Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Scott H. Fisher

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2010 WI 45 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP2522-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Scott H. Fisher, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Scott H. Fisher, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FISHER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 8, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 45
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2009AP2522-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Scott H. Fisher, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Scott H. Fisher, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 8, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of Referee James W. 
Mohr, Jr., recommending that Attorney Scott H. Fisher's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin be revoked and that he pay 
restitution, along with the costs of this proceeding, following 
his default to the complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR).   
¶2 
We approve and adopt the referee's findings of fact 
and conclusions of law and revoke Attorney Fisher's license to 
No. 
2009AP2522-D   
 
2 
 
practice law in this state.  We order Attorney Fisher to pay 
restitution and costs.   
¶3 
Attorney Fisher was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2006.  He has not been previously disciplined.  His 
law license was temporarily suspended effective April 14, 2009, 
for failure to cooperate with the OLR investigation.  His 
temporary license suspension remains in effect.   
¶4 
On October 2, 2009, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 
55 counts of professional misconduct arising from ten separate 
client matters and seeking revocation of Attorney Fisher's law 
license.  The Waukesha County sheriff's department served 
Attorney Fisher with a copy of the complaint on October 24, 
2009.  Attorney Fisher has not responded to the complaint.   
¶5 
On February 9, 2010, the OLR moved for a determination 
that Attorney Fisher was in default for not timely answering the 
complaint.  The referee found that Attorney Fisher had not 
answered or otherwise responded to the complaint.  The referee's 
attempts to correspond with Attorney Fisher, by using the last 
address Attorney Fisher had filed with the State Bar of 
Wisconsin as well as the address where Attorney Fisher had been 
served, were unsuccessful.  All letters addressed to Attorney 
Fisher at either address were returned as undeliverable and 
unable to be forwarded.  The referee granted the OLR's motion 
for default judgment against Attorney Fisher.  
¶6 
On March 3, 2010, the referee filed his report and 
recommendation. 
 Accepting the complaint's allegations as 
proven, the referee concluded Attorney Fisher had committed 
No. 
2009AP2522-D   
 
3 
 
professional misconduct as alleged in each of the 55 counts of 
the complaint.  Counts 1 through 6 arise from Attorney Fisher's 
misconduct representing Mr. and Mrs. K., who retained Attorney 
Fisher to represent them in a bankruptcy action in August 2008.  
They paid Attorney Fisher $500 of the total $1,300 fee 
contemplated in the retainer agreement.  After Attorney Fisher 
failed to return Mr. K.'s phone calls, a receptionist at 
Attorney Fisher's office informed Mr. K. that Attorney Fisher 
had disappeared without notifying his clients.  Attorney Fisher 
did not return Mr. and Mrs. K.'s fees.   
¶7 
According to two attorneys who had shared an office 
with Attorney Fisher, Attorney Fisher abandoned his law practice 
as of October 20, 2008, when he had not been in his office for 
four weeks.  Attorney Fisher left behind a journal which stated 
that he was "essentially abandoning his life as he knew it."  
The OLR received information confirming that Attorney Fisher had 
abandoned his law practice, left the United States, and had 
acknowledged taking unearned money from his clients.  Further 
attempts 
to 
contact 
Attorney 
Fisher 
by 
e-mail, 
by 
correspondence, and by service of process were unsuccessful.   
¶8 
The referee concluded that Attorney Fisher committed 
the following six counts of misconduct with respect to his 
representation of Mr. and Mrs. K.:   
 
[Count 
1]  By 
entering 
into 
a 
legal 
representation 
agreement 
with 
his 
clients 
on 
August 18, 2008, which stated, "If Scott Fisher is not 
available, another attorney from the firm will appear 
with you at the meeting of creditors in your case," 
No. 
2009AP2522-D   
 
4 
 
when there were no other attorneys in his firm, 
[Attorney] Fisher violated SCR 20:8.4(c).1 
 
[Count 2]  By failing to respond to his clients' 
September, [2008] phone calls concerning the status of 
their bankruptcy, by failing to provide his clients 
with a current address, and by failing to communicate 
with his clients, [Attorney] Fisher violated SCR 
20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).2 
 
