Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Peter J. Kovac

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2015AP000654-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2016-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
2016 WI 62 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP654-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Peter J. Kovac, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Peter J. Kovac, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KOVAC 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 8, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:     
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 62
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2015AP654-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Peter J. Kovac, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Peter J. Kovac, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 8, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.    Attorney's license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review referee James J. Winiarski's 
recommendation that Attorney Peter J. Kovac be declared in 
default and that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended for 90 days for professional misconduct.  The referee 
also recommended that Attorney Kovac pay the full costs of the 
proceeding, which are $1,824.83 as of February 2, 2016.  
No. 
2015AP654-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We declare Attorney Kovac to be in default.  We agree 
with the referee that Attorney Kovac's professional misconduct 
warrants a 90-day suspension of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  We also agree that Attorney Kovac should pay the 
full costs of this proceeding.   
¶3 
Attorney Kovac was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1973 and practices in Milwaukee.  In 2008, he 
agreed 
to 
a 
consensual 
public 
reprimand 
for 
failure 
to 
competently represent a criminal appellate client; failure to 
diligently 
represent 
three 
criminal 
clients; 
failure 
to 
communicate with clients; failure to communicate with clients 
about their appeal status; continuing to represent a client 
after a conflict of interest arose; and failing to cooperate 
with the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) concerning three of 
the investigations.  Public Reprimand of Peter J. Kovac, 2008-
OLR-05.  In 2012, Attorney Kovac was publicly reprimanded for 
failure to timely respond to a notice of formal investigation 
from the OLR.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kovac, 
2012 WI 117, 344 Wis. 2d 522, 823 N.W.2d 371. 
¶4 
On April 2, 2015, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Kovac alleging seven counts of misconduct with respect 
to two client matters.  The first client matter detailed in the 
OLR's complaint involved Attorney Kovac's representation of 
K.R., who hired Attorney Kovac to defend him on felony criminal 
charges pending in the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of Wisconsin.  K.R. paid Attorney Kovac an 
initial fee of $5,000 via credit card.  Attorney Kovac did not 
No. 
2015AP654-D   
 
3 
 
enter into a written fee agreement with K.R.  Attorney Kovac 
discussed a $15,000 to $25,000 range as fees for K.R.'s felony 
matter.  After the first day of trial, Attorney Kovac received 
an additional $2,500 paid from K.R.'s credit card.  K.R. 
subsequently rescinded the $2,500 payment.   
¶5 
K.R. was convicted and sentenced to a six-month term 
of incarceration, supervised release, and restitution.  Attorney 
Jeffrey Jensen filed a motion to substitute as K.R.'s attorney, 
which was granted.  After being appointed as successor counsel, 
Attorney Jensen attempted on numerous occasions to obtain the 
client file from Attorney Kovac, but Attorney Kovac failed to 
respond.  
¶6 
Attorney Jensen filed a motion to compel, requesting 
Attorney Kovac be ordered to turn over his client file.  The 
district court issued an order directing Attorney Kovac to turn 
over the client file.  The order stated that failure to turn 
over the file would cause the United States Marshal to arrest 
Attorney Kovac and hold him in custody until he had turned over 
the file.  Attorney Kovac delivered K.R.'s file to Attorney 
Jensen's office prior to the deadline established in the 
district court's order.  
¶7 
K.R. filed a grievance against Attorney Kovac.  The 
OLR notified Attorney Kovac of its investigation and requested 
him to submit a written response to the grievance.  Attorney 
Kovac failed to respond.  It was not until after this court 
issued an order to show cause as to why Attorney Kovac's law 
license should not be suspended that he responded to the 
No. 
2015AP654-D   
 
4 
 
grievance.  The OLR withdrew its motion for a temporary 
suspension of Attorney Kovac's license.   
¶8 
The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Kovac's representation of 
K.R.: 
[Count 1]  By failing to have a written fee agreement 
when the total legal costs of the representation in 
connection with K.R.'s federal criminal matter were 
more than $1,000 and having received a $5,000 retainer 
from [K.R.], Kovac violated SCR 20.1.5(b)(1) and (2).1 
[Count 
2] 
 
