Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. B. C. Fischer

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2022 WI 10 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2021AP1297-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against B. C. Fischer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
B. C. Fischer, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FISCHER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 22, 2022   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2022 WI 10
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2021AP1297-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against B.C. Fischer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
B.C. Fischer, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
FEB 22, 2022 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   In this reciprocal discipline matter, 
governed by Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22,1 Attorney B.C. Fischer 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 provides: 
(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
shall promptly notify the director of the matter. 
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct. 
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a 
judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing 
No. 
2021AP1297-D   
 
2 
 
                                                 
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for 
medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the 
practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in 
this state, the director may file a complaint in the 
supreme court containing all of the following: 
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order from 
the other jurisdiction. 
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the 
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the 
grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of the 
identical discipline or license suspension by the 
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual basis 
for the claim. 
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was so 
lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process. 
(b) There 
was 
such 
an 
infirmity 
of 
proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity. 
(c) The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
(4) Except as provided in sub. (3), a final 
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney 
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity 
shall 
be 
conclusive 
evidence 
of 
the 
attorney's 
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a 
proceeding under this rule. 
(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint filed 
under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a report 
and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16.  At the 
hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the 
imposition of discipline or license suspension different 
from that imposed in the other jurisdiction to 
No. 
2021AP1297-D   
 
3 
 
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 on 
Attorney Fischer by the Minnesota Supreme Court; namely, a 120-
day suspension of Attorney Fischer's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.   
¶2 
After reviewing the matter, we approve the stipulation 
and impose the stipulated reciprocal discipline.  Additionally, 
although the stipulation does not expressly request that we require 
Attorney Fischer to comply with the conditions imposed by the 
Minnesota Supreme Court's disciplinary order, we impose those 
conditions here, consistent with the requirement in SCR 22.22(3) 
that this court impose "the identical discipline" as imposed by 
the other jurisdiction.  Given the fact that Attorney Fischer 
entered into a comprehensive stipulation before the appointment of 
a referee, we do not require him to pay the costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Fischer was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2002.  He was admitted to practice law in Minnesota 
                                                 
demonstrate that the imposition of identical discipline 
or 
license 
suspension 
by 
the 
supreme 
court 
is 
unwarranted. 
(6) If the discipline or license suspension imposed 
in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any 
reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by 
the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the 
stay expires. 
No. 
2021AP1297-D   
 
4 
 
in 2003 under the name Brian Campbell Fischer.  The address he has 
on file with the State Bar of Wisconsin is in Duluth, Minnesota.   
¶4 
Attorney Fischer's Wisconsin law license is under 
administrative suspension.  Specifically, effective October 31, 
2016, 
Attorney 
Fischer's 
Wisconsin 
law 
license 
was 
administratively suspended for failure to pay bar dues and to 
provide a required trust account certification.  Effective May 31, 
2017, 
Attorney 
Fischer's 
Wisconsin 
law 
license 
was 
administratively suspended for failure to comply with continuing 
legal education reporting requirements. 
¶5 
Attorney Fischer's professional disciplinary history in 
Wisconsin includes a 2014 public reprimand imposed as discipline 
reciprocal to that imposed in Minnesota for professional 
misconduct.  That misconduct involved failing to supervise a 
suspended attorney and assisting a suspended attorney in the 
unauthorized practice of law; failing to provide the Minnesota 
Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility with 
timely notice of employment of a suspended attorney; using 
misleading advertising and law firm signage and letterhead; 
neglecting and failing to communicate with two clients; failing to 
comply with a court order; failing to return client files; failing 
to expedite litigation; and noncooperation in disciplinary 
investigations.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Fischer, 2014 WI 107, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 852 N.W.2d 487.  In 
addition, in 2019, this court imposed a 90-day suspension 
reciprocal to that imposed in Minnesota for misconduct that 
involved neglecting six client matters, failing to communicate 
No. 
2021AP1297-D   
 
