Title: Donald S. Eisenberg v.

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2000 WI 125 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
82-1914-D & 89-0596-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of the Reinstatement of the 
License of Donald S. Eisenberg to Practice 
Law in Wisconsin 
 
 
REINSTATEMENT OF EISENBERG 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
December 7, 2000 
Submitted on Briefs: 
      
Oral Argument: 
      
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
      
 
Dissented: 
      
 
Not Participating: ABRAHAMSON, C.J., did not participate. 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
      
 
2000 WI 125 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
Nos. 
82-1914-D 
89-0596-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
In the Matter of the Reinstatement of the 
License of Donald S. Eisenberg to Practice 
Law in Wisconsin  
FILED 
 
DEC 7, 2000 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.  Reinstatement granted 
upon conditions.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   On May 18, 2000, the Board of Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
(Board)1 
filed 
its 
report 
recommending 
that 
Donald 
S. 
Eisenberg's 
petition 
for 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
granted upon the following conditions: (1) that Mr. Eisenberg 
pay interest of $4583 on the amount of a fee he was previously 
required to repay to a former client; (2) that he be barred from 
                     
1  Effective 
October 
1, 
2000, 
Wisconsin's 
attorney 
disciplinary process underwent a substantial restructuring. The 
name of the body responsible for investigating and prosecuting 
cases involving attorney misconduct was changed to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation and the Supreme Court Rules applicable to the 
lawyer regulation system were also revised.  Since the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to October 1, 2000, the body 
will be referred to as "the Board" and all references to Supreme 
Court Rules will be to those in effect prior to October 1, 2000.  
 
No. 
82-1914-D 
89-0596-D 
 
2 
having signature authority on any trust account; (3) that he 
complete 
continuing 
legal 
education 
credits 
required 
for 
reinstatement; (4) that if he returns to the practice of law, 
his practice be restricted to a law firm setting; (5) that he 
file an annual report with the Board regarding his employment 
status and promptly notify the Board if he changes employment; 
and (6) that if he returns to the practice of law, all lawyers 
responsible for the trust account at the firm at which he is 
employed be required to execute affidavits certifying that Mr. 
Eisenberg will exercise no management or control over the law 
firm's trust account. 
¶2 
 The Board's recommendation for reinstatement followed 
its review of the report filed by a subcommittee of the District 
9 Professional Responsibility Committee (DPRC), which after a 
reinstatement 
hearing, 
issued 
its 
report 
recommending 
reinstatement of Mr. Eisenberg's license to practice law.  In 
addition, the Board of Bar Examiners has recommended that Mr. 
Eisenberg's reinstatement petition be granted, having determined 
that 
he 
has 
satisfied 
the 
continuing 
legal 
education 
requirements for reinstatement. 
¶3 
We 
determine, 
based 
on 
the 
unconditional 
recommendation of the subcommittee of the DPRC, the conditional 
recommendation of the Board, and the recommendation of the Board 
of Bar Examiners, that Mr. Eisenberg's license to practice law 
No. 
82-1914-D 
89-0596-D 
 
3 
in this state be reinstated upon conditions identified above.2 
This court informs Mr. Eisenberg that the practice of law in 
this state is a privilege, not a right; we expect and demand 
that he not deviate from these conditions.  In the past, this 
court has, for good reasons, denied Mr. Eisenberg's numerous 
petitions for reinstatement.  We now grant this, his seventh, 
petition for reinstatement warning him in the strongest terms 
possible that any future violation of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct 
or 
deviation 
from 
these 
conditions 
will 
not 
be 
countenanced.  
¶4 
Mr. Eisenberg's license to practice law was suspended 
in 1984 for six months as discipline for having represented two 
criminal defendants whose interests were adverse and for failing 
to protect the interest of one of those clients in a case in 
which that client's liberty was at stake.3 
                     
