Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks

Citation: 2014 WI 26

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2014-05-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
2014 WI 26 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP2326-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST EICHHORN-HICKS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 23, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
         
 
COUNTY: 
       
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 26
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP2326-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 23, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.  Reinstatement granted. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report filed by referee 
James G. Curtis recommending that the court reinstate the 
license of Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks to practice law in Wisconsin.  
After careful review of the matter, we agree that Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks' license should be reinstated.  Although the 
referee 
recommends 
that 
the 
costs 
of 
the 
reinstatement 
proceeding be reduced, we find it appropriate to require 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks to pay the full costs of the proceeding, 
which are $3,159.37 as of November 22, 2013. 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks was licensed to practice law 
in Minnesota in 1975, and became licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1984.  He practices primarily in Minnesota. 
¶3 
On August 21, 2000, the Supreme Court of Minnesota 
suspended Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' license for a period of one 
year due to professional misconduct, including misuse of his 
trust account, failure to maintain proper trust account records, 
temporary 
misappropriation 
of 
funds, 
making 
a 
false 
certification on his attorney registration statements, and 
making false statements to the director of the Minnesota Office 
of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.  In re Disciplinary 
Action Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 615 N.W.2d 356 (Minn. 2000).  
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks did not report the suspension to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), as he was required to do.  
See SCR 22.22(1).  The OLR learned of the suspension through 
other sources in June of 2011.  During the period of the 
Minnesota suspension, Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks did not practice 
law in either Minnesota or Wisconsin. 
¶4 
Effective February 8, 2002, the Supreme Court of 
Minnesota 
reinstated 
Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks' 
license 
to 
practice law in Minnesota, subject to the condition that he be 
placed on supervised probation for three years.  The terms of 
his probation included supervision by a licensed Minnesota 
attorney; maintenance and review by the supervising attorney of 
certain client, file, and fee records; maintenance of trust 
account records and compliance with any requests to review those 
records by the director of the Office of Lawyers Professional 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
3 
 
Responsibility; and abstinence from alcohol and other mood-
altering chemicals. 
¶5 
On June 23, 2009, the Supreme Court of Minnesota 
publicly reprimanded Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks for professional 
misconduct involving his receipt on two occasions of advanced 
fee payments in a client matter in which there was no written 
fee agreement, his failure to deposit such funds into a client 
trust account, and his failure to disclose during a disciplinary 
investigation the full amounts of payments he had received for 
the representation of a client.  In re Disciplinary Action 
Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 767 N.W.2d 20 (Minn. 2009).  Again, 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks failed to timely inform the OLR of this 
public reprimand. 
¶6 
In addition to the 2009 public reprimand, the Supreme 
Court of Minnesota also placed Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks on 
probation for two years with a number of conditions.  Under the 
terms of the Minnesota order, the period of probation was 
scheduled to expire in June of 2011.  As with the 2000 
suspension, the OLR learned of the 2009 public reprimand in June 
of 2011 through other sources. 
¶7 
In October of 2011, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks alleging that, by virtue of having 
received public discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of 
Minnesota, he was subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin 
pursuant to SCR 22.22.  The complaint also alleged that by 
failing to notify the OLR of either the 2000 suspension or the 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
4 
 
2009 
public 
reprimand, 
Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks 
violated 
SCR 22.22(1). 
¶8 
On March 1, 2012, this court ordered that Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks be publicly reprimanded for the misconduct 
leading to the 2009 public reprimand in Minnesota.  It also 
ordered that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended effective April 2, 2012, for a period of one year, as 
reciprocal discipline to that issued by the Supreme Court of 
Minnesota.  Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks was further ordered to 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 2012 WI 18, 338 Wis. 2d 753, 
809 N.W.2d 379. 
¶9 
On May 13, 2013, Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks filed a 
petition for the reinstatement of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  The OLR filed a response on September 20, 2013.  In 
its response, the OLR suggested that the referee might wish to 
explore Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' understanding of his obligation 
to strictly and fully comply with supreme court rules and may 
also wish to explore the accuracy of declarations contained in 
his reinstatement petition.  Specifically, the OLR expressed 
concern that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks may have practiced law 
after the effective date of the suspension of his Wisconsin law 
license.  Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' possible practice after the 
suspension of his license involved his representation of C.K., 
an Illinois resident, on a Wisconsin OWI charge in Barron 
County. 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
5 
 
