Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael J. Hicks

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2012 WI 11 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP2448-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael J. Hicks, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Michael J. Hicks, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HICKS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 10, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 11
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP2448-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Michael J. Hicks, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael J. Hicks, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 10, 2012 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.  
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Michael J. Hicks, 
regarding 
Attorney 
Hicks' 
professional 
misconduct 
in 
the 
handling of three client matters.  The OLR and Attorney Hicks 
stipulate that Attorney Hicks committed professional misconduct 
in his handling of the matters and that he should be publicly 
reprimanded for his misconduct.  The OLR is not seeking costs.  
No. 
2011AP2448-D   
 
2 
 
Upon careful consideration, we adopt the stipulated facts and 
impose a public reprimand. 
¶2 
Attorney Hicks was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1984 and practices in Milwaukee.  He has no prior 
disciplinary history.   
¶3 
In May 2008 Attorney Hicks was appointed by the State 
Public 
Defender's 
office 
(SPD) 
to 
represent 
C.B. 
in 
postconviction 
and 
appellate proceedings.  Attorney Hicks 
received transcripts from parts of C.B.'s case in July 2008 but 
took no action on the case and did not contact C.B.  Beginning 
in October 2008, C.B. complained to the SPD that he had not 
heard anything from Attorney Hicks.  The SPD sent a number of 
letters to Attorney Hicks asking for a response.  Attorney Hicks 
failed to respond.   
¶4 
In June 2009 C.B. filed a grievance against Attorney 
Hicks with the OLR.  In July 2009 the SPD filed a grievance with 
the OLR regarding Attorney Hicks' handling of C.B.'s case.  
Attorney Hicks failed to respond to the OLR's requests for 
responses to the two grievances.  After this court issued an 
order to show cause in January 2010, Attorney Hicks finally 
responded to the OLR.   
¶5 
On October 21, 2011, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging that Attorney Hicks engaged in three counts of 
misconduct with respect to his handling of C.B.'s case: 
 
[Count I]  By failing to timely pursue [C.B.'s] 
postconviction 
or 
appellate 
interests 
in 
[C.B.'s 
case], or to timely close the case, file a no-merit 
report or withdraw from the case so that [C.B.] could 
No. 
2011AP2448-D   
 
3 
 
represent himself or hire counsel, [Attorney] Hicks 
violated SCR 20:1.3.1 
 
[Count II]  By failing to communicate in any way 
with [C.B.] between May 28, 2008 and July 2, 2009, 
[Attorney] Hicks violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(2), (3) and 
(4)2 and SCR 20:1.4(b).3 
 
[Count III]  By failing to timely file a response 
to grievances filed by [C.B.] and [the SPD], and doing 
so only after OLR obtained an order to show cause, 
[Attorney] Hicks violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6)4 via 
SCR 20:8.4(h).5 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCRs 20:1.4(a)(2), (3), and (4) state as follows: 
A lawyer shall: 
. . .  
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the 
means by which the client's objectives are to be 
accomplished; 
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter;  
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information; . . . . 
3 SCR 20:1.4(b) states "[a] lawyer shall explain a matter to 
the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation." 
4 SCRs 22.03(2) and (6) provide 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.  
No. 
2011AP2448-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
The second client matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint 
involved 
Attorney Hicks' representation of K.K.  
Attorney Hicks was appointed by the SPD to represent K.K. in 
appealing his convictions in May 2008.  Attorney Hicks took no 
action on K.K.'s case, nor did he contact K.K.  K.K. complained 
to the SPD that he had not heard from Attorney Hicks.  The SPD 
wrote to Attorney Hicks directing him to respond to K.K.'s 
letter.  Attorney Hicks failed to respond to the SPD.   
¶7 
The SPD filed a grievance with the OLR in July 2009.  
The OLR notified Attorney Hicks of the investigation and 
requested a response.  Attorney Hicks failed to respond.  This 
court issued an order to show cause in January 2010.  Attorney 
Hicks responded saying he did not dispute the grievance. 
                                                                                                                                                             
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 
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 
the matters asserted in the grievance. 
5 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. 
2011AP2448-D   
 
5 
 
¶8 
The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Hicks' representation of 
K.K.: 
 
[Count IV]  By failing to timely pursue [K.K.'s] 
postconviction 
or 
appellate 
interests 
in 
[K.K.'s 
case], or to timely close the case, file a no-merit 
report or withdraw from the case so that [K.K.] could 
represent himself or hire counsel, [Attorney] Hicks 
violated SCR 20:1.3. 
 