[Count 3]  By failing to advise his clients that 
he had left Wisconsin, by unilaterally terminating his 
representation of his clients, and then by failing to 
protect 
the 
clients' 
interests 
by 
giving 
them 
reasonable notice to employ another attorney, and by 
failing to refund the portion of the fee he had not 
earned, [Attorney] Fisher violated SCR 20:1.16(d).3 
 
[Count 4]  Having 
unilaterally 
terminated 
representation of his clients prior to completing the 
legal services for which he was hired, by failing to 
return approximately [$500] in fees advanced by his 
clients for [their] bankruptcy matter, [Attorney] 
Fisher violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
2 SCRs 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) state that a lawyer shall, "(3) 
keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the 
matter;" and "(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information; . . . ." 
3 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides as follows: 
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
No. 
2009AP2522-D   
 
5 
 
 
[Count 
5]  By 
abandoning 
his 
practice 
and 
jurisdiction without notice of a change of address, 
[Attorney] Fisher violated SCR 10.03(2),4 enforced via 
SCR 20:8.4(f).5 
 
[Count 6]  By failing to file a response to the 
grievance, [Attorney] Fisher violated SCR 22.03(2) and 
22.03(6),6 enforced via 20:8.4(h).7 
                                                 
4 SCR 10.03(2) states, in pertinent part:  Membership. 
Enrollment.  Every person who becomes licensed to 
practice law in this state shall enroll in the state 
bar by registering his or her name and social security 
number with the association within 10 days after 
admission to practice.  Every change after enrollment 
in any member's office address or social security 
number shall be reported promptly to the state bar. 
5 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers; . . . ." 
6 SCRs 22.03(2) and (6) state as follows: 
(2)  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. 
 . . .  
(6)  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 
No. 
2009AP2522-D   
 
6 
 
¶9 
The referee concluded Attorney Fisher engaged in 
similar misconduct with respect to nine additional client 
matters.  Counts 7 through 12 allege misconduct with respect to 
client J.W., who hired Attorney Fisher to represent her in a 
bankruptcy matter.  J.W. paid Attorney Fisher a $1,000 fee.  No 
bankruptcy action was ever filed by Attorney Fisher and he did 
not return her fees.  The referee concluded that during his 
representation of J.W., Attorney Fisher engaged in dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:8.4(c); failed to act with diligence in advancing his 
client's interests, contrary to SCR 20:1.3;8 and unilaterally 
terminated his representation, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d).  
Also, without completing legal services and failing to return 
approximately $1,000 in fees, Attorney Fisher violated SCR 
20:8.4(c).  The referee further concluded by abandoning his 
practice and jurisdiction without notice of a change of address, 
Attorney 
Fisher 
violated 
SCR 
10.03(2), 
enforced 
via 
SCR 
20:8.4(f); and by failing to file a response to the grievance, 
Attorney Fisher violated SCRs 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via SCR 
20:8.4(h). 
                                                                                                                                                             
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 
the matters asserted in the grievance. 
7 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides 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 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), . . . ." 
8 SCR 20:1.3 provides, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2009AP2522-D   
 
7 
 
¶10 Counts 
13 
through 
17 
involve 
Attorney 
Fisher's 
misconduct after entering into a written fee agreement with Mr. 
and Mrs. M., who retained Attorney Fisher to represent them in a 
bankruptcy action.  The referee concluded that by failing to 
respond to his clients' numerous phone calls, Attorney Fisher 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4); by failing to advise his clients he 
left Wisconsin and unilaterally terminating his representation 
without protecting his clients' interests, Attorney Fisher 
violated SCR 20:1.16(d); by failing to return approximately 
$1,100 in fees advanced by Mrs. M. for the bankruptcy, Attorney 
Fisher violated SCR 20:8.4(c); by abandoning his practice and 
jurisdiction without notice of a change of address, Attorney 
Fisher violated SCR 10.03(2), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f); and by 
failing to file a response to the grievance, Attorney Fisher 
violated SCRs 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).  
¶11 Counts 18 through 23 involve similar misconduct with 
respect to a client, S.C., who had paid Attorney Fisher $1,300 
for representation and costs in a bankruptcy action.  The 
referee determined Attorney Fisher's violations consisted of 
dishonesty, contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c); failing to timely advance 
his client's interests in his bankruptcy case, contrary to 
SCR 20:1.3; failing to advise his client he had left Wisconsin 
and unilaterally terminating his representation, contrary to 
SCR 20:1.16(d); failing to return approximately $1,001 in fees, 
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c); and abandoning his practice and 
jurisdiction without notice of a change of address, contrary to 
SCR 10.03(2), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f).  The referee also 
No. 
2009AP2522-D   
 
