Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Lisa A. Webber Hicks

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2012 WI 101 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP2736-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Lisa A. Webber Hicks, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Lisa A. Webber Hicks, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST WEBBER HICKS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 19, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 101
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP2736-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Lisa A. Webber Hicks, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Lisa A. Webber Hicks, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 19, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded and attorney's license suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   In this disciplinary proceeding, we 
consider whether to impose discipline on Attorney Lisa A. Webber 
Hicks reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of 
Tennessee or its disciplinary agency.  As Attorney Webber Hicks 
has not alleged that any exception to reciprocal discipline in 
SCR 22.22(3)1 applies, we impose both a public reprimand and a 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22(3) states as follows: 
No. 
2011AP2736-D   
 
2 
 
four-year suspension of Attorney Webber Hicks' license to 
practice law in Wisconsin as reciprocal discipline.  We also 
require Attorney Webber Hicks to comply with a monitoring 
agreement mandated by the Supreme Court of Tennessee.  Because 
it has not been necessary to appoint a referee in this matter, 
we do not impose the costs of this proceeding on Attorney Webber 
Hicks. 
¶2 
Attorney Webber Hicks was admitted to the practice of 
law in Wisconsin in June 1991.  Her Wisconsin license was 
suspended in October 1991 for failure to pay bar dues and 
assessments and in June 1994 for failure to comply with 
mandatory 
continuing 
legal 
education 
(CLE) 
reporting 
requirements.  Her Wisconsin license remains administratively 
suspended at the present time. 
¶3 
In 1997 Attorney Webber Hicks was also admitted to the 
practice of law in Tennessee.  She has practiced law in that 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
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. 
No. 
2011AP2736-D   
 
3 
 
state under two other names:  Lisa Anne Temple and Lisa Anne 
Webber.2 
¶4 
On November 29, 2011, the OLR filed a complaint 
regarding two instances of public discipline that had been 
imposed on Attorney Webber Hicks in Tennessee.  It requested the 
court to issue an order directing Attorney Webber Hicks to show 
cause under SCR 22.22(3) why reciprocal discipline should not be 
imposed. 
¶5 
On December 23, 2011, an order was issued directing 
Attorney Webber Hicks to inform the court of any claim against 
imposing reciprocal discipline under SCR 22.22(3) by January 12, 
2012.  Copies of the order were sent via both first-class mail 
and certified mail to the last address Attorney Webber Hicks had 
provided to the State Bar of Wisconsin, which was a Chicago 
residence, and to a Tennessee address that she had most recently 
provided to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.  One of the 
envelopes sent to each of the addresses was apparently delivered 
as they were not returned as undeliverable.  In addition, on 
January 24, 2012, a copy of the order to show cause was also 
personally served on Attorney Webber Hicks along with the OLR's 
complaint and order to answer.  Thus, it is clear that Attorney 
Webber Hicks received actual notice that she had an opportunity 
                                                 
2 There is a minor discrepancy between the complaint filed 
by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and the pleadings in 
the disciplinary proceedings in Tennessee regarding the spelling 
of Attorney Webber Hicks' middle name.  We use the spelling in 
the Tennessee pleadings. 
No. 
2011AP2736-D   
 
4 
 
to respond to the OLR's complaint and this court's order to show 
cause. 
¶6 
At no point, however, did Attorney Webber Hicks file 
any response to the court's order to show cause.  She also did 
not file any response to the OLR's complaint.  Thus, we conclude 
that the allegations of the OLR's complaint and the attached 
copies of the Tennessee disciplinary materials are deemed 
admitted. 
¶7 
The attachments to the OLR's complaint show that the 
Supreme Court of Tennessee and its Board of Professional 
Responsibility (the Tennessee Board) have on two separate 
occasions imposed public discipline on Attorney Webber Hicks.  
On neither occasion did Attorney Webber Hicks inform the OLR of 
the imposition of public discipline, as she was required to do 
under SCR 22.22(1).3 
¶8 
The first discipline was a public censure issued on 
March 17, 2004, by the Tennessee Board.  The censure document 
issued by the Tennessee Board stated that on two occasions 
Attorney Webber Hicks had caused incorrect disbursements to be 
made from client trust funds to her former law firm for fees 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.22(1) states:  
 