¶10 A public hearing on Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' petition 
for reinstatement was held on October 15, 2013.  The referee 
filed his report and recommendation in the matter on November 4, 
2013. 
¶11 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1)1 provides the standards to 
be met for reinstatement.  Specifically, the petitioner must 
show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or 
she has the moral character to practice law, that his or her 
resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the 
administration of justice or subversive of the public interest, 
and that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of 
the order of suspension.  In addition to these requirements, 
SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m)2 provides additional requirements that a 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.31(1) states: 
The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all 
of the following: 
(a) That he or she has the moral character to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
(b) That his or her resumption of the practice of 
law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest. 
(c) That his or her representations in the 
petition, including the representations required by 
SCR 
22.29(4)(a) 
to 
[(4m)] 
and 
22.29(5), 
are 
substantiated. 
(d) That he or she has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
with the requirements of SCR 22.26. 
2 SCR 22.29(4)(a) through (4m) provides that a petition for 
reinstatement shall show all of the following: 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
6 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
(a) The 
petitioner 
desires 
to 
have 
the 
petitioner's license reinstated. 
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during 
the period of suspension or revocation. 
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
will 
continue 
to 
comply 
with 
them 
until 
the 
petitioner's license is reinstated. 
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and 
learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities. 
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension 
or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach. 
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of 
and attitude toward the standards that are imposed 
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with the standards. 
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to 
the legal profession, the courts and the public as a 
person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 
them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence and in general to aid in the administration 
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 
the courts. 
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. 
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license 
if reinstated. 
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation. 
(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 
petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to 
the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection for 
all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
7 
 
petition for reinstatement must show.  All of these additional 
requirements are effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1). 
¶12 When we review a referee's report and recommendation, 
we will adopt the referee's findings of fact unless they are 
clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Eisenberg, 
2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. 
¶13 We 
conclude 
the 
referee's 
findings 
support 
a 
determination that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks has met his burden to 
establish by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence that 
he has met all of the standards required for reinstatement. 
¶14 With respect to the concern raised in the OLR's 
response to the reinstatement petition that Attorney Eichhorn-
Hicks may have practiced law during the term of his Wisconsin 
suspension, 
the 
referee 
said 
that 
having 
heard 
Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks' testimony and explanation at the hearing, the 
referee was satisfied that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks did not in 
fact engage in the practice of law while he was suspended.  The 
referee said Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks credibly explained that he 
anticipated C.K. would be engaging a new lawyer and that 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks would be turning over the file to C.K.'s 
new counsel.  Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks explained that under 
SCR 20:1.16(d), 
he 
had 
a 
duty, 
upon 
termination 
of 
the 
representation, to take appropriate steps to protect his 
                                                                                                                                                             
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability 
to do so. 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
8 
 
client's interests.  Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks explained that on 
April 30, 2012, after his Wisconsin license had been suspended, 
he made a call to the district attorney's office to ask if there 
had ever been a response to a settlement proposal he had made on 
March 31, 2012.  Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks explained at the 
hearing that he understood the case was over as far as his 
involvement in it, and the purpose of his phone call was simply 
to inquire if there had been a response to his settlement 
proposal, as he anticipated forwarding information to C.K.'s new 
attorney. 
¶15 The referee said SCR 22.26 envisions an orderly 
winding up of an attorney's practice upon suspension.  The 
referee concluded that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' phone call to 
the 
district 
attorney's 
office 
was 
consistent 
with 
that 
practice.  The referee said he was satisfied that Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks did not improperly engage in the practice of law 
in Wisconsin during the term of his suspension. 
¶16 The 
referee 
found 
that 
Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks 
complied with the terms of the order of his suspension.  While 
the referee noted that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks did not timely 
file the affidavit required by SCR 22.26(1)(e), the referee 
found this to be a technical violation and an insignificant 
factor in assessing the request for reinstatement.  The referee 
found that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks has maintained competence in 
learning in the law by attending various educational activities, 
and the referee found that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' conduct 
since the suspension has been exemplary and above reproach. 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
9 
 