By 
failing 
upon 
termination 
of 
representation, to promptly turn over his client file 
for representation of K.R. in the federal criminal 
matter to successor counsel, Kovac violated SCR 
20:1.16(d).2 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) provides:   
The scope of the representation and the basis or rate 
of the fee and expenses for which the client will be 
responsible shall be communicated to the client in 
writing, except before or within a reasonable time 
after commencing the representation when the lawyer 
will charge a regularly represented client on the same 
basis or rate as in the past.  If it is reasonably 
foreseeable that the total cost of representation to 
the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000 
or less, the communication may be oral or in writing.  
Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or 
expenses shall also be communicated in writing to the 
client.   
SCR 
20:1.5(b)(2) 
provides: 
 
"If 
the 
total 
cost 
of 
representation to the client, including attorney's fees, is more 
than $1000, the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance 
fee that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 
writing." 
2 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:   
(continued) 
No. 
2015AP654-D   
 
5 
 
[Count 3]  By failing to timely provide a written 
response to OLR in the matter of the grievance of 
K.R., Kovac violated SCR 22.03(2)3 and SCR 22.03(6)4 
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).5 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall 
take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to 
protect 
a 
client's 
interests, 
such 
as 
giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred.  The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law.  
3 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
Upon commencing an investigation, the director shall 
notify the respondent of the matter being investigated 
unless 
in 
the 
opinion 
of 
the 
director 
the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise.  The 
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail 
request for a written response.  The director may 
allow additional time to respond.  Following receipt 
of the response, the director may conduct further 
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation.   
4 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance."  
5 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to:  . . . . fail to cooperate in the investigation 
of a grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as 
required by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(6), or SCR 
22.04(1)." 
No. 
2015AP654-D   
 
6 
 
¶9 
The second client matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint arose out of Attorney Kovac's representation of A.B. 
in a Milwaukee County criminal matter.  A.B. entered a guilty 
plea to two drug-related charges, was found guilty, and was 
sentenced.  Attorney Kovac did not file a notice of intent to 
appeal.  A.B. filed a pro se motion to extend the time to file a 
notice of intent to appeal, seeking post-conviction relief.  
A.B. contacted Attorney Kovac on numerous occasions trying to 
obtain his client file so that successor counsel could perfect 
post-conviction relief in the criminal matter.  Attorney Kovac 
failed to respond.  The court of appeals directed Attorney Kovac 
to respond to A.B.'s motion, but Attorney Kovac failed to 
comply.   
¶10 Attorney 
Kevin 
Gaertner 
was 
appointed 
successor 
counsel for A.B.  Attorney Gaertner repeatedly asked Attorney 
Kovac to turn over the client file in the criminal matter, but 
Attorney Kovac never delivered the file to Attorney Gaertner.  
Attorney Gaertner finally received the file from the State 
Public Defender's office.   
¶11 A.B. filed a grievance against Attorney Kovac.  As in 
the K.R. matter, Attorney Kovac failed to respond to the OLR's 
repeated requests for a response to the grievance and it was not 
until after this court had issued an order to show cause why 
Attorney Kovac's license should not be temporarily suspended for 
No. 
2015AP654-D   
 
7 
 
his failure to respond to the OLR that he finally filed a 
response and the OLR withdrew its motion. 
¶12 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Kovac's handling of the A.B. 
matter:   
[Count 4]  By failing to file the notice of intent to 
pursue post conviction relief in the A.B. matter, 
[Attorney] Kovac violated SCR 20:1.3.6 
[Count 
5] 
 
By 
failing, 
upon 
termination 
of 
representation, to respond to phone calls and letters 
from A.B. relating to requests to return his file so 
that 
he 
could 
pursue 
post-conviction 
relief, 
[Attorney] Kovac violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
[Count 6]  By failing to respond to multiple Orders 
from the Court of Appeals requesting that Attorney 
Kovac provide a response concerning whether he had 
counseled A.B. regarding the decision to seek post-
conviction 
relief, 
[Attorney] 
Kovac 
violated 
SCR 
20:3.4(c).7 
[Count 7]  By failing to provide a timely initial 
response to A.B.'s grievance and by failing to timely 
respond to OLR's request for a supplemental response 
to A.B.'s grievance, [Attorney] Kovac violated SCR 
22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforced via 20:8.4(h). 
¶13 The referee was appointed on July 14, 2015.  After 
Attorney Kovac failed to file an answer to the complaint, the 
OLR filed a notice of motion and motion for default judgment.  
                                                 
