2023 WI 65

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2023AP734-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against 

Nicole L. Beran, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Nicole L. Beran,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BERAN

OPINION FILED: September 29, 2023 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: 

COUNTY: 

JUDGE: 

JUSTICES:

Per curiam. 

ATTORNEYS:
2023 WI 65

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2023AP734-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against 

Nicole L. Beran, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Nicole L. Beran,

 Respondent.

FILED

SEP 29, 2023

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

suspended. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. This is a reciprocal discipline matter. 

Attorney Nicole L. Beran is an active member of the Wisconsin 

State Bar in good standing. On May 1, 2023, the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint and motion pursuant to

Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22,1 requesting that this court 

 

1 SCR 22.22 provides:
No. 2023AP734-D 

2

 

(1) 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. 

(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a 

judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing 

discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for 

medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the 

practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in 

this state, the director may file a complaint in the 

supreme court containing all of the following: 

(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order 

from the other jurisdiction. 

(b) A motion requesting an order directing the 

attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 

20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the 

grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of 

the identical discipline or license suspension by the 

supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual 

basis for the claim. 

(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.

 (Continued)

(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.
No. 2023AP734-D 

3

suspend Attorney Beran's license to practice law in Wisconsin 

for 30 days, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed upon her

in Illinois. The OLR further requested that this court order 

Attorney Beran to comply with all of the terms and conditions of 

probation set forth in the January 17, 2023 judgment and order 

of the Supreme Court of Illinois. 

¶2 Attorney Beran and the OLR executed a stipulation in 

which Attorney Beran agrees that her license to practice law in 

Wisconsin should be suspended for 30 days as discipline 

reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court in Illinois. 

Attorney Beran further stipulates that she should be ordered to 

 

(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 

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.

(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint filed 

under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a report 

and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16. At the 

hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the 

imposition of discipline or license suspension 

different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction 

to demonstrate that the imposition of identical 

discipline or license suspension by the supreme court 

is unwarranted. 

(6) If the discipline or license suspension 

imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any 

reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by 

the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the 

stay expires.
No. 2023AP734-D 

4

comply with all of the terms and conditions of probation set 

forth in the January 17, 2023 judgment and order of the Supreme 

Court of Illinois. Upon our review of the matter, we accept the 

stipulation and suspend Attorney Beran's license to practice law 

in Wisconsin for a period of 30 days and order her to comply 

with the terms and conditions of probation imposed by the 

Supreme Court of Illinois. Because the parties were able to 

resolve this matter without the need for appointment of a 

referee, no costs will be imposed.

Background

¶3 The parties agree to the following facts. Attorney 

Beran was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1999. She 

was admitted to practice law in Illinois in 2000. Attorney 

Beran has no previous disciplinary history in Wisconsin.

¶4 On September 2, 2021, the Illinois Attorney 

Registration and Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) filed a 

complaint against Attorney Beran alleging professional 

misconduct in three client matters. In all three matters, 

Attorney Beran was hired on an hourly basis to represent her 

clients in family law-related matters and accepted an advanced 

fee. The first count alleged that Attorney Beran failed to 

return an unearned fee, failed to act with reasonable diligence 

and promptness, failed to keep the client reasonably informed 

about the status of the matter, failed to promptly comply with 

reasonable requests for information, and failed to take steps to 

protect the client's interests upon termination of the 

representation. The second count alleged that Attorney Beran 
No. 2023AP734-D 

5

failed to competently represent the client, failed to act with 

reasonable diligence and promptness, and failed to keep the 

client reasonably informed about the status of the matter. The 

third count alleged that Attorney Beran failed to act with 

reasonable diligence and promptness, failed to keep the client 

reasonably informed about the status of the matter, failed to 

respond to reasonable requests for information from the client, 

and failed to return unearned fees. The fourth count alleged 

that Attorney Beran failed to appear before the IARDC, failed to 

provide written responses to certain questions from the IARDC, 

and failed to provide requested documentation.

¶5 On December 12, 2022, the IARDC filed a "Petition to 

Impose Discipline On Consent Pursuant to Supreme Court [of 

Illinois] Rule 762(b)," which was joined by Attorney Beran. In 

the petition, the parties stipulated that Attorney Beran's 

license to practice law in Illinois should be suspended for a 

period of six months, with the suspension stayed after thirty 

days and a two-year period of probation subject to numerous 

conditions. These conditions include: repaying specified 

monies to the Illinois Client Protection Program Trust Fund; 

attending meetings with the IARDC probation officer and 

submitting quarterly written reports; undergoing treatment with 

a qualified mental health professional; completing the IARDC 

Professionalism Seminar within the first year of probation; 

obtaining an attorney-monitor, attending associated meetings and 

participating in a law office management program, including use 

of specified systems and practices; complying with the 
No. 2023AP734-D 

6

provisions of the Illinois Supreme Court Rules on Admission and 

Discipline of Attorneys and the Illinois Rules of Professional 

Conduct; cooperating with and providing information to the IARDC 

Administrator as to any ensuing investigations; reimbursing the 

IARDC for the costs of the proceeding and her probationary 

period; and providing required notifications to the IARDC 

Administrator.2

¶6 On January 17, 2023, the Supreme Court of Illinois 

approved the petition, suspended Attorney Beran from the 

practice of law for six months, with the suspension stayed after 

30 days, and imposed a two-year period of probation with the 

aforementioned conditions. The suspension became effective as 

of February 7, 2023, and ended on March 9, 2023, at which point 

the two-year period of probation commenced.