[Count V]  By failing to communicate in any way 
with [K.K.] between May 29, 2008 and July 1, 2009, 
[Attorney] Hicks violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(2), (3) and 
(4) and SCR 20:1.4(b). 
 
[Count VI]  By failing to timely file a response 
to [the SPD's] grievance, and doing so only after OLR 
obtained an order to show cause, [Attorney] Hicks 
violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6) via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶9 
The 
final 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Hicks' representation of C.S. in 
postconviction and appellate proceedings.  The SPD appointed 
Attorney Hicks to represent C.S. in October of 2007.  C.S. wrote 
to Attorney Hicks in December of 2007 asking that he take 
certain actions in the case.  Attorney Hicks never responded to 
C.S., nor did he take any of the actions C.S. requested.  C.S. 
complained to the SPD that he had not heard from Attorney Hicks.  
The SPD sent a letter to Attorney Hicks asking that he respond 
to C.S.  Attorney Hicks failed to respond.   
¶10 C.S. filed a grievance against Attorney Hicks in July 
2009.  The OLR notified Attorney Hicks of its investigation of 
the C.S. grievance and requested certain information and 
documents.  Attorney Hicks failed to respond.  This court issued 
No. 
2011AP2448-D   
 
6 
 
an order to show cause in January 2010.  Attorney Hicks 
responded by saying he did not dispute the grievance.   
¶11 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Hicks' representation of 
C.S.: 
 
[Count VII]  By failing to timely pursue [C.S.'s] 
postconviction 
or 
appellate 
interests 
in 
[C.S.'s 
case], or to timely close the case, file a no-merit 
report or withdraw from the case so that [C.S.] could 
represent himself or hire counsel, [Attorney] Hicks 
violated SCR 20:1.3. 
 
[Count 
VIII]  By 
failing 
to 
adequately 
communicate with [C.S.] during the course of the 
representation, 
[Attorney] 
Hicks 
violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(2), (3) and (4) and SCR 20:1.4(b). 
 
[Count IX]  By failing to timely file a response 
to [C.S.'s] grievance, and doing so only after OLR 
obtained an order to show cause, [Attorney] Hicks 
violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6) via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶12 On November 14, 2011, the OLR and Attorney Hicks filed 
a 
stipulation 
whereby 
Attorney 
Hicks 
stipulated 
to 
the 
allegations contained in the OLR's complaint.  The stipulation 
states that Attorney Hicks fully understands the misconduct 
allegations and the ramifications should the court impose the 
stipulated level of discipline.  The stipulation also provides 
that Attorney Hicks understands his right to contest the matter 
and understands his right to consult with counsel, and that his 
entry into the stipulation was made knowingly and voluntarily 
and without the benefit of any negotiations for a reduction in 
either charges or sanctions.   
No. 
2011AP2448-D   
 
7 
 
¶13 The 
OLR 
filed 
a 
memorandum 
in 
support 
of 
the 
stipulation which states that in formulating the recommendation 
for a public reprimand, the OLR director considered a number of 
similar cases, including Public Reprimand of Jane Krueger Smith, 
2006-5, Public Reprimand of Michael J. Masnica, 1999-7, and 
Private Reprimand 2006-1.   
¶14 After careful review of the matter, we adopt the 
stipulated facts and find it appropriate to impose a public 
reprimand.  We note that the public reprimand of Jane Krueger 
Smith involved facts very similar to those at issue here.  Like 
Attorney Hicks, Attorney Smith was appointed by the SPD to 
represent three criminal defendants in postconviction matters 
and she took little or no action in any of those cases, failed 
to respond to repeated client inquiries, failed to respond to 
inquiries from the SPD, and failed to cooperate with the OLR's 
investigation into the grievances until this court ordered a 
temporary suspension of her law license.  We find it appropriate 
to impose similar discipline here.  Finally, because Attorney 
Hicks entered into a comprehensive stipulation under SCR 22.12, 
thereby obviating the need for the appointment of a referee and 
a full disciplinary proceeding, we do not impose costs in this 
matter. 
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that Michael J. Hicks is publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct.   
 
No. 
2011AP2448-D   
 
 
 
1