6 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client."   
7 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides:  "A lawyer shall not: . . . . 
knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, 
except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid 
obligation exists."   
No. 
2015AP654-D   
 
8 
 
The referee advised the parties that a telephone scheduling 
conference would be held on August 12, 2015.  On August 11, 
2015, at approximately 4:40 p.m., Attorney Kovac left a voice 
message with the referee's office asking for an adjournment of 
the telephonic scheduling conference.  The referee issued an 
order 
adjourning 
the 
telephonic 
scheduling 
conference 
to 
September 15, 2015.  The referee also ordered Attorney Kovac to 
file his answer to the complaint on or before September 11, 
2015.  The referee advised Attorney Kovac that the OLR had filed 
a motion for default judgment and that the referee would not 
further extend the time to file an answer.  
¶14 Attorney Kovac failed to file an answer by the 
September 11, 2015 extended deadline.  He also failed to 
participate in the telephonic scheduling conference on September 
15, 2015, at which time the OLR orally renewed its motion for 
default judgment.  On October 1, 2015, the referee issued an 
order declaring Attorney Kovac to be in default.   
¶15 On October 8, 2015, the referee issued an order 
granting the parties the opportunity to file written argument 
with respect to the appropriate discipline.  The referee gave 
Attorney Kovac until November 20, 2015 to file a response to the 
OLR's written argument and authorities.  Attorney Kovac failed 
to file a response by November 20, 2015.  On November 23, 2015, 
Attorney Kovac sent the referee a letter in which he claimed 
No. 
2015AP654-D   
 
9 
 
that he had tried to drop off a response at the referee's office 
on November 20.  The November 23 letter included a copy of the 
response in which Attorney Kovac referenced various mitigating 
circumstances.   
¶16 In response to Attorney Kovac's letter, the referee 
sent a letter to both parties indicating that if Attorney Kovac 
wanted to have a hearing on the appropriate discipline and 
mitigating circumstances, he was to discuss available dates and 
times with the OLR.  The referee also advised Attorney Kovac 
that the referee would not reopen the case and that the 
declaration of default would remain in place.  Attorney Kovac 
was advised that the referee considered time to be of the 
essence and that the referee would not grant any additional time 
to Attorney Kovac to arrange a hearing.  Attorney Kovac failed 
to take any action, did not contact the OLR to arrange a date 
and time for the suggested hearing, and never filed an answer or 
otherwise responded to the OLR's complaint.   
¶17 The referee issued his report and recommendation in 
the matter on January 19, 2016. The referee found that the OLR 
had met its burden of proof with respect to all seven counts of 
misconduct alleged in the complaint.  With respect to the 
appropriate level of discipline, the referee pointed to Attorney 
Kovac's two prior public reprimands and commented that there 
appears to be a pattern of misconduct whereby Attorney Kovac 
No. 
2015AP654-D   
 
10 
 
fails to properly represent his clients and there is also a 
disturbing pattern of Attorney Kovac failing to cooperate in OLR 
investigations.  The referee opined that Attorney Kovac's 
continuing misconduct shows disrespect for supreme court rules 
and his obligations as a practicing attorney.  The referee 
explained:   
The respondent's misconduct is serious in nature.  He 
intentionally neglects clients.  He intentionally 
fails to cooperate with successor counsel.  He 
intentionally 
fails 
to 
cooperate 
with 
OLR 
investigations.  He ignores orders issued by courts, 
including appellate courts.  
By my count, respondent has now failed to cooperate 
with at least six OLR investigations of misconduct.  
His failure to cooperate is not an oversight or a 
mistake, 
but 
rather 
an 
intentional 
course 
of 
misconduct in defiance of his obligations as a 
Wisconsin lawyer.  Also, he has now failed to file an 
answer in two disciplinary cases involving three 
separate grievances.   
When I review respondent's behavior in the past two 
public reprimands with his conduct in this case, I 
note another troublesome pattern.  Respondent, during 
his representation of clients and in his handling of 
grievances, takes a course of delay, excuses, and 
misrepresentations.  Repeated promises to clients, 
courts, OLR, and referees are simply never complied 
with.  Instead, they are replaced with new promises to 
clients, courts, OLR, and referees.  
In the present case, respondent was given multiple 
chances to file an answer.  Rather than file an 
answer, he would appear at my office after deadlines 
had passed and essentially ask for more time.  When he 
would be given additional time, he would again fail to 
respond.  In the present case, he filed a late letter 
indicating he wanted to be heard on mitigating 
circumstances, but never follows through with any 
efforts to secure a hearing that was offered to him on 
the subject of mitigating circumstances. 
No. 
2015AP654-D   
 
