Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael J. Pierski

Citation: 2011 WI 99

Docket Number: 2010AP003012-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2011-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
2011 WI 99 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP3012-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Michael J. Pierski, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Michael J. Pierski, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PIERSKI 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 7, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2011 WI 99
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2010AP3012-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael J. Pierski, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael J. Pierski, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 7, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.  
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
filed a three-count disciplinary complaint against Attorney 
Michael J. Pierski alleging professional misconduct arising from 
one client matter and seeking a public reprimand.  Attorney 
Pierski did not contest the allegations of misconduct.  James J. 
Winiarski was appointed referee.  Following a hearing limited to 
the issue of discipline, Referee Winiarski recommended the 
imposition of a public reprimand and costs. 
No. 
2010AP3012-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
No appeal has been filed.  The matter is submitted for 
this court's review pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  We conclude the 
record supports the referee's findings of fact and conclusions 
of law.  We agree with the referee's recommendation to impose a 
public reprimand.  We order Attorney Pierski to bear the costs 
of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Pierski was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1990.  He practices in Milwaukee.  In 2003 
Attorney Pierski was issued a private reprimand for failing to 
promptly deliver funds to a third party, in violation of former 
SCR 20:1.15(b), and for failing to cooperate with an OLR 
investigation in violation of SCR 22.03(6). Private Reprimand 
2003-26.  
¶4 
In April of 2006 an attorney in California, C.L., 
contacted Attorney Pierski for the purpose of initiating 
ancillary probate proceedings to transfer title of real estate 
located 
in 
Milwaukee 
County, 
Wisconsin. 
 
Attorney 
C.L. 
represented V.C. regarding the probate of her parents' estates 
in California.  Under the terms of the decedents' wills, their 
property located in Wisconsin was to pass to a family trust.  
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides as follows: 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2010AP3012-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
Attorney Pierski agreed to handle the matter.  On 
April 24, 2006, C.L.'s office forwarded copies of various 
documents to Attorney Pierski for his review.  On October 26, 
2006, 
after 
V.C. 
was 
appointed 
special 
administrator 
in 
California, C.L. sent Attorney Pierski certified copies of the 
order for probate and letters of special administration.  C.L. 
requested that Attorney Pierski prepare the necessary documents 
for V.C.'s signature and forward them to V.C.  C.L. also 
requested courtesy copies of all correspondence Attorney Pierski 
sent to V.C., and requested that Attorney Pierski contact C.L. 
if he required any further documentation.  
¶6 
In January of 2007 C.L.'s firm sent a facsimile 
message to Attorney Pierski asking for an update and requesting 
that Attorney Pierski provide a letter detailing the current 
status of the ancillary proceeding in Wisconsin for submission 
to the probate court in California.  Attorney Pierski did not 
respond.  
¶7 
Over the next several months, C.L. and V.C. attempted 
to contact Attorney Pierski numerous times by telephone and left 
messages with his secretary.  Attorney Pierski did not respond 
to C.L. or V.C., nor did he return any of their phone calls.  
¶8 
Attorney Pierski took no action to transfer the real 
property to the trust.  
¶9 
C.L. filed a grievance against Attorney Pierski.  The 
OLR contacted Attorney Pierski to obtain a formal response.  
Attorney Pierski failed to respond to several requests from the 
No. 
2010AP3012-D   
 
4 
 
OLR 
before 
finally 
providing 
the 
requested 
response 
on 
December 10, 2007.2  
¶10 On December 14, 2010, the OLR filed a three-count 
complaint, alleging that:  (1) by failing to take any action to 
transfer the real property to the family trust, Attorney Pierski 
failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3;3 (2) by 
failing to respond to inquiries from V.C. and C.L. beginning in 
January 2007 and continuing through mid-July of 2007, Attorney 
Pierski failed to promptly comply with a client's reasonable 
requests for information, in violation of former SCR 20:1.4(a)4 
(effective through June 30, 2007) and current SCR 20:1.4(a)(4)5 
(effective July 1, 2007); and (3) by failing to provide his 
initial response to the grievance within 20 days and by failing 
                                                 