8 
 
concluded Attorney Fisher failed to file a response to the 
grievance, violating SCRs 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via SCR 
20:8.4(h). 
¶12 Counts 24 through 28 arise from Attorney Fisher's 
violations with respect to his client, A.Y., who hired Attorney 
Fisher to represent her in a bankruptcy action.  A.Y. paid 
Attorney Fisher $1,300.  Attorney Fisher failed to return 
approximately $1,000 in unearned fees.  As in previous client 
matters, the referee concluded Attorney Fisher violated SCR 
20:8.4(c) (two counts); SCR 20:1.16(d); SCR 10.03(2), enforced 
via SCR 20:8.4(f); and SCRs 22.03(2) and (6) enforced via SCR 
20:8.4(h). 
¶13 Counts 29 through 35 arise from Attorney Fisher's 
violations 
when 
representing 
client 
A.B. 
in 
a 
divorce 
proceeding.  A.B. paid Attorney Fisher $2,500 in advanced fees.  
The referee determined Attorney Fisher's misconduct violated 
SCR 20:1.3; SCRs 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4); SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)b.;9 
                                                 
9 SCR 
20:1.15(b)(4m)b. 
states: 
Segregation 
of 
trust 
property. 
(4m)  Alternative protection for advanced fees.  
A lawyer who accepts advanced payments of fees may 
deposit the funds in the lawyer's business account, 
provided that a court of competent jurisdiction must 
ultimately approve the lawyer's fee, or that the 
lawyer 
complies 
with 
each 
of 
the 
following 
requirements:  . . .  
b.  Upon termination of the representation, the 
lawyer shall deliver to the client in writing all of 
the following: 
No. 
2009AP2522-D   
 
9 
 
SCR 20:1.16(d); SCR 20:8.4(c); SCR 10.03(2), enforced via SCR 
20:8.4(f); 
and 
SCRs 
22.03(2) 
and 
(6), 
enforced 
via 
SCR 
20:8.4(h). 
¶14 Counts 36 though 40 relate to Attorney Fisher's 
misconduct regarding his representation of Mr. and Mrs. E., who 
had hired Attorney Fisher to represent them in a bankruptcy 
action.  They paid Attorney Fisher a $500 advanced fee.  
Attorney Fisher essentially abandoned his clients and took the 
retainer fee with him.  The referee concluded Attorney Fisher's 
misconduct violated SCR 20:1.16(d); SCR 20:8.4(c) (two counts); 
SCR 10.03(2), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f); and SCRs 22.03(2) and 
(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶15 Counts 41 through 45 arise from Attorney Fisher's 
representation of his client, V.J., who had retained Attorney 
Fisher to pursue a bankruptcy action.  V.J. paid Attorney Fisher 
a $500 advanced fee.  As with the other client matters in this 
                                                                                                                                                             
1.  a final accounting, or an accounting from the 
date of the lawyer's most recent statement to the end 
of the representation, regarding the client's advanced 
fee payment with a refund of any unearned advanced 
fees; 
2.  notice that, if the client disputes the 
amount of the fee and wants that dispute to be 
submitted to binding arbitration, the client must 
provide written notice of the dispute to the lawyer 
within 30 days of the mailing of the accounting; and 
3.  notice that, if the lawyer is unable to 
resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the client 
within 30 days after receiving notice of the dispute 
from the client, the lawyer shall submit the dispute 
to binding arbitration. 
No. 
2009AP2522-D   
 