¶7 Attorney Beran failed to notify OLR of the suspension 

of her Illinois license to practice law within 20 days of its 

effective date. 

¶8 On May 1, 2023, the OLR filed a complaint and motion 

alleging that Attorney Beran was subject to reciprocal 

discipline by virtue of the suspension of her law license in 

Illinois pursuant to SCR 22.22. The OLR also alleged that 

 

2 The full terms and conditions of Attorney Beran's 

probation are set forth in the OLR's complaint and motion, the 

stipulation filed by the parties, and the judgment and order and 

notice of entry of judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois, 

dated January 17, 2023, a certified copy of which was filed as 

exhibit 1 to the OLR's complaint and motion. The full terms and 

conditions of Attorney Beran's probation, as set forth in those 

documents, are incorporated herein by reference. 
No. 2023AP734-D 

7

Attorney Beran violated SCR 22.22(1) by failing to notify OLR of 

the suspension of her Illinois license to practice law within 20 

days of its effective date.

¶9 On June 27, 2023, Attorney Beran and the OLR filed a 

stipulation, agreeing that by virtue of her Illinois suspension 

and probation, she is subject to reciprocal discipline in 

Wisconsin. Attorney Beran agrees that it would be appropriate 

for this court to suspend her Wisconsin law license for a period 

of 30 days and order her to comply with all of the terms and 

conditions of probation set forth in the January 17, 2023 

judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Illinois. The 

parties state that the stipulation did not result from plea 

bargaining. Attorney Beran does not contest the facts and 

misconduct alleged by the OLR, and she agrees to the level of 

discipline sought by the OLR. Attorney Beran also represents

and verifies the following: she fully understands the 

misconduct allegations; she fully understands the ramifications 

should this court impose the stipulated level of discipline; she 

fully understands her right to contest the matter; she fully 

understands her right to consult with and retain counsel; and 

that her entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and 

voluntarily. Attorney Beran also stipulates that she does not 

claim any of the potential defenses set forth in SCR 22.22(3).

¶10 In addition to these stipulated facts, we note that 

the discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois was 

based, in part, on a number of mitigating factors, as set forth 

in the transcript from the IARDC hearing. Attorney Beran was 
No. 2023AP734-D 

8

the sole associate at a two-person law firm. The firm's owner 

abruptly abandoned the practice, leaving Attorney Beran to 

inherit the partner's heavy caseload, in addition to her own. 

She was also required to manage the law office, despite no 

experience or training in doing so. Shortly thereafter, the 

sole legal assistant in the office left, and Attorney Beran 

became the sole caregiver for her two elderly parents, one with 

dementia and the other who was placed in a nursing home during 

the COVID-19 restrictions. After IARDC filed its complaint, 

Attorney Beran fully cooperated with the resulting disciplinary 

proceeding.

Analysis

¶11 Upon our review of the matter, we accept the 

stipulation. In cases of reciprocal discipline, SCR 22.22(3) 

requires this court to impose "the identical discipline" as that 

imposed by the other jurisdiction unless one or more exceptions 

are met. We conclude that none of the listed exceptions apply 

here. Because the Supreme Court of Illinois imposed a six-month 

suspension of Attorney Beran's license to practice law, which 

was stayed after a period of 30 days, a 30-day suspension of 

Attorney Beran's license to practice law in Wisconsin 

constitutes "the identical discipline" in this case. 

¶12 However, there remains the issue of the two-year 

period of probation imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois. 

Unlike the State of Illinois, Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules do 

not provide for probation as a form of attorney discipline. See

SCR 21.16. "In similar situations, where the other jurisdiction 
No. 2023AP734-D 

9

has imposed a form of discipline that this court does not 

impose, such as probation, we have ordered the respondent 

attorney to comply with the terms and conditions of the 

disciplinary order in the other jurisdiction." In re

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stoltman, 2018 WI 91, ¶11, 383 

Wis. 2d 484, 915 N.W.2d 176 (citing In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Gillette, 2017 WI 48, ¶¶14-17, 375 Wis. 2d 

112, 895 N.W.2d 1; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Hooker, 2010 WI 13, ¶11, 322 Wis. 2d 552, 779 N.W.2d 419; and In 

re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moree, 2004 WI 118, 275 Wis. 

2d 279, 684 N.W.2d 667). As set forth in Stoltman: "By 

stipulating that she is subject to reciprocal discipline under 

SCR 22.22, Attorney [Beran] is acknowledging that this court may 

order her to comply with the order of probation imposed by the

[Supreme Court of Illinois]." Id. ¶11, n.4. 

¶13 Therefore, we impose a 30-day suspension of Attorney 

Beran's Wisconsin law license, as discipline reciprocal to that 

imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois. We further order that 

Attorney Beran shall comply with all of the terms and conditions 

of probation set forth in the January 17, 2023 judgment and 

order of the Supreme Court of Illinois. 

¶14 Because this matter was resolved by stipulation 

without the need for appointment of a referee, no costs are 

imposed. 

¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Nicole L. 

Beran to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 

30 days, effective five weeks from the date of this order. 
No. 2023AP734-D 

10

¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Nicole L. Beran 

shall comply with all of the terms and conditions of probation 

set forth in the January 17, 2023 judgment and order of the 

Supreme Court of Illinois. 

¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not 

already done so, Attorney Nicole L. Beran 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. 2023AP734-D 

1