2  A violation of these conditions to practice law, whether 
it occurs in this state or elsewhere, will subject Mr. Eisenberg 
to the disciplinary authority of this state.  See SCR 20:8.5(a). 
SCR 20:8.5(a) provides:  
(a)  Disciplinary Authority.  A lawyer admitted to the bar 
of this state is subject to the disciplinary authority of this 
state regardless of where the lawyer's conduct occurs.  A lawyer 
allowed by a court of this state to appear and participate in a 
proceeding in that court is subject to the disciplinary 
authority of this state for conduct that occurs in connection 
with that proceeding.  For the same conduct, a lawyer may be 
subject to the disciplinary authority of both this state and 
another jurisdiction where the lawyer is admitted to the bar or 
allowed to appear in a court proceeding. 
3  Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 117 Wis. 2d 
332, 344 N.W.2d 169 (1984). 
 
No. 
82-1914-D 
89-0596-D 
 
4 
¶5 
Mr. 
Eisenberg's 
first 
two 
applications 
for 
reinstatement were denied: the first, on the ground that he had 
engaged in the practice of law while his license was suspended;4 
and the second, because he had continued to practice law while 
his license was suspended and he had failed to fully describe 
all his business activities during the suspension.5  Thereafter, 
Mr. Eisenberg's third petition for reinstatement was withdrawn. 
 His fourth petition was remanded to the Board for further 
consideration because of a pending investigation into his 
handling of trust account funds.  That fourth petition became 
moot when the trust account investigation resulted in a 
disciplinary 
proceeding 
culminating 
in 
revocation 
of 
Mr. 
Eisenberg's license to practice law.6  
¶6 
Mr. Eisenberg's fifth reinstatement petition  his 
first following license revocation  was denied on the ground 
that he had not made restitution to the client whose criminal 
case 
he 
handled while simultaneously 
representing another 
criminal defendant with conflicting interests and on the ground 
Mr. Eisenberg had made statements on a television program 
                     
4  Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 122 Wis. 2d 
627, 363 N.W.2d 430 (1985). 
5  Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 126 Wis. 2d 
435, 377 N.W.2d 160 (1985).  
6  Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 152 Wis. 2d 
91, 447 N.W.2d 54 (1989).  
No. 
82-1914-D 
89-0596-D 
 
5 
concerning his belief in the guilt of a criminal defendant he 
had represented.7   
¶7 
Mr. 
Eisenberg's 
sixth 
reinstatement 
petition 
was 
denied because he had failed to make restitution to or settle 
claims of persons injured or harmed by his misconduct, because 
he had expressed willingness to comply with the continuing legal 
education requirements for reinstatement only if he were assured 
that, having met those requirements, his license would be 
reinstated, and because he intended to practice law in Wisconsin 
only occasionally but maintain a trust account on his own, 
rather than in association with another lawyer or law firm in 
this state.8 
¶8 
Mr. Eisenberg currently resides in the City of 
Orlando, Orange County, Florida, where he owns a process serving 
business.  He intends to remain in Florida and may take the 
Florida bar examination or practice law there on a pro hac vice 
basis.  He would like to practice law in Wisconsin occasionally 
with his two sons, who are Madison attorneys, and be "of 
counsel" to their law firm.  
¶9 
After Mr. Eisenberg filed his seventh petition for 
reinstatement, 
the 
matter 
was 
referred 
to 
the 
DPRC 
for 
investigation; the DPRC referred the matter to a subcommittee 
                     
7  Reinstatement of Eisenberg, 206 Wis. 2d 264, 556 N.W.2d 
749 (1996).  
8  Reinstatement of License of Eisenberg, 217 Wis. 2d 526, 
577 N.W.2d 626 (1998).   
No. 
82-1914-D 
89-0596-D 
 
6 
for a public hearing and report.  See SCR 22.28(5).9  During the 
public hearing on the reinstatement petition on September 1, 
1999, the subcommittee focused its inquiry on restitution, Mr.  
Eisenberg's understanding and attitude toward the standards that 
are imposed upon members of the bar, and whether he could be 
safely recommended to the legal profession, the courts and the 
public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to 
represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence.   
¶10 The restitution issue arose when Mr. Eisenberg was 
hired in September of 1977 to defend a client on three criminal 
counts; he was paid an advance fee of $10,000 for that 
representation.  However, Mr. Eisenberg represented that client 
                     
