Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2019 WI 91 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2018AP2347-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST EICHHORN-HICKS  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 24, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2019 WI 91
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2018AP2347-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, Attorney 
at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
SEP 24, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   In this reciprocal discipline matter, 
Attorney Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks has entered into a stipulation 
with the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  In the stipulation 
the parties agree that it would be appropriate for this court to 
impose the level of discipline sought by the OLR as being 
reciprocal to the discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of 
Minnesota, namely a 120-day suspension of Attorney Eichhorn-
Hicks' license to practice law in Wisconsin and an order 
No. 
2018AP2347-D   
 
2 
 
directing Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks to comply with the conditions 
imposed upon him by the Supreme Court of Minnesota.  Having 
carefully reviewed the matter, we accept the stipulation and 
impose the requested sanction.  Given the fact that Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks entered into a comprehensive stipulation before 
the appointment of a referee, we do not require him to pay the 
costs of this proceeding. 
¶2 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks was admitted to the practice 
of law in Minnesota in 1975.  He was subsequently admitted to 
the practice of law in this state in 1984.  He has maintained a 
law practice in Minneapolis.   
¶3 
Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks' 
disciplinary 
history 
in 
Wisconsin consists of a one-year suspension and a public 
reprimand, which were also imposed as discipline reciprocal to 
that imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in two separate 
disciplinary proceedings.  
In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 2012 WI 18, 338 Wis. 2d 753, 809 
N.W.2d 379. 
 
Specifically, 
the 
one-year 
suspension 
was 
reciprocal to a one-year suspension imposed in Minnesota in 
2000, which resulted from Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' misuse of his 
client trust account, his failure to maintain proper trust 
account records, his temporary misappropriation of funds, his 
false certification on attorney registration statements, and his 
false statements to Minnesota regulatory authorities.  Id., ¶6.  
The public reprimand was reciprocal to a public reprimand 
imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in 2009 for 
professional misconduct involving (1) his receipt of advance fee 
No. 
2018AP2347-D   
 
3 
 
payments without a written fee agreement and without placing 
those advance fees into his client trust account and (2) his 
failure to disclose during a disciplinary investigation the full 
amounts of payments he had received for the representation of a 
client.  Id., ¶7.  Because the OLR learned of these two 
instances of Minnesota discipline at the same time, this court 
imposed both forms of reciprocal discipline in the same 
proceeding.  Id., ¶¶1-2.  Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' license to 
practice law in Wisconsin was reinstated in May 2014.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 2014 WI 26, 353 
Wis. 2d 590, 846 N.W.2d 806. 
¶4 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' license to practice law in 
Wisconsin has been administratively suspended since October 31, 
2018, due to his failure to pay state bar dues and to certify 
his client trust account information.  Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks 
was also administratively suspended on June 5, 2019, for failure 
to comply with continuing legal education (CLE) reporting 
requirements.  His license remains administratively suspended as 
of the date of this opinion. 
¶5 
In the present action, the OLR's complaint alleged two 
counts.  First, the complaint alleged that due to the imposition 
of an indefinite suspension of his Minnesota law license with a 
right to petition for reinstatement after 120 days and of 
certain conditions on his Minnesota law license, Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks is subject to reciprocal discipline in this state 
under Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22.  Second, the complaint 
alleged that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks had failed to notify the 
No. 
2018AP2347-D   
 
4 
 
OLR of the professional discipline imposed in Minnesota, in 
violation of SCR 22.22(1). 
¶6 
After Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks was served with the 
complaint and before he was ordered to show cause why reciprocal 
discipline should not be imposed, Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks 
entered into a comprehensive stipulation with the OLR.  In the 
stipulation, Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks admitted that the Supreme 
Court of Minnesota had indefinitely suspended his right to 
practice law in that state with a right to petition for 
reinstatement after 120 days and had imposed a number of 
conditions upon his reinstatement and his practice of law if 
reinstated.1  That discipline resulted from the following 
professional misconduct in three client matters: 
1. By not stating in a written fee agreement with a 
client that an advanced flat fee could be subject 
to a refund under certain conditions, Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks 
violated 
Minnesota 
Rule 
of 
Professional Conduct (Minn. R. Prof. Conduct) 
1.5(b); 
2. By failing to communicate a plea agreement offer to 
a client in a criminal case, Attorney Eichhorn-
Hicks violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.2(a), 
1.3, and 1.4(a)(1)-(3); and 
3. By forging his client's signature on a medical 
records release form, falsely signing his own name 
as a witness to the client's signature, and then 
presenting the falsely signed form to a third-
                                                 
1 Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks further stipulated that he had 
failed to notify the OLR of the suspension of his Minnesota law 
license within 20 days of its effective date, as required by 
SCR 22.22(1). 
No. 
2018AP2347-D   
 
