Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Peter James Nickitas

Citation: 2006 WI 20

Docket Number: 2005AP002523-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2006-03-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
2006 WI 20 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP2523-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Peter James Nickitas, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Peter James Nickitas, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NICKITAS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 7, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2006 WI 20
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP2523-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Peter James Nickitas, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Peter James Nickitas, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 7, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.    Attorney's license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney 
Peter 
James 
Nickitas 
and 
the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.121 concerning Attorney 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides in relevant part:  Stipulation. 
 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee. 
No. 
2005AP2523-D   
 
2 
 
Nickitas' admissions of professional misconduct.  The parties 
stipulate that the appropriate discipline to impose for that 
professional misconduct is the suspension of Attorney Nickitas' 
license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 90 days.   
¶2 
We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated 
facts and conclusions of law.  We agree that the seriousness of 
Attorney Nickitas' misconduct warrants the suspension of his 
license to practice law. 
 
We also 
accept 
the parties' 
stipulation that a 90-day suspension is appropriate discipline.  
¶3 
Attorney Nickitas was admitted to the State Bar of 
Wisconsin on September 19, 1991.  He was previously admitted to 
practice law in Minnesota in October 1990.  In August 2005 the 
Minnesota 
Supreme 
Court 
ordered 
that 
Attorney 
Nickitas' 
Minnesota license be suspended for a period of 90 days, 
effective August 25, 2005.  The suspension arose out of Attorney 
Nickitas' violation of Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct 
involving a consensual sexual relationship with a client; 
entering into multiple business transactions with a client 
without written disclosure of the potential conflicts and 
without providing for fair and reasonable terms for his client, 
including the receipt of at least $9900 in undocumented, 
interest-free, business and personal loans; failing to file a 
timely appeal of a final judgment in a paternity matter and 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
No. 
2005AP2523-D   
 
3 
 
subsequently filing motions previously decided by the unappealed 
judgment in violation of Minnesota rules.   
¶4 
Attorney Nickitas stipulated that he failed to notify 
the OLR directly of the Minnesota Supreme Court's imposition of 
public discipline within 20 days of the effective date of the 
Minnesota discipline.  The OLR first learned of Attorney 
Nickitas' Minnesota suspension from a source other than Attorney 
Nickitas.  Attorney Nickitas, however, had notified the Brown 
County and Douglas County circuit courts, as well as the United 
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, and 
notified Minnesota's regulatory agency that he was admitted to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  Attorney Nickitas admitted that by 
virtue of having received public discipline imposed by the 
Minnesota Supreme Court, he is subject to reciprocal discipline 
in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22.  He further admitted that by 
failing to notify the OLR of the Minnesota license suspension 
within 20 days of the effective date, he violated SCR 22.22(1).2  
Attorney Nickitas does not claim any of the extenuating 
circumstances articulated in SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c).3  In absence of 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.22(1) states in relevant part that "[a]n attorney 
on whom public discipline for misconduct . . . has been imposed 
by another jurisdiction shall promptly notify the director of 
the matter.  Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
effective 
date 
of 
the 
order 
or 
judgment 
of 
the 
other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct." 
3 SCR 22.22 states in relevant part:  Reciprocal discipline. 
 
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
No. 
2005AP2523-D   
 
4 
 
any of those circumstances, SCR 22.22 provides that this court 
shall impose the identical discipline or license suspension as 
imposed in the other jurisdiction.   
¶5 
The parties jointly request this court to order a 90-
day suspension of Attorney Nickitas' license to practice law in 
Wisconsin and order Attorney Nickitas to establish that he has 
fully paid restitution to his client in the sum of $9900, plus 
interest, or that he has entered into a repayment agreement for 
the remaining amount due.   
¶6 
The OLR does not seek an order that Attorney Nickitas 
be required to complete the professional responsibility portion 
of the bar exam, nor a costs assessment against Attorney 
Nickitas in these proceedings.  The parties request that this 
court accept the stipulation without the appointment of a 
referee and issue a final disciplinary opinion consistent with 
their stipulation.  Attorney Nickitas requests the effective 
date of his Wisconsin license suspension be set for August 25, 
2005, the same date his Minnesota license was suspended, based 
on the assertion by affidavit that he did not practice law in 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction 
was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as 
to constitute a deprivation of due process. 
 
(b) There was such an infirmity of proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity. 
 
(c) The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
No. 
2005AP2523-D   
 
5 
 
any jurisdiction including 
Wisconsin 
during 
his 
Minnesota 
suspension. 
¶7 
This court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions 
of law to which the parties have stipulated concerning Attorney 
Nickitas' misconduct.  We determine the seriousness of the 
misconduct warrants the suspension of Attorney Nickitas' license 
to practice law for 90 days.  We conclude the circumstances of 
this case do not warrant a retroactive suspension effective 
date.   
¶8 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Peter James 
Nickitas to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of 90 days effective the date of this order.  
¶9 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days Attorney 
Nickitas shall provide evidence to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation that he has fully paid restitution to his client in 
the sum of $9900, plus interest, or that he has entered into a 
repayment agreement for the remaining amount due.  If the 
evidence is not provided within that time, the license of 
Attorney Nickitas shall remain suspended until further order of 
the court. 
¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Nickitas comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended if he has not already done so.   
No. 
2005AP2523-D   
 
 
6