Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Nicole Lynn Beran

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2023 WI 65 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2023AP734-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Nicole L. Beran, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Nicole L. Beran, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BERAN  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 29, 2023   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per curiam.  
  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2023 WI 65
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2023AP734-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
 
Nicole L. Beran, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Nicole L. Beran, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
SEP 29, 2023 
 
Samuel A. Christensen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter.  
Attorney Nicole L. Beran is an active member of the Wisconsin 
State Bar in good standing.  On May 1, 2023, the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint and motion pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22,1 requesting that this court 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 provides: 
No. 
2023AP734-D   
 
2 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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 
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. 
 
 
      
 
 
 
        (Continued)  
 
 
(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.  
No. 
2023AP734-D   
 
3 
 
suspend Attorney Beran's license to practice law in Wisconsin 
for 30 days, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed upon her 
in Illinois.  The OLR further requested that this court order 
Attorney Beran to comply with all of the terms and conditions of 
probation set forth in the January 17, 2023 judgment and order 
of the Supreme Court of Illinois.  
¶2 
Attorney Beran and the OLR executed a stipulation in 
which Attorney Beran agrees that her license to practice law in 
Wisconsin should be suspended for 30 days as discipline 
reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court in Illinois.  
Attorney Beran further stipulates that she should be ordered to 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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 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. 
2023AP734-D   
 
4 
 
comply with all of the terms and conditions of probation set 
forth in the January 17, 2023 judgment and order of the Supreme 
Court of Illinois.  Upon our review of the matter, we accept the 
stipulation and suspend Attorney Beran's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin for a period of 30 days and order her to comply 
with the terms and conditions of probation imposed by the 
Supreme Court of Illinois.  Because the parties were able to 
resolve this matter without the need for appointment of a 
referee, no costs will be imposed. 
Background 
¶3 
The parties agree to the following facts.  Attorney 
Beran was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1999.  She 
was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 2000.  Attorney 
Beran has no previous disciplinary history in Wisconsin. 
¶4 
On 
September 
2, 
2021, 
the 
Illinois 
Attorney 
Registration 
and 
Disciplinary 
Commission 
(IARDC) 
filed 
a 
complaint 
against 
Attorney 
Beran 
alleging 
professional 
misconduct in three client matters.  In all three matters, 
Attorney Beran was hired on an hourly basis to represent her 
clients in family law-related matters and accepted an advanced 
fee.  The first count alleged that Attorney Beran failed to 
return an unearned fee, failed to act with reasonable diligence 
and promptness, failed to keep the client reasonably informed 
about the status of the matter, failed to promptly comply with 
reasonable requests for information, and failed to take steps to 
protect 
the 
client's 
interests 
upon 
termination 
of 
the 
representation.  The second count alleged that Attorney Beran 
No. 
2023AP734-D   
 
5 
 
failed to competently represent the client, failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness, and failed to keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter.  The 
third count alleged that Attorney Beran failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness, failed to keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter, failed to 
respond to reasonable requests for information from the client, 
and failed to return unearned fees.  The fourth count alleged 
that Attorney Beran failed to appear before the IARDC, failed to 
provide written responses to certain questions from the IARDC, 
and failed to provide requested documentation. 
¶5 
On December 12, 2022, the IARDC filed a "Petition to 
Impose Discipline On Consent Pursuant to Supreme Court [of 
Illinois] Rule 762(b)," which was joined by Attorney Beran.  In 
the petition, the parties stipulated that Attorney Beran's 
license to practice law in Illinois should be suspended for a 
period of six months, with the suspension stayed after thirty 
days and a two-year period of probation subject to numerous 
conditions.  These conditions include:  repaying specified 
monies to the Illinois Client Protection Program Trust Fund; 
attending 
meetings 
with 
the 
IARDC 
probation 
officer 
and 
submitting quarterly written reports; undergoing treatment with 
a qualified mental health professional; completing the IARDC 
Professionalism Seminar within the first year of probation; 
obtaining an attorney-monitor, attending associated meetings and 
participating in a law office management program, including use 
of 
specified 
systems 
and 
practices; 
complying 
with 
the 
No. 
2023AP734-D   
 
6 
 
provisions of the Illinois Supreme Court Rules on Admission and 
Discipline of Attorneys and the Illinois Rules of Professional 
Conduct; cooperating with and providing information to the IARDC 
Administrator as to any ensuing investigations; reimbursing the 
IARDC for the costs of the proceeding and her probationary 
period; and providing required notifications to the IARDC 
Administrator.2  
¶6 
On January 17, 2023, the Supreme Court of Illinois 
approved the petition, suspended Attorney Beran from the 
practice of law for six months, with the suspension stayed after 
30 days, and imposed a two-year period of probation with the 
aforementioned conditions.  The suspension became effective as 
of February 7, 2023, and ended on March 9, 2023, at which point 
the two-year period of probation commenced. 
¶7 
Attorney Beran failed to notify OLR of the suspension 
of her Illinois license to practice law within 20 days of its 
effective date.  
¶8 
On May 1, 2023, the OLR filed a complaint and motion 
alleging 
that 
Attorney 
Beran 
was 
subject 
to 
reciprocal 
discipline by virtue of the suspension of her law license in 
Illinois pursuant to SCR 22.22.  The OLR also alleged that 
                                                 