5 
 
party, Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks violated Minn. R. 
Prof. Conduct 8.4(c)-(d). 
¶7 
Under SCR 22.22(3), this court shall impose the 
identical discipline or license suspension imposed in another 
jurisdiction, unless one or more of three exceptions apply.  In 
the stipulation, Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks states that he does not 
claim that any such exception applies to his case.   
¶8 
Given the nature of the Minnesota suspension, the OLR 
and Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks agree that it would be appropriate 
for this court to impose a 120-day suspension of Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks' license to practice law in Wisconsin.  They also 
note in the stipulation that in situations where the other 
jurisdiction has imposed a form of discipline that this court 
does not impose, we have ordered the respondent attorney to 
comply with the terms and conditions of the other jurisdiction's 
disciplinary order.   
¶9 
The 
stipulation 
further 
contains 
a 
number 
of 
statements and representations by the parties.  The parties 
state that the stipulation was not the result of plea 
bargaining, that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks does not contest the 
facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR, and that Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks 
does 
not 
contest 
the 
level 
of 
reciprocal 
discipline sought by the director of the OLR in this matter.  
Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks 
further 
represents 
that 
he 
fully 
understands the misconduct allegations against him, that he 
fully understands the ramifications of the stipulated level of 
discipline, that he fully understands his right to consult with 
No. 
2018AP2347-D   
 
6 
 
counsel and to contest this matter, that he is entering into the 
stipulation knowingly and voluntarily, and that his entry into 
the stipulation represents his decision not to contest the 
misconduct alleged or the discipline sought by the OLR. 
¶10 After carefully reviewing this matter, we accept the 
stipulation and impose the stipulated level of discipline.  We 
agree that the closest manner in which to replicate the 
suspension imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota is to 
suspend the license of Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks to practice law 
in Wisconsin for a period of 120 days.   
¶11 We further require Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks to comply 
with the conditions imposed by the disciplinary order of the 
Supreme Court of Minnesota.  Some of those conditions will need 
to be satisfied before the disciplinary suspension can be 
lifted, 
while 
another 
condition 
may 
continue 
after 
his 
reinstatement.   
¶12 Specifically, in order to be reinstated, the Minnesota 
court required Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks to successfully complete 
the 
professional 
responsibility 
portion 
of 
the 
written 
examination required for admission to practice law in Minnesota 
and 
to 
satisfy 
the 
relevant 
continuing 
legal 
education 
requirements for practice in Minnesota.  Thus, in order for 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks to have his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin reinstated, even after the completion of the 120-day 
suspension, he will need to submit proof to this court that he 
No. 
2018AP2347-D   
 
7 
 
has complied with those conditions.  Once he has provided proof 
of compliance, the disciplinary suspension will be lifted.2 
¶13 In addition, the Supreme Court of Minnesota also 
placed Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks on probation for a period of one 
year following the reinstatement of his license to practice law 
in that state.  The record of this proceeding does not indicate 
whether Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' Minnesota license has been 
reinstated.  If Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' Wisconsin license is 
reinstated before the period of probation in Minnesota is 
completed, we will require Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks to comply 
with the terms of the Minnesota probation order. 
¶14 Because this matter was resolved by a stipulation 
without the need for litigation, we will not require Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Tracy R. Eichhorn-
Hicks to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 
120 days, effective the date of this order, as discipline 
reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota. 
                                                 
2 As noted above, however, Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' license 
to practice law in Wisconsin is also currently administratively 
suspended due to his failure to pay state bar dues, to certify 
his client trust account information, and to comply with CLE 
reporting 
requirements. 
 
In 
addition 
to 
satisfying 
the 
requirements imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota to have 
the Wisconsin disciplinary suspension lifted, Attorney Eichhorn-
Hicks will also have to satisfy all of the applicable 
requirements to have the administrative suspension lifted before 
he will be eligible to practice law in this state. 
No. 
2018AP2347-D   
 
8 
 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks 
shall comply with the terms of the July 25, 2018 opinion and 
order of the Supreme Court of Minnesota.  Accordingly, before 
the 120-day disciplinary suspension imposed above is lifted, in 
addition to complying with the requirements of SCR 22.28(2), 
Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks shall also have complied with the 
conditions imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in its July 
25, 2018 order that must be fulfilled in order to have his 
license to practice law in Minnesota reinstated.  Moreover, 
Attorney Eichorn-Hicks shall also comply with the order for 
probation imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in its July 
25, 2018 order once his license to practice law in that state is 
reinstated. 
¶17 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspensions of Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks' license to practice law 
in Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues, his 
failure to complete his trust account certification, and his 
failure to comply with CLE reporting requirements, will remain 
in effect until each reason for the administrative suspension 
has been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
 
No. 
2018AP2347-D   
 
 
 
1