2 After the grievance was filed in the current case, OLR 
offered Attorney Pierski a private reprimand.  Attorney Pierski 
consented and the private reprimand was presented to a referee 
for approval, pursuant to SCR 22.09.  That referee refused to 
accept the agreement for a private reprimand in this case, 
citing similar conduct in both cases (the prior private 
reprimand from 2003 and the current case) and the need for 
progressive discipline.  Attorney Pierski would not agree to a 
public reprimand.  The OLR then filed the disciplinary complaint 
in the current case. 
3 SCR 20:1.3 states "[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
4 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided that "[a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with 
reasonable requests for information." 
5 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) states a lawyer shall "promptly comply 
with reasonable requests by the client for information; . . . ." 
No. 
2010AP3012-D   
 
5 
 
to timely respond to OLR's requests for a supplemental response 
until being personally served with a final notice threatening 
the temporary suspension of his license, Attorney Pierski failed 
to 
cooperate 
with 
an 
OLR 
investigation, 
contrary 
to 
SCRs 22.03(2) and (6),6 which are enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).7  
¶11 The 
parties 
filed 
a 
"Stipulation 
of 
Facts 
and 
Admission of Violation" on June 20, 2011.  By way of the 
stipulation, Attorney Pierski admitted the primary allegations 
                                                 
6 SCRs 22.03(2) and (6) state: 
 
(2) 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 a 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. 
 
 . . .  
 
(6) 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. 
7 SCR 20:8.4(h) states 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(2), SCR 22.03(6), or SCR 
22.04(1); . . . ." 
No. 
2010AP3012-D   
 
6 
 
of the complaint and also admitted that the facts constitute 
violations of the cited supreme court rules.  Attorney Pierski 
reserved the right to present evidence and testimony regarding 
the appropriate sanction. 
¶12 The referee then heard and considered the parties' 
arguments regarding discipline.  Attorney Pierski argued for a 
second private reprimand.  The OLR argued that since the conduct 
in the 2003 private reprimand case and the conduct in this case 
are very similar, including failure to cooperate with the OLR in 
each case, that progressive discipline must be imposed in this 
case and requested a public reprimand.   The referee filed his 
report and recommendation on September 15, 2011.  No appeal has 
been filed. 
¶13 The court will affirm the referee's findings of fact 
unless 
they 
are 
clearly 
erroneous. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 
675 N.W.2d 747.  The referee's conclusions of law are reviewed 
de novo.  Id. 
¶14 The referee articulated the factors to be considered 
in imposing appropriate discipline for professional misconduct, 
which include: (1) the seriousness, nature and extent of the 
misconduct; (2) the level of discipline needed to protect the 
public, the courts, and the legal system from repetition of the 
attorney's misconduct; (3) the need to impress upon the attorney 
the seriousness of the misconduct; and (4) the need to deter 
other attorneys from committing similar misconduct.  In re 
No. 
2010AP3012-D   
 
7 
 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶40, 248 
Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.   
¶15 The referee noted he was troubled by the fact that 
Attorney Pierski, with no good explanation, has again failed to 
cooperate with an OLR investigation.  The referee stated that 
the "only conclusion I can reach is that [Attorney Pierski] 
simply ignored his duties and responsibilities in relation to 
the ancillary probate proceeding he had agreed to undertake.  He 
also, for the second time, ignored his duties as a Wisconsin 
attorney to promptly and timely respond to a grievance as 
requested by OLR."  The referee found no evidence that Attorney 
Pierski had any kind of improper motive in failing to handle the 
ancillary probate proceeding or failing to timely respond to 
OLR's investigation, but concluded that Attorney Pierski "simply 
did not recognize the urgency and his responsibility to do so in 
either case."  On balance the referee recommended, and we agree, 
that a public reprimand is appropriate in this case.  The 
referee also recommended, and we agree, that Attorney Pierski 
should be responsible for all costs of this disciplinary 
proceeding which total $5,179.43 as of October 5, 2011.  
¶16 IT IS ORDERED that Michael J. Pierski is publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Michael J. Pierski pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs are not 
paid within the time specified and absent a showing to this 
court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
No. 
2010AP3012-D   
 
8 
 
license of Michael J. Pierski to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
be suspended until further order of the court. 
 
 
No. 
2010AP3012-D   
 
 
 
1