Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kristine A. Peshek

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2011 WI 47 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP909-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Kristine A. Peshek, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Kristine A. Peshek, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PESHEK 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 24, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
2011 WI 47
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2011AP909-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kristine A. Peshek, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Kristine A. Peshek, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 24, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter.  
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint against 
Attorney Kristine A. Peshek seeking the imposition of discipline 
reciprocal to that imposed by the Illinois Supreme Court.  On 
May 18, 2010, the Illinois Supreme Court suspended Attorney 
Peshek's Illinois law license for 60 days, effective June 8, 
2010, based on two counts of misconduct.  Upon our review, we 
impose the same 60-day suspension imposed by the Illinois 
No. 
2011AP909-D   
 
2 
 
Supreme Court.  The OLR does not seek costs.  Accordingly, no 
costs will be imposed. 
¶2 
Attorney Peshek was admitted to practice law in 
Illinois in 1989.  She was admitted to the State Bar of 
Wisconsin in 2008.  Attorney Peshek has not been subject to 
previous discipline. 
¶3 
The following facts are taken from the documents 
attached to the OLR's complaint relating to the Illinois 
disciplinary proceedings.  Attorney Peshek's misconduct in 
Illinois consisted of publishing a blog with information related 
to her legal work from June of 2007 to April of 2008.  The 
public blog contained confidential information about her clients 
and derogatory comments about judges.  The blog had information 
sufficient to identify those clients and judges using public 
sources.   
¶4 
In addition, Attorney Peshek's misconduct involved 
failing to inform the court of a client's misstatement of fact.  
One of her clients told a judge, on the record, that she was not 
using drugs.  Later, the client informed Attorney Peshek that 
the client was using methadone at the time of her statement in 
court.  Attorney Peshek did not inform the judge of this fact or 
correct the client's misstatement.   
¶5 
On August 24, 2009, the Illinois Attorney Registration 
and Disciplinary Commission (the Illinois Commission) filed a 
complaint against Attorney Peshek alleging two counts of 
misconduct:   
No. 
2011AP909-D   
 
3 
 
• 
Count I:  Using or revealing a confidence or 
secret of the client known to the lawyer, in violation of 
Rule 1.6(a) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct 
(IRPC); 
and 
conduct 
which 
tends 
to 
defeat 
the 
administration of justice or bring the courts or the legal 
profession into disrepute, in violation of Illinois Supreme 
Court Rule 770; and 
• 
Count II:  failing to call upon a client to 
rectify a fraud that the client perpetrated on the court, 
in violation of IRPC 1.2(g); failing to disclose to a 
tribunal 
a 
material 
fact 
known 
to 
the 
lawyer 
when 
disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or 
fraudulent 
act 
by 
the 
client, 
in 
violation 
of 
IRPC 3.3(a)(2); conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation, in violation of IRPC 8.4(a)(4); 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of 
justice, in violation of IRPC 8.4(a)(5); and conduct which 
tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring 
the courts or the legal profession into disrepute, in 
violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 770. 
¶6 
Attorney Peshek filed in the Illinois Supreme Court a 
petition to impose discipline on consent and affidavit admitting 
the facts of the misconduct.  On February 26, 2010, at a hearing 
before the Illinois Commission, Attorney Peshek requested the 
panel approve the petition to impose discipline on consent.  On 
Attorney Peshek's behalf, her counsel informed the panel that 
Attorney Peshek had been practicing law for more than 20 years 
No. 
2011AP909-D   
 
4 
 
and worked tirelessly as a public defender for her entire 
career.  Counsel asked the panel to consider the traumatic event 
that led to the stress Attorney Peshek attempted to resolve 
through writing a blog about her experiences as a public 
defender.  The stressful incident occurred when Attorney Peshek 
was representing a criminal defendant at his trial for home 
invasion and armed robbery.  In open court during the trial, the 
client punched Attorney Peshek in the face, resulting in 
Attorney Peshek suffering a concussion and other physical 
injuries.   
¶7 
The client was charged with aggravated battery in 
relation to his assault on Attorney Peshek.  Attorney Peshek was 
ultimately diagnosed with acute stress disorder.  The trial 
judge denied Attorney Peshek's motion to withdraw and Attorney 
Peshek was required to represent the client at his re-trial.  
Attorney Peshek was also suffering from a serious medical issue 
that at the time was undiagnosed.   
¶8 
Counsel advised the panel that Attorney Peshek began 
the blog about her thoughts and experiences to help her deal 
with her stressful situation.  At no time did she discern any 
risk of disclosing client confidences, because she believed she 
adequately 
concealed 
her 
clients' 
identities 
to 
avoid 
inappropriate disclosure.   
¶9 
However, at the time of the disciplinary proceeding, 
Attorney Peshek realized the risk in that regard and regretted 
her mistake.  After the issue was brought to her attention, she 
removed all entries related to client matters.  As far as her 
No. 
2011AP909-D   
 
5 
 
client's misinforming the court, counsel advised that Attorney 
Peshek misunderstood her ethical obligations at that point and 
had no intention of assisting her client in a fraud on the 
court.   
¶10 On May 18, 2010, the Illinois Supreme Court accepted 
the petition of the Illinois Commission to impose discipline on 
consent and suspended Attorney Peshek's license to practice law 
in Illinois for 60 days, effective June 8, 2010.  The Illinois 
Supreme Court also directed Attorney Peshek to reimburse the 
Client Protection Program Trust Fund for any client protection 
payments arising from her conduct.   
¶11 After reviewing the matter, we impose the identical 
60-day suspension imposed by the Illinois Supreme Court.  See 
SCR 22.22.1  On April 25, 2011, Attorney Peshek admitted service 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 provides, in pertinent part:  Reciprocal 
discipline. 
(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 
No. 
2011AP909-D   
 
6 
 
of the authenticated copy of the OLR complaint and the order to 
answer.  On April 28, 2011, this court ordered Attorney Peshek 
to inform the court, in writing, of any claim, predicated upon 
the grounds set forth in SCR 22.22(3), that the imposition of 
discipline identical to that imposed in Illinois would be 
unwarranted and of the factual basis for any such claim.  The 
order stated that if Attorney Peshek failed to respond by 
May 18, 2011, the court would proceed under SCR 22.22.  Attorney 
Peshek filed no answer to the complaint and did not respond to 
this court's April 28, 2011, order.   
¶12 On June 2, 2011, the OLR filed with this court a 
stipulation signed by Attorney Peshek in which she agrees with 
the facts alleged in the complaint and the documents attached to 
the complaint, and that she is subject to reciprocal discipline 
pursuant to SCR 22.22.  Through the stipulation, Attorney Peshek 
does not claim defenses to the proposed imposition of reciprocal 
discipline, nor does she contest the imposition of discipline in 
Wisconsin.  
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Kristine A. Peshek 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 
days, effective July 25, 2011.  
                                                                                                                                                             
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.  . . .  
No. 
2011AP909-D   
 
7 
 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kristine A. Peshek shall 
comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the Illinois 
Supreme Court's order and judgment of May 18, 2010.   
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kristine A. Peshek 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. 
2011AP909-D   
 
 
 
1