¶17 The referee also found that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks 
has a proper understanding of an attitude toward the standards 
that are imposed upon members of the bar and that he will act in 
conformity with those standards.  The referee noted that in 
addition to the 2000 suspension and the 2009 public reprimand 
imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, Attorney Eichhorn-
Hicks had a rather extensive history of discipline in Minnesota 
which 
included 
multiple 
private 
admonitions 
and 
private 
probations.  In spite of this history, the referee noted that 
the OLR acknowledged that "Minnesota's Office of Lawyers 
Professional Responsibility continues to respond with reprimand 
level 
and 
probationary 
actions, 
allowing 
Eichhorn-Hicks' 
continued practice in Minnesota.  His lengthy career and 
Minnesota's reactions to his failures are persuasive evidence 
that he does ultimately practice within standards sufficient to 
safely represent the public."  The referee noted that when 
specifically asked at the hearing whether he could provide 
assurances that from this point forward he would do his utmost 
to 
abide 
by 
all 
of 
the 
technicalities, 
"Eichhorn-Hicks 
acknowledged that in the past, he probably wasn't as focused on 
the rules as he should have been but that recently he had been 
very careful, and was much more tuned-in to the rules than he 
had ever been.  The assurance was given in a straight-forward 
and credible fashion." 
¶18 The referee concluded that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks can 
safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts, and 
the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
10 
 
represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence and in general to aid in the administration of 
justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of the courts.  
The referee stated: 
 
From 
his 
demeanor 
and 
presentation 
at 
the 
hearing, the Referee is persuaded that Eichhorn-Hicks 
can safely be recommended to return to the active 
practice of law in Wisconsin.  After 38 years in 
practice, he continues to work 60 to 70 hours per week 
and enjoys trying cases.  Many of his representations 
are handled on a fixed-fee basis and he is willing to 
devote the time and effort necessary to handle matters 
properly. 
 
During 
the 
term 
of 
his 
Wisconsin 
suspension, he maintained an active law practice in 
Minnesota and there is no basis to question his 
fitness to represent clients in Wisconsin matters. 
¶19 This court has carefully evaluated whether Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks has met the requirements for the reinstatement of 
his license to practice law in Wisconsin, and we conclude that 
he has.  We agree with the referee that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks 
has met his burden of proof with respect to all elements needed 
to justify his reinstatement. 
¶20 Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks has objected to the OLR's 
statement of costs and argues that it represents a fine or 
penalty.  He points out that when his Minnesota license was 
suspended for one year in 2000, he did not practice in either 
Minnesota or Wisconsin for that year and it was not until more 
than ten years later that the OLR discovered the Minnesota 
suspension and pursued reciprocal discipline which led to the 
one-year suspension of Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' Wisconsin law 
license effective in April of 2012.  The referee found this 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
11 
 
argument to be persuasive, saying Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' 
primary mistake was to fail to report his Minnesota discipline 
to the OLR as required by SCR 22.22.  The referee opines that if 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks had reported the Minnesota discipline in 
2000, it is likely that the Wisconsin suspension would have been 
made coterminous with the suspension of Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' 
Minnesota license.  The referee said, "Because of his failure to 
comply with the notification requirements of SCR 22.22(1), 
Mr. Eichhorn-Hicks has been subjected to a serious sanction and, 
in effect, a second one-year suspension."  For that reason, the 
referee recommends that this court relieve Attorney Eichhorn-
Hicks from having to pay the fees and expenses of the OLR's 
counsel in the reinstatement case, which would reduce the net 
cost assessment to $1,594.65. 
¶21 This court's general practice is to assess the full 
costs against a respondent.  SCR 22.24(1m).  In order to award 
something 
less 
than 
full 
costs, 
the 
court 
must 
find 
extraordinary circumstances.  We do not believe that this case 
presents the sort of extraordinary circumstances necessary to 
relieve Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks from having to bear the full 
costs of the reinstatement proceeding. 
¶22 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Tracy R. Eichhorn-
Hicks to practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated effective the 
date of this order. 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks shall pay to the Office 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
12 
 
of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$3,159.37. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the 
terms of this order remain a condition of Tracy R. Eichhorn-
Hicks' license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
 
 
1