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. 
No. 
2011AP2736-D   
 
5 
 
that had not been approved.  In addition, in order to remedy one 
of the incorrect disbursements, she had caused a disbursement to 
a client to be made from the law firm's operating account.  
Moreover, 
Attorney 
Webber 
Hicks 
also 
had 
delayed 
making 
disbursements to certain clients for several months, which in 
one case had caused the client to accumulate unnecessary 
interest.  The censure document stated that Attorney Webber 
Hicks' conduct had violated Tennessee DR 1-102(A)(1)(5)(6), DR 
2-106(A)(B), DR 7-101(A)(4)(a)(b)(c), and DR 9-102(A)(B).  The 
Tennessee Board noted in mitigation that Attorney Webber Hicks 
had no prior discipline, had made restitution to the affected 
clients and her former law firm, had cooperated with the 
investigation of her conduct, had lacked significant experience 
with trust account matters at the time of the violations, and 
had expressed remorse for her misconduct. 
¶9 
The second instance of discipline was a four-year 
suspension imposed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee on 
September 21, 2011, but made retroactive to the effective date 
of a temporary suspension that had been previously imposed on 
March 19, 2010.  This suspension stemmed from six separate 
grievances filed against Attorney Webber Hicks, who ultimately 
entered a conditional guilty plea to the numerous allegations of 
professional misconduct.  Some examples will suffice here to 
show the nature of Attorney Webber Hicks' admitted misconduct.  
In several of the representations at issue, Attorney Webber 
Hicks represented clients while her license to practice law in 
Tennessee was suspended due to her noncompliance with that 
No. 
2011AP2736-D   
 
6 
 
state's CLE requirements.  She also acknowledged that she had 
neglected 
the 
matters 
of 
two 
clients, 
had 
charged 
an 
unreasonable fee, had failed to respond to client inquiries, and 
had made multiple misrepresentations to a client, to opposing 
counsel, and to the Tennessee Board.  Further, Attorney Webber 
Hicks admitted that she had signed her partner's name to 
settlement documents without his knowledge or consent. The 
Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct violated by Attorney 
Webber Hicks included Rules 1.3; 1.4; 1.5; 1.16; 3.4(c); 5.5(a); 
8.1(b); and 8.4(a), (c), and (d).  In addition to the four-year 
license suspension, the Supreme Court of Tennessee also enforced 
Attorney Webber Hicks' agreement to enter into and comply with a 
monitoring agreement administered by the Tennessee Lawyers 
Assistance Program. 
¶10 In reciprocal discipline situations, our rules provide 
that we will impose discipline that is identical to the 
discipline imposed in the other jurisdiction, unless one of the 
three exceptions set forth in SCR 22.22(3) applies.  In this 
case Attorney Webber Hicks has not alleged that any of the 
exceptions applies and has not responded to the OLR's complaint 
or the order to show cause in any way.  Our review of the matter 
also does not indicate that any exception applies in this case.  
Thus, we impose both a public reprimand and a four-year 
suspension to match the two instances of public discipline 
imposed in Tennessee.   
¶11 We further determine that under the facts of this case 
the four-year suspension should be prospective from the date of 
No. 
2011AP2736-D   
 
7 
 
this opinion and order.  We note that Attorney Webber Hicks 
failed to notify the OLR or this court of either instance of 
public discipline in Tennessee.  Thus, there is no unfairness in 
the fact that Attorney Webber Hicks' suspension from the 
practice of law in this state is commencing more than two years 
after her initial temporary suspension in Tennessee.  See, e.g., 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 2012 WI 
18, ¶12, 338 Wis. 2d 753, 809 N.W.2d 379 (rejecting attorney's 
request for retroactive suspension where, among other things, 
attorney had not notified the OLR of Minnesota suspension issued 
more than a decade earlier); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Nickitas, 2006 WI 20, ¶¶4, 6-7, 289 Wis. 2d 18, 710 
N.W.2d 464 (rejecting attorney's request that suspension be made 
retroactive to date of suspension in other state).   
¶12 Finally, because Attorney Webber Hicks did not contest 
this matter and there has been no need for the appointment of a 
referee or further proceedings, we do not impose the costs of 
this disciplinary proceeding against Attorney Webber Hicks. 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that Lisa A. Webber Hicks is publicly 
reprimanded for her professional misconduct addressed in In re: 
Lisa Anne Temple, Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility 
File No. 24031-2(K)-TC (March 17, 2004). 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Lisa A. 
Webber Hicks to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a 
period of four years, effective the date of this order, as 
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of 
No. 
2011AP2736-D   
 
8 
 
Tennessee in In re: Lisa Anne Temple, Supreme Court of Tennessee 
Case No. M2011-02003-SC-BPO-BP (September 21, 2011). 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Lisa A. Webber Hicks shall 
comply with the terms of the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance 
Program monitoring agreement for as long as such monitoring 
agreement is required by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent she has not 
already done so, Lisa A. Webber Hicks 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. 
2011AP2736-D   
 
 
 
1