10 
 
disciplinary action, Attorney Fisher abandoned his practice and 
did not refund V.J.'s advanced fee.  The referee determined 
Attorney 
Fisher's 
misconduct 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.16(d); 
SCR 20:8.4(c) 
(two 
counts); 
SCR 
10.03(2), 
enforced 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(f); 
and 
SCRs 
22.03(2) 
and 
(6), 
enforced 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶16 Counts 
46 
through 
51 
involve 
Attorney 
Fisher's 
misconduct with respect to his client, T.S., who hired Attorney 
Fisher to represent him in a child custody matter.  T.S. paid 
Attorney Fisher a $1,000 advanced fee.  The referee determined 
Attorney 
Fisher 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.5(b)(3);10 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)b.; 
SCR 
20:1.16(d); 
SCR 
20:8.4(c); 
SCR 10.03(2), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f); and SCRs 22.03(2) and 
(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶17 Counts 52 through 55 involve similar violations with 
respect 
to 
client 
K.K., 
who 
hired 
Attorney 
Fisher 
for 
representation in a bankruptcy action and paid him $500.  The 
referee concluded Attorney Fisher violated SCR 20:1.16(d); 
SCR 20:8.4(c); SCR 10.03(2), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f); and 
SCRs 22.03(2) and (6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
Referee Mohr found: 
 
This case portrays extremely troublesome conduct 
on the part of an attorney admitted to practice for 
only a few years.  Not only did he take fees from 
clients under false pretenses, he totally abandoned 
his 
responsibilities 
toward 
those 
clients 
and 
                                                 
10 SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) states, "A lawyer shall promptly respond 
to a client's request for information concerning fees and 
expenses." 
No. 
2009AP2522-D   
 
11 
 
absconded with the money.  He has not cooperated at 
all with the investigation or prosecution of these 
proceedings against him.  The evidence suggests that 
Attorney Fisher has left the country.  The Referee and 
counsel for OLR are simply unable to locate him.  
Although he has no prior disciplinary record, his 
actions are egregious and absolutely unacceptable.   
¶18 The referee recommended Attorney Fisher's license to 
practice law in this state be revoked and that he pay 
restitution totaling $9,001 to nine clients, as follows:   
Mr. and Mrs. K. 
 
$  500 
J.W.  
 
 
 
$1,000 
Mr. and Mrs. M. 
 
$1,000 
S.C.  
 
 
 
$1,001 
A.Y.  
 
 
 
$1,000 
A.B.  
 
 
 
$2,500 
M.E.  
 
 
 
$  500 
V.J.  
 
 
 
$  500 
T.S.  
 
 
 
$1,000 
In addition, the referee recommended Attorney Fisher pay the 
costs of the proceeding.11   
¶19 No appeal has been filed.  This matter is submitted to 
the court for its consideration pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).12  Upon 
our review, we approve and adopt the referee's findings and 
conclusions regarding Attorney Fisher's misconduct.  We agree 
                                                 
11 On March 24, 2010, the OLR filed a statement of costs 
seeking $692.34 be assessed against Attorney Fisher. 
12 SCR 22.17(2) provides as follows: 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2009AP2522-D   
 
12 
 
Attorney Fisher's egregious misconduct requires revocation of 
his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  In addition, we order 
Attorney Fisher to pay restitution as found by the referee.  
Finally, we order that Attorney Fisher pay the costs of this 
proceeding.   
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Scott H. Fisher to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Scott H. Fisher comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Scott H. Fisher make restitution payments to his 
former clients as follows: 
Mr. and Mrs. K. 
 
$  500 
J.W.  
 
 
 
$1,000 
Mr. and Mrs. M. 
 
$1,000 
S.C.  
 
 
 
$1,001 
A.Y.  
 
 
 
$1,000 
A.B.  
 
 
 
$2,500 
M.E.  
 
 
 
$  500 
V.J.  
 
 
 
$  500 
T.S.  
 
 
 
$1,000 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 70 days of the date 
of this order, Scott H. Fisher pay the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.   
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution is to be 
completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation.   
 
No. 
2009AP2522-D   
 
 
 
1