Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jeffrey A. Reitz

Citation: 2015 WI 9

Docket Number: 2011AP001764-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2015-02-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
2015 WI 9 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  Jeffrey A. Reitz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Jeffrey A. Reitz, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST REITZ 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 4, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 9
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2010AP1576-D 
2011AP1764-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffrey A. Reitz, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Jeffrey A. Reitz, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 4, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.  Reinstatement granted.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report filed by referee 
Christine Harris Taylor, recommending that the court reinstate 
the license of Jeffrey A. Reitz to practice law in Wisconsin.  
After careful review of the matter, we agree that Attorney 
Reitz's license should be reinstated, with conditions.  We also 
agree with the referee that Attorney Reitz should be required to 
pay the full costs of this proceeding, which are $2,701.40 as of 
November 21, 2014.   
No. 
2010AP1576-D 
2011AP1764-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Attorney Reitz was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1981 and practiced in Milwaukee.  His license was 
suspended for a period of ten months, commencing on May 3, 2013, 
for multiple counts of misconduct, primarily related to his 
mishandling of his trust accounts and client funds.  He had 
previously been disciplined on two prior occasions. 
¶3 
On February 11, 2014, Attorney Reitz filed a petition 
for the reinstatement of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a 
response on July 31, 2014.  The OLR did not oppose the petition 
for reinstatement but recommended that conditions be imposed 
upon Attorney Reitz's resumption of the practice of law. 
¶4 
A 
public 
hearing 
was 
held 
in 
the 
matter 
on 
September 24, 
2014. 
 
The 
referee 
filed 
her 
report 
and 
recommendation on October 29, 2014.   
¶5 
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 
No. 
2010AP1576-D 
2011AP1764-D   
 
3 
 
of these additional requirements are effectively incorporated 
into SCR 22.31(1). 
¶6 
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. 
¶7 
We conclude that the referee's findings support a 
determination that Attorney Reitz has met his burden to 
establish by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that 
he has met all of the standards required for reinstatement.  The 
referee found that Attorney Reitz has not practiced law during 
the period of his suspension; that he has fully complied with 
the terms of the order of suspension; that he has maintained 
competence and learning in the law; that his conduct since the 
suspension has been exemplary and above reproach; and that he 
has a proper understanding of and attitude towards the standards 
that are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in 
conformity with those standards.  The referee found that 
Attorney 
Reitz 
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.  The referee also found that Attorney 
No. 
2010AP1576-D 
2011AP1764-D   
 
4 
 
Reitz has fully complied with the requirements as set forth in 
SCR 22.26. 
¶8 
The 
referee 
noted 
that 
the 
OLR's 
investigation 
revealed no information that Attorney Reitz failed to meet his 
burden to show that he has met all of the requirements required 
for the reinstatement of his license.  The referee also noted 
that this court's suspension order provides that, upon his 
resumption of the practice of law, Attorney Reitz's trust 
account shall be subject to monitoring by the OLR for a period 
of two years.  The referee found this condition of reinstatement 
to be well-founded.  The OLR had also recommended that, as an 
additional 
condition 
of 
reinstatement, 
Attorney 
Reitz 
be 
required to work under the supervision of an attorney under 
SCR 20:5.1 or, at a minimum, that he be monitored by an attorney 
who works in the area of bankruptcy.  The referee said this 
condition of reinstatement was unfounded and unsubstantiated by 
the testimony presented at the reinstatement hearing.   
¶9 
From our review of the matter, we agree with the 
referee that having the OLR monitor Attorney Reitz's trust 
account for a period of two years after he resumes the practice 
of law is a sufficient condition of reinstatement and that the 
additional condition suggested by the OLR is unnecessary. 
¶10 It is this court's general practice to assess the full 
costs of a proceeding against a respondent.  See SCR 22.24(1m).  
In order to award something less than full costs, the court must 
find extraordinary circumstances.  We find no extraordinary 
No. 
2010AP1576-D 
2011AP1764-D   
 
5 
 
circumstances here, and we find it appropriate to assess the 
full costs of the proceeding against Attorney Reitz.  
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jeffrey A. Reitz to 
practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date of 
this order, subject to the condition that upon his resumption of 
the practice of law, his trust account shall be subject to 
monitoring by the Office of Lawyer Regulation for a period of 
two years. 
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Jeffrey A. Reitz shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$2,701.40. 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the 
terms of this order remain a condition of Jeffrey A. Reitz's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
 
 
No. 
2010AP1576-D 
2011AP1764-D   
 
 
 
1