violations of SCR 20:1.1, SCR 20:1.3, and SCR 10.03(2)
A lawyer was appointed by the State Public Defender’s Office to represent a criminal client in postconviction proceedings. The lawyer failed to file a postconviction motion, notice of appeal, or motion to extend the time for doing so for almost three years, in violation of SCR 20:1.3, which requires that a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
When the lawyer finally filed a motion for extension of time with the court of appeals, the lawyer did not accurately calculate the deadlines for filing a postconviction motion or notice of appeal. By failing to accurately calculate the timelines for filing a postconviction motion or notice of appeal, the lawyer violated SCR 20:1.1, which requires that a lawyer provide competent representation to a client.
The lawyer claimed not to have received correspondence from the client and the court of appeals regarding the postconviction representation. The correspondence at issue was sent to the lawyer at the address the lawyer had listed with the State Bar of Wisconsin. However, the lawyer had moved to a new office address. By failing to update his office address with the State Bar of Wisconsin for more than eight months after the address changed, the lawyer violated SCR 10.03(2), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).
The lawyer had no prior discipline.