5 
 
with those clients, making false statements to a client, failing 
to return a client's file, and failing to cooperate with 
disciplinary investigations.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Fischer, 2019 WI 36, 386 Wis. 2d 202, 925 N.W.2d 536. 
¶6 
On October 20, 2020, the Minnesota Supreme Court 
indefinitely suspended Attorney Fischer's right to practice law in 
that state with a right to petition for reinstatement after 120 
days.   The Minnesota Supreme Court also imposed certain conditions 
upon Attorney Fischer's reinstatement, discussed below.  The 
Minnesota Supreme Court's disciplinary order resulted from 
professional misconduct that involved failing to adequately 
communicate with a client, failing to diligently pursue a client's 
case, failing to inform the client of his suspension, engaging in 
the unauthorized practice of law, failing to comply with the terms 
of probation, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary 
investigation.   
¶7 
On July 27, 2021, the OLR filed a complaint and motion 
pursuant to SCR 22.22, alleging that Attorney Fischer is subject 
to reciprocal discipline and that, by failing to notify the OLR of 
his October 20, 2020 suspension in Minnesota for professional 
misconduct within 20 days of the effective date of its imposition, 
Attorney Fischer violated SCR 22.22(1).  The OLR asked this court 
to suspend Attorney Fischer's license to practice law in Wisconsin 
for a period of 120 days as discipline reciprocal to that imposed 
by the Minnesota Supreme Court.   
¶8 
In a stipulation filed December 14, 2021, Attorney 
Fischer admitted that the Minnesota Supreme Court had indefinitely 
No. 
2021AP1297-D   
 
6 
 
suspended his right to practice law in that state with a right to 
petition for reinstatement after 120 days.   
¶9 
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 Fischer states that he does not claim 
that any such exception applies to his case. 
¶10 Given the nature of the Minnesota suspension, the OLR 
and Attorney Fischer agree that it would be appropriate for this 
court to impose a 120-day suspension of Attorney Fischer's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin.  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 Fischer does not contest the facts and 
misconduct alleged by the OLR, and that Attorney Fischer does not 
contest the level of reciprocal discipline sought by the director 
of the OLR in this matter. Attorney Fischer 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 
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. 
¶11 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 
No. 
2021AP1297-D   
 
7 
 
imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court is to suspend the license 
of Attorney Fischer to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 
120 days. 
¶12 There is another matter beyond the imposition of a 120-
day suspension that must be addressed.  The Minnesota Supreme 
Court's disciplinary order provided that, in order to be 
reinstated, Attorney Fischer must 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.  The parties' stipulation says nothing about this 
requirement.  
¶13 However, the stipulation does state that, by virtue of 
the Minnesota suspension, Attorney Fischer is subject to 
reciprocal discipline pursuant to SCR 22.22.  Subsection (3) of 
that rule requires this court to impose "the identical discipline."  
Imposing only a suspension when the other jurisdiction has imposed 
additional forms of discipline would fail to constitute the 
imposition of "the identical discipline."  See generally In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stoltman, 2018 WI 91, ¶11, 383 
Wis. 2d 484, 915 N.W.2d 176 (noting that, where the other 
jurisdiction has imposed a form of discipline that this court does 
not impose, this court has ordered the respondent attorney to 
comply with the terms and conditions of the disciplinary order in 
the other jurisdiction in order to make the discipline identical 
under SCR 22.22).  By stipulating that he is subject to reciprocal 
discipline under SCR 22.22, Attorney Fischer is acknowledging that 
No. 
2021AP1297-D   
 
8 
 
this court may order him to comply with the conditions imposed by 
the Minnesota Supreme Court's disciplinary order.  Thus, in order 
for Attorney Fischer to have his Wisconsin law license reinstated, 
even after the completion of the 120-day suspension, he will need 
to submit proof to this court that he has complied with the 
conditions imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court's disciplinary 
order.  Once he has provided proof of compliance, the disciplinary 
suspension will be lifted, although his administrative suspensions 
will remain in effect until each reason for the administrative 
suspension has been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).  See In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 2019 WI 91, 
¶¶12, 16, 388 Wis. 2d 478, 933 N.W.2d 106 (imposing, as discipline 
reciprocal to that imposed in Minnesota, a 120-day suspension with 
reinstatement conditioned on successful completion of the 
professional 
responsibility 
portion 
of 
the 
Minnesota 
bar 
examination and satisfaction of Minnesota's continuing legal 
education requirements). 
¶14 Because this matter was resolved by a stipulation 
without the need for litigation, we will not require Attorney 
Fischer to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of B.C. Fischer 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 Minnesota Supreme Court. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that B.C. Fischer shall comply 
with the terms of the October 20, 2020 order of the Minnesota 
Supreme Court.  Accordingly, before the 120-day disciplinary 
No. 
2021AP1297-D   
 
9 
 
suspension imposed above is lifted, in addition to complying with 
the requirements of SCR 22.28(2), B.C. Fischer shall also have 
complied with the conditions imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court 
in its October 20, 2020 order that must be fulfilled in order to 
have his license to practice law in Minnesota reinstated.  
¶17 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspensions of B.C. Fischer's 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, B.C. Fischer 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. 
2021AP1297-D   
 
 
 
1