Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Peter J. Kovac

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2012 WI 117 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
12AP360-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Peter J. Kovac, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
          v. 
Peter J. Kovac, 
          Respondent.   
   
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KOVAC     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 21, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
2012 WI 117
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP360-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Peter J. Kovac, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Peter J. Kovac, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 21, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   On July 12, 2012, Referee Jonathan V. 
Goodman filed an order recommending that Attorney Peter J. Kovac 
be declared in default, concluding that Attorney Kovac engaged 
in professional misconduct, and recommending that he be publicly 
reprimanded.  Since Attorney Kovac failed to present a defense 
despite being given the opportunity to do so, we declare him to 
be in default.  We further conclude that a public reprimand is 
an appropriate sanction for his misconduct.  We also conclude 
No. 
2012AP360-D   
 
2 
 
that the costs of the proceeding, which are $306.41 as of 
August 1, 2012, should be assessed against Attorney Kovac. 
¶2 
Attorney Kovac was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1973 and practices in Milwaukee.  In 2008, he 
consented 
to 
the 
imposition 
of 
a 
public 
reprimand 
for 
professional misconduct involving four separate clients.  The 
misconduct included failure to competently represent a criminal 
appellate client; failure to diligently represent three criminal 
clients; failure to communicate with clients; failure to 
communicate with two clients about their appeals' status; 
continuing to represent a client after a conflict of interest 
arose; and non-cooperation with the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) concerning three of the investigations.  Public Reprimand 
of Peter J. Kovac, 2008-05. 
¶3 
On December 8, 2010, C.G. filed a grievance against 
Attorney Kovac with the OLR.  OLR intake staff notified Attorney 
Kovac of the grievance and asked him to respond.  When he failed 
to do so, the grievance was referred within the OLR for a formal 
investigation.  In January 2011 the OLR director referred C.G.'s 
grievance to the OLR's District 2 Committee for investigation.  
The director sent Attorney Kovac a letter notifying him of the 
referral and directed him to respond.  Attorney Kovac failed to 
do so.  Attorney Kovac subsequently failed to respond to 
additional letters from the OLR's director. 
¶4 
On April 19, 2011, the OLR moved this court for an 
order requiring Attorney Kovac to show cause why his license to 
practice law should not be suspended for his willful failure to 
No. 
2012AP360-D   
 
3 
 
cooperate in the OLR investigation regarding C.G.'s grievance.  
This court issued an order to show cause on April 21, 2011, and 
issued an amended order the following day. 
¶5 
On April 25, 2011, the OLR notified this court that 
Attorney Kovac finally responded to the OLR's communications 
regarding C.G.'s grievance and it wished to withdraw its motion.  
This court dismissed the OLR's motion on April 26, 2011. 
¶6 
On February 17, 2012, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging that by failing to timely respond to the notice of 
formal investigation from the OLR, Attorney Kovac violated SCR 
22.03(2)1 and (6),2 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).3  Attorney 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
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. 
2 SCR 22.03(6) states as follows: 
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. 
No. 
2012AP360-D   
 
4 
 
Kovac signed an admission of service for the complaint and order 
to answer on March 16, 2012.  Attorney Kovac did not file an 
answer. 
¶7 
On May 8, 2012, the OLR filed a notice of motion and 
motion for default judgment saying that more than 20 days had 
passed since Attorney Kovac admitted service of the complaint 
and that he failed to file an answer.  The OLR moved for a 
determination that Attorney Kovac defaulted in timely answering 
the complaint; for an order for default judgment, including a 
determination that all of the allegations in the complaint were 
deemed established; and for issuance and filing of a report 
making findings of fact and conclusions of law in conformity 
with 
the 
allegations 
of 
the 
complaint, 
including 
a 
recommendation that this court publicly reprimand Attorney Kovac 
and order him to pay the costs of the proceeding. 
¶8 
The referee filed an order on July 12, 2012, saying 
that although Attorney Kovac received the order to answer and 
complaint on March 16, 2012, and was granted an extension of 
time until June 26, 2012 to answer the complaint, he failed to 
file a timely answer and was in default.  The referee held that 
the OLR was entitled to a default judgment on the complaint.  
The referee also concluded that Attorney Kovac violated SCR 
22.03(2) and (6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).  The referee 
                                                                                                                                                             
3 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. 
2012AP360-D   
 
5 
 
recommended that this court publicly reprimand Attorney Kovac 
and order him to pay the full costs of the proceeding. 
¶9 
Attorney Kovac has not filed an appeal from the 
referee's order.  Although Attorney Kovac was given the 
opportunity to file an answer and present a defense to the OLR's 
complaint, he failed to do so.  Accordingly, we declare him to 
be in default. 
¶10 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
See In re Disclipinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 
14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The court may impose 
whatever sanction it sees fit regardless of the referee's 
recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  We 
adopt the referee's findings of fact and agree with the 
referee's conclusion of law that Attorney Kovac violated SCR 
22.03(2) and (6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).  We also agree 
Attorney Kovac should be required to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Peter J. Kovac is publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct.   
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Peter J. Kovac shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.   
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 
been full compliance with all conditions of this order. 
No. 
2012AP360-D   
 
6 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
2012AP360-D   
 
 
 
1