9  Former SCR 22.28(5) provided: 
(5)  The administrator shall investigate the eligibility of 
the 
petitioner 
for 
reinstatement 
and 
file 
a 
report 
and 
recommendation with the board. At least 30 days prior to the 
hearing on the petition before a professional responsibility 
committee, the administrator shall publish a notice in a 
newspaper of general circulation in any county in which the 
petitioner 
maintained 
an 
office 
prior 
to 
suspension 
or 
revocation and in the county of the petitioner's residence 
during 
the 
suspension 
or 
revocation 
and 
in 
an 
official 
publication of the state bar.  
The notice shall contain a brief statement of the nature 
and date of suspension or revocation, the matters required to be 
proved for reinstatement and the date on which a hearing on the 
petition will be held before a professional responsibility 
committee. In the case of a license suspension, the hearing 
shall not be held prior to the expiration of the period of 
suspension.  
 
No. 
82-1914-D 
89-0596-D 
 
7 
while he was also representing another client whose interests 
conflicted with the first client's.  That conflict was the 
subject of the disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Eisenberg in 
1984, but the issue of restitution of the $10,000 fee was not 
addressed in that proceeding.   
¶11 Mr. Eisenberg's failure to make restitution of that 
$10,000 fee to the first client was one of the grounds upon 
which the Board made its adverse recommendation regarding Mr. 
Eisenberg's fourth reinstatement petition; this court, however, 
did not address that restitution issue at that time because the 
reinstatement 
proceeding 
had 
been 
rendered 
moot 
by 
the 
revocation of Mr. Eisenberg's license in 1989 for trust account 
violations.   
¶12 This court denied Mr. Eisenberg's fifth petition for 
reinstatement in 1996, in part, because of his failure to repay 
the $10,000 fee to the first client or the client's family after 
that client died. 
¶13 During 
the 
sixth 
reinstatement 
proceeding, 
Mr. 
Eisenberg paid the sum of $10,000 in restitution to the client's 
family; however, Mr. Eisenberg took the position that he would 
pay interest on that restitution only if this court ordered him 
to do so.  This court concluded that in declining to pay any 
interest to the client's family on the $10,000 fee unless 
ordered to do so, Mr. Eisenberg failed to display a proper 
No. 
82-1914-D 
89-0596-D 
 
8 
attitude toward the standards that are imposed on the members of 
the bar.  SCR 22.28(4)(f).10 
¶14 Following the denial of his sixth petition for 
reinstatement, Mr. Eisenberg offered to pay interest in the 
amount of $5,000 to the family.  The family, however, requested 
a payment of $8,000 in accumulated interest.   
¶15 At the public hearing on this most recent petition for 
reinstatement, Mr. Eisenberg testified that he was sorry that he 
had hurt his client's family and that it had not been his 
intention to do so.  Mr. Eisenberg indicated a willingness to 
pay interest to the family at the statutory interest rate of 5%; 
however, there was uncertainty as to the correct starting date 
for the interest calculation.  The DPRC subcommittee calculated 
that the sum of $4583 was due as interest to the family accruing 
from the date this court stayed a prior reinstatement proceeding 
to the date when Mr. Eisenberg had repaid the entire principal 
sum of $10,000.  
¶16 Based on Mr. Eisenberg's testimony at the public 
hearing that he now understands the standards that are imposed 
on lawyers in this state and his acknowledgement that it has 
taken him a long time to conquer his pride, the DPRC 
subcommittee 
concluded 
that 
Mr. 
Eisenberg's 
attitude 
had 
                     
10  Former SCR 22.28(4)(f) provided: 
(4)  The petition for reinstatement shall show that:  
(f)  The petitioner has a proper understanding of and 
attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of 
the bar and will act in conformity with the standards.  
No. 
82-1914-D 
89-0596-D 
 