11 
 
The 
pattern 
of 
non-cooperation, 
delay, 
misrepresentation 
in 
representing 
clients 
and 
in 
responding 
to 
grievances 
is 
now 
most 
apparent.  
Further complicating the situation is the fact that 
respondent, in defaulting in the last two disciplinary 
cases, has not provided any explanations for his 
conduct.  I fear that such conduct will continue and 
will cause harm in the future to respondent's clients.   
¶18 The referee commented that two prior public reprimands 
failed to change Attorney Kovac's behavior, and the referee said 
a higher level of discipline was needed to protect the public, 
the courts, and the legal system from a repetition of Attorney 
Kovac's misconduct.  Accordingly, the referee recommended that 
Attorney Kovac's license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended for 90 days.  The referee also recommended that 
Attorney Kovac be ordered to pay the entire cost of the 
disciplinary proceeding.   
¶19 Supreme court rule 22.17 provides that an appeal from 
a referee's report must be filed within 20 days after the filing 
of the report.  Since the referee's report was filed on January 
19, 2016, Attorney Kovac's appeal needed to be filed by February 
8, 2016 in order to be timely.  Attorney Kovac did not file a 
timely appeal.  Instead, on February 12, 2016, he filed a letter 
asking for additional time to file a formal response to the 
referee's report.  This court construed the letter as a motion 
to extend the time to file an appeal.  By order dated March 7, 
2016, this court denied the motion.  
No. 
2015AP654-D   
 
12 
 
¶20 Although Attorney Kovac was given the opportunity to 
file an answer and present a defense to the OLR's complaint, he 
failed to do so.  Accordingly, we declare him to be in default.  
¶21 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
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.  The court may impose 
whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of the referee's 
recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  We 
adopt the referee's findings of fact and agree with the 
referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Kovac violated the 
supreme court rules referenced above.   
¶22  We also agree with the referee that a 90-day 
suspension of Attorney Kovac's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct.  We 
share the referee's concern that, in spite of receiving two 
prior public reprimands for, among other things, failing to 
diligently represent and communicate with criminal clients and 
failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigation into pending 
grievances, Attorney Kovac has continued to engage in the same 
type of behavior that led to the public reprimands.  As we have 
oft 
noted, 
Wisconsin 
follows 
the 
concept 
of 
progressive 
discipline.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brandt, 
No. 
2015AP654-D   
 
13 
 
2012 WI 8, ¶21, 338 Wis. 2d 524, 808 N.W.2d 687.  We agree with 
the referee that a 90-day suspension is necessary to protect the 
public, the courts, and the legal system from repetition of 
Attorney Kovac's misconduct; impress upon the attorney the 
seriousness of his misconduct; and deter other attorneys from 
committing similar misconduct.   
¶23 In addition, we find that a 90-day suspension is 
generally consistent with the sanction imposed in other somewhat 
similar cases.  Although no two disciplinary proceedings are 
identical, we find this fact situation generally analogous to In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Wood, 2014 WI 116, 358 
Wis. 2d 472, 854 N.W.2d 844.  In Wood, an attorney received a 
90-day suspension for seven counts of misconduct that included 
failing to provide a client with a written fee agreement, 
failing to respond to a client's requests for information, and 
failing 
to 
respond 
to 
the 
OLR's 
investigation 
into 
his 
misconduct.  
¶24 Finally, we agree with the referee that Attorney Kovac 
should bear the full costs of this proceeding.  
¶25 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Peter J. Kovac to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90 days, 
effective August 12, 2016. 
No. 
2015AP654-D   
 
14 
 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Peter J. Kovac shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $1,824.83. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Peter J. Kovac shall comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an 
attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended.      
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See SCR 
22.28(2).  
 
 
 
No. 
2015AP654-D   
 
 
 
1