2 The full terms and conditions of Attorney Beran's 
probation are set forth in the OLR's complaint and motion, the 
stipulation filed by the parties, and the judgment and order and 
notice of entry of judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois, 
dated January 17, 2023, a certified copy of which was filed as 
exhibit 1 to the OLR's complaint and motion.  The full terms and 
conditions of Attorney Beran's probation, as set forth in those 
documents, are incorporated herein by reference.  
No. 
2023AP734-D   
 
7 
 
Attorney Beran violated SCR 22.22(1) by failing to notify OLR of 
the suspension of her Illinois license to practice law within 20 
days of its effective date. 
¶9 
On June 27, 2023, Attorney Beran and the OLR filed a 
stipulation, agreeing that by virtue of her Illinois suspension 
and probation, she is subject to reciprocal discipline in 
Wisconsin.  Attorney Beran agrees that it would be appropriate 
for this court to suspend her Wisconsin law license for a period 
of 30 days and order her to comply with all of the terms and 
conditions of probation set forth in the January 17, 2023 
judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Illinois.  The 
parties state that the stipulation did not result from plea 
bargaining.  Attorney Beran does not contest the facts and 
misconduct alleged by the OLR, and she agrees to the level of 
discipline sought by the OLR.  Attorney Beran also represents 
and 
verifies 
the 
following: 
 
she 
fully 
understands 
the 
misconduct allegations; she fully understands the ramifications 
should this court impose the stipulated level of discipline; she 
fully understands her right to contest the matter; she fully 
understands her right to consult with and retain counsel; and 
that her entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and 
voluntarily.  Attorney Beran also stipulates that she does not 
claim any of the potential defenses set forth in SCR 22.22(3). 
¶10 In addition to these stipulated facts, we note that 
the discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois was 
based, in part, on a number of mitigating factors, as set forth 
in the transcript from the IARDC hearing.  Attorney Beran was 
No. 
2023AP734-D   
 
8 
 
the sole associate at a two-person law firm.  The firm's owner 
abruptly abandoned the practice, leaving Attorney Beran to 
inherit the partner's heavy caseload, in addition to her own.  
She was also required to manage the law office, despite no 
experience or training in doing so.  Shortly thereafter, the 
sole legal assistant in the office left, and Attorney Beran 
became the sole caregiver for her two elderly parents, one with 
dementia and the other who was placed in a nursing home during 
the COVID-19 restrictions.  After IARDC filed its complaint, 
Attorney Beran fully cooperated with the resulting disciplinary 
proceeding. 
Analysis 
¶11 Upon 
our 
review 
of 
the 
matter, 
we 
accept 
the 
stipulation.  In cases of reciprocal discipline, SCR 22.22(3) 
requires this court to impose "the identical discipline" as that 
imposed by the other jurisdiction unless one or more exceptions 
are met.  We conclude that none of the listed exceptions apply 
here.  Because the Supreme Court of Illinois imposed a six-month 
suspension of Attorney Beran's license to practice law, which 
was stayed after a period of 30 days, a 30-day suspension of 
Attorney 
Beran's 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin 
constitutes "the identical discipline" in this case.   
¶12 However, there remains the issue of the two-year 
period of probation imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois.  
Unlike the State of Illinois, Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules do 
not provide for probation as a form of attorney discipline.  See 
SCR 21.16.  "In similar situations, where the other jurisdiction 
No. 
2023AP734-D   
 
9 
 
has imposed a form of discipline that this court does not 
impose, such as probation, we have ordered the respondent 
attorney to comply with the terms and conditions of the 
disciplinary 
order 
in 
the 
other 
jurisdiction." 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stoltman, 2018 WI 91, ¶11, 383 
Wis. 2d 484, 915 N.W.2d 176 (citing In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Gillette, 2017 WI 48, ¶¶14-17, 375 Wis. 2d 
112, 895 N.W.2d 1; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Hooker, 2010 WI 13, ¶11, 322 Wis. 2d 552, 779 N.W.2d 419; and In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moree, 2004 WI 118, 275 Wis. 
2d 279, 684 N.W.2d 667).  As set forth in Stoltman:  "By 
stipulating that she is subject to reciprocal discipline under 
SCR 22.22, Attorney [Beran] is acknowledging that this court may 
order her to comply with the order of probation imposed by the 
[Supreme Court of Illinois]."  Id. ¶11, n.4.  
¶13 Therefore, we impose a 30-day suspension of Attorney 
Beran's Wisconsin law license, as discipline reciprocal to that 
imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois.  We further order that 
Attorney Beran shall comply with all of the terms and conditions 
of probation set forth in the January 17, 2023 judgment and 
order of the Supreme Court of Illinois.   
¶14 Because this matter was resolved by stipulation 
without the need for appointment of a referee, no costs are 
imposed.    
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Nicole L. 
Beran to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 
30 days, effective five weeks from the date of this order.  
No. 
2023AP734-D   
 
10 
 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Nicole L. Beran 
shall comply with all of the terms and conditions of probation 
set forth in the January 17, 2023 judgment and order of the 
Supreme Court of Illinois.   
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not 
already done so, Attorney Nicole L. Beran 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. 
2023AP734-D   
 
 
 
1