9 
significantly 
changed, 
that 
he 
now 
appears 
to 
be 
truly 
remorseful for his past actions and is willing to subject 
himself to the rules of professional conduct for attorneys 
adopted by this court. 
 ¶17 The DPRC subcommittee recommended that Mr. Eisenberg's 
license be reinstated citing his effort to resolve the interest 
issue with the client's family; his candor regarding his 
behavior since his license revocation, his efforts to fulfil 
continuing 
legal 
education 
requirements, 
and 
his 
stated 
intention to have only a limited law practice and no signature 
authority over his sons' law firm trust account. 
¶18 The Board, upon reviewing the DPRC subcommittee's 
report and recommendation, concluded that Mr. Eisenberg had 
satisfied the requirements of SCR 22.28(4)11 for reinstatement of 
                     
11  Former SCR 22.28(4) provided: 
(4)  The petition for reinstatement shall show that:  
 
(a)  The 
petitioner desires to 
have the 
petitioner's 
license reinstated.  
 
(b)  The petitioner has not practiced law during the period 
of suspension or revocation.  
 
(c)  The petitioner has complied fully with the terms of 
the order and will continue to comply with them until the 
petitioner's license is reinstated.  
 
(d)  The petitioner has maintained competence and learning 
in the law, including a list of specific activities pursued.  
 
(e)  The petitioner's conduct since the suspension or 
revocation has been exemplary and above reproach.  
 
No. 
82-1914-D 
89-0596-D 
 
10
his license to practice law in this state.  The Board determined 
that Mr. Eisenberg had demonstrated by clear and convincing 
evidence that he has the moral character to practice law in this 
state subject to the conditions identified above.  Unlike the 
DPRC subcommittee's recommendation to reinstate Mr. Eisenberg's 
license without conditions, the Board recommended that his 
petition for reinstatement of his license to practice law be 
granted subject to the above conditions.  The Board also 
determined that Mr. Eisenberg has currently paid all costs of 
these pending proceedings.  
¶19 This court now grants Attorney Eisenberg's petition to 
reinstate his license to practice law in this state reiterating 
                                                                  
(f)  The petitioner has a proper understanding of and 
attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of 
the bar and will act in conformity with the standards.  
 
(g)  The petitioner can safely be recommended to the legal 
profession, the courts and the public as a person fit to be 
consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in 
matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in the 
administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an 
officer of the courts.  
 
(h)  The petitioner has fully complied with the requirements 
of SCR 22.26.  
 
(i)  The petitioner indicates the proposed use of the 
license if reinstated.  
 
(j)  The 
petitioner 
has 
fully 
described 
all 
business 
activities during the period of suspension or revocation.  
 
(k)  The petitioner has made restitution or settled all 
claims from persons injured or harmed by petitioner's misconduct 
or, if the restitution is not complete, petitioner's explanation 
of the failure or inability to do so.  
 
No. 
82-1914-D 
89-0596-D 
 
11
all the conditions identified by the Board in its report.  For 
purposes of emphasis, we again caution Attorney Eisenberg that 
his absolute compliance with those conditions and with all rules 
adopted 
by 
this 
court 
governing 
attorneys' 
professional 
responsibility is demanded and expected.  Any deviation from the 
conditions or the rules will not be countenanced. 
 ¶20 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the reinstatement 
of the license of Donald S. Eisenberg to practice law in 
Wisconsin is granted upon the following conditions: (1) that he 
pay interest of $4583 on the amount of a fee he was previously 
required to repay to a former client; (2) that he be barred from 
having signature authority on any trust account; (3) that he 
complete 
continuing 
legal 
education 
credits 
required 
for 
reinstatement; (4) that if he returns to the practice of law, 
his practice be restricted to a law firm setting; (5) that he 
file an annual report with the Board regarding his employment 
status and promptly notify the Board if he changes employment; 
and (6) that if he returns to the practice of law, all lawyers 
responsible for the trust account at the firm at which he is 
employed be required to execute affidavits certifying that 
Attorney Eisenberg will exercise no management or control over 
the law firm's trust account. 
¶21 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J., did not participate.  
 
 
1