Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. P. Nicholas Hurtgen

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2015-09-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
2015 WI 92 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP941-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against   
P. Nicholas Hurtgen, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
P. Nicholas Hurtgen, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HURTGEN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 18, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: PROSSER, J., did not participate.    
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 92
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2009AP941-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against P. Nicholas Hurtgen, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
P. Nicholas Hurtgen, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
SEP 18, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.  Reinstatement granted.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report filed by Referee John 
Nicholas Schweitzer, recommending that the court reinstate the 
license of P. Nicholas Hurtgen to practice law in Wisconsin.  
Upon careful review of the matter, we agree that Attorney 
Hurtgen's license should be reinstated.  We further agree with 
the referee that Attorney Hurtgen should be required to pay the 
No. 
2009AP941-D   
 
2 
 
full costs of this proceeding, which are $1,512.41 as of July 7, 
2015.1 
¶2 
Attorney Hurtgen was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1992.  He resides in Illinois.  On September 9, 
2009, this court accepted Attorney Hurtgen's petition for 
consensual license revocation and revoked his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Hurtgen, 2009 WI 92, 321 Wis. 2d 280, 772 N.W.2d 923.  
Attorney Hurtgen's petition for consensual license revocation 
stated that he could not successfully defend against pending 
charges of professional misconduct relating to a conviction, 
entered following a guilty plea entered in the Federal District 
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to one count of 
aiding and abetting wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
§§ 1343, 1346, and 2, in connection with a long-running federal 
investigation of corruption in the administration of former 
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.   
¶3 
On September 8, 2010, the federal district court 
granted Attorney Hurtgen's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.  
The basis for this action was that the United States Supreme 
Court had ruled that the legal theory under which Attorney 
Hurtgen had been charged was flawed.  On February 29, 2012, all 
remaining charges against Attorney Hurtgen were dismissed 
                                                 
1 Records show total costs of $1,712.41, with an advance 
deposit paid by Attorney Hurtgen of $200.00, bringing the total 
costs owed by Attorney Hurtgen to $1,512.41. 
No. 
2009AP941-D   
 
3 
 
without prejudice.  Attorney Hurtgen filed a petition for the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law on September 9, 
2014.  The referee was appointed on January 27, 2015.  A public 
hearing was held on May 20, 2015.  The referee issued his report 
on May 27, 2015. 
¶4 
Supreme 
Court 
Rule 
(SCR) 
22.31(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 to 
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) provides additional 
requirements that a petition for reinstatement must show.  All 
of these additional requirements are effectively incorporated 
into SCR 22.31(1).  The referee concluded that Attorney Hurtgen 
satisfactorily met all of these requirements. 
¶5 
The referee noted that after a thorough investigation, 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a response to 
Attorney Hurtgen's petition for reinstatement saying that it had 
found no evidence to controvert the assertions made in the 
petition and that, subject to the outcome of the public hearing, 
the OLR did not oppose the petition for reinstatement.  At the 
end of the hearing before the referee, the OLR's position 
remained the same. 
No. 
2009AP941-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
The referee noted that during the OLR's investigation 
into the reinstatement petition, it was discovered that Attorney 
Hurtgen had failed to file the affidavit required by SCR 22.26.  
Attorney Hurtgen explained that he did not believe an affidavit 
regarding notifying clients about his revocation was necessary 
since he had no active law practice or clients at the time of 
his revocation.  However, he filed a sufficient affidavit on 
October 20, 2014.   
¶7 
The referee noted that letters supporting Attorney 
Hurtgen's petition were filed by numerous persons, including 
former Wisconsin Governor James E. Doyle, that each writer spoke 
very highly of Attorney Hurtgen, and that several mentioned 
their belief that Attorney Hurtgen never acted inappropriately.  
The referee noted that Attorney Hurtgen currently serves as a 
managing partner of a private investment company and as an 
operating director of a Chicago-based investment and merchant 
bank.  At this time, he does not intend to use his law license, 
if reinstated, to practice as an attorney but instead will use 
the license in his own business affairs. 
¶8 
Based on all the information presented in the moving 
documents and at the public hearing, the referee concluded that 
Attorney Hurtgen demonstrated by clear, satisfactory, and 
convincing evidence that he has the moral character to practice 
law in Wisconsin; that his resumption of the practice of law 
will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or 
subversive of the public interest; that he has complied fully 
with the terms of the order of revocation and the requirements 
No. 
2009AP941-D   
 
5 
 
of SCR 22.26; and that he can safely be recommended to the legal 
profession, the courts, the public, and this court 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 an officer of the courts.  Accordingly, the referee 
recommends that Attorney Hurtgen's petition for reinstatement be 
granted.  The referee further recommends that Attorney Hurtgen 
be required to pay the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶9 
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.   
¶10 We conclude that the referee's findings support a 
determination that Attorney Hurtgen has met his burden to 
establish by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that 
he has met all of the standards required for reinstatement of 
his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  In his petition for 
reinstatement, Attorney Hurtgen explained: 
Mr. Hurtgen never considered himself guilty of 
anything unlawful, but he believed the risks of a jury 
trial exceeded the potential penalty that would have 
resulted from the plea bargain he was offered.  In an 
abundance of caution, he petitioned the Court for the 
consensual revocation of his license, but as it turned 
out, the conduct for which he had been indicted was 
not criminal.  He has been fully exonerated of all 
charges, but remains without his license to practice 
law.  . . . Mr. Hurtgen now asks the Court to restore 
No. 
2009AP941-D   
 
6 
 
him to his prior status, finally bringing closure to 
this legal case that has spanned over nine years. 
¶11 We agree with the referee that Attorney Hurtgen's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin should be reinstated.  We 
further agree that Attorney Hurtgen should pay the full costs of 
this proceeding. 
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of P. Nicholas Hurtgen 
to practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date 
of this order.   
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, P. Nicholas Hurtgen shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$1,512.41. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the 
terms of this order remain a condition of P. Nicholas Hurtgen's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶15 DAVID T. PROSSER, J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2009AP941-D   
 
 
 
1