2023 WI 23

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2022AP304-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, Attorney at 

Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST EICHHORN-HICKS

OPINION FILED: March 28, 2023 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: 

COUNTY: 

JUDGE: 

JUSTICES:

Per curiam. 

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:
2023 WI 23

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2022AP304-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, 

Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks,

 Respondent.

FILED

MAR 28, 2023

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney’s license 

suspended indefinitely. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 

has filed a complaint under Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22 

asking this court to suspend indefinitely the license of 

Attorney Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks due to a medical incapacity as 

a reciprocal action to a transfer to "disability inactive 

status" ordered by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in a pending 

disciplinary proceeding. In re Disciplinary Action against 

Eichhorn-Hicks, No. A20-1123, unpublished order (Minn. S. Ct. 
No. 2022AP304-D 

2

December 15, 2020). Having reviewed the OLR's complaint and the 

relevant documents from the Minnesota proceeding, we conclude 

that a reciprocal indefinite suspension due to medical 

incapacity should be imposed on Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks's 

license to practice law in Wisconsin.

¶2 Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks was admitted to the practice 

of law in Minnesota in 1975. He was admitted to the practice of 

law in Wisconsin in July 1984. He most recently practiced law 

in Minneapolis. 

¶3 Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks has been the subject of three 

instances of public discipline in this state, all of which 

occurred as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme 

Court of Minnesota. In 2012, this court addressed two separate 

Minnesota disciplinary actions by both publicly reprimanding 

Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks and imposing a one-year suspension of 

his Wisconsin license. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Eichhorn-Hicks, 2012 WI 18, 338 Wis. 2d 753, 809 N.W.2d 379 

(Eichhorn-Hicks I).1 In 2019, pursuant to Attorney Eichhorn-

 

1 The two underlying Minnesota disciplinary proceedings were 

In re Disciplinary Action Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 767 N.W.2d 20 

(Minn. 2009) (public reprimand for (1) receipt of advance fee 

payments without a written fee agreement and without depositing 

the funds into a client trust account and (2) failing to 

disclose information during a disciplinary investigation), and 

In re Disciplinary Action Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 615 N.W.2d 356 

(Minn. 2000) (one-year suspension for misconduct including 

misuse of client trust account, failure to maintain proper trust 

account records, temporary misappropriation of trust account 

funds, making a false certification on attorney registration 

statements, and making false statements to disciplinary 

authorities).
No. 2022AP304-D 

3

Hicks's stipulation, this court suspended Attorney EichhornHicks's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 120 

days and ordered him to comply with conditions imposed by the 

Supreme Court of Minnesota. In re Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 2019 WI 91, 388 Wis. 2d 478, 933 N.W.2d 

106 (Eichhorn-Hicks II).2 We concluded that the suspension and 

the requirement to comply with the Minnesota conditions were the 

best way to replicate the discipline imposed by the Supreme 

Court of Minnesota. Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks's license remains 

subject to this disciplinary suspension.

¶4 In addition to the continuing disciplinary suspension, 

Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks's license to practice law in Wisconsin 

is also currently subject to a number of administrative 

suspensions. In October 2018, Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks's 

Wisconsin license was administratively suspended due to his 

failure to pay his State Bar dues and to submit a signed client 

trust account certification. In June 2019, Attorney EichhornHicks's Wisconsin license was also administratively suspended 

for failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal education 

(CLE) reporting requirements. Those administrative suspensions 

have not been lifted.

¶5 This proceeding began with the filing of a complaint 

and order to answer. Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks subsequently 

submitted an admission of service, but he did not file an answer 

 

2 The underlying Minnesota disciplinary proceeding was In re 

Disciplinary Action Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 916 N.W.2d 32 (Minn. 

2018). 
No. 2022AP304-D 

4

to the complaint. Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks also did not respond 

to the court's order asking him whether there were any grounds 

under SCR 22.22(3) for not imposing a reciprocal suspension for 

medical incapacity. We therefore take the allegations of the 

OLR's complaint as true.

¶6 The OLR's complaint and the attached certified records 

from the Supreme Court of Minnesota show that in August 2020 the 

Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (MOLPR) 

filed a disciplinary proceeding against Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks. 

In re Disciplinary Action Against Eichhorn-Hicks, No. A20-1123 

(Minn. S. Ct.) The MOLPR's complaint alleged that Attorney 

Eichhorn-Hicks had violated a substantial number of the 

Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct in three separate client 

representations. The complaint asked that the Supreme Court of 

Minnesota suspend or disbar Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks from the 

practice of law in that state. Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks filed a 

handwritten answer to the MOLPR's complaint. In addition to 

responding to the allegations of the complaint, many of which 

Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks admitted, the answer contained two pages 

of narrative describing a series of medical problems that 

Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks had encountered over the preceding three 

years. 

¶7 In response to that narrative, the MOLPR Director 

filed a motion to transfer Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks to disability 

inactive status under Rule 28(a) and (c)(1) of the Minnesota 

Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (MRLPR), alleging 

that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks was not currently competent to 
No. 2022AP304-D 

5

represent clients. Rule 28(c)(1) of the MRLPR provides that in 

the event that a respondent lawyer in a disciplinary proceeding 

alleges that the lawyer is disabled and unable to assist in the 

defense of the proceeding, the Supreme Court of Minnesota may 

transfer the lawyer to "disability inactive status." Attorney 

Eichhorn-Hicks stipulated to the Director's motion. After 

reviewing the stipulation and the case file, the Supreme Court 

of Minnesota accepted the stipulation and transferred Attorney 

Eichhorn-Hicks to disability inactive status in that state.

¶8 In the context of a request for a reciprocal medical 

incapacity suspension, SCR 22.22(3) states that this court 

"shall impose the identical discipline or license suspension" 

for medical incapacity unless one of two exceptions is 

satisfied: either (1) the procedure in the other jurisdiction 

was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 

constitute a deprivation of due process or (2) there was such an 

infirmity of proof in the other jurisdiction that this court 

could not accept as final the determination of the other 

jurisdiction.3 As noted above, Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks has not 

alleged that either of these exceptions applies to his 

situation. We have reviewed the documents from the Minnesota 

proceeding, and we conclude that neither exception applies. 

Moreover, it is important to remember that Attorney Eichhorn-

 

3 There is a third exception in SCR 22.22(3), but it does 

not apply to medical incapacity situations. The third exception 

to the requirement to impose reciprocal discipline occurs when 

"[t]he misconduct justifies substantially different discipline 

in this state." SCR 22.22(3).
No. 2022AP304-D 

6

Hicks ultimately stipulated to the transfer to disability 

inactive status in Minnesota. Thus, we are required by our 

rules to impose an identical medical incapacity suspension in 

this state, and it is fair to do so.

¶9 We do note that there is a potential procedural 

complication in this matter. The Minnesota rule under which the 

supreme court of that state acted (MRLPR 28(c)) is predicated on 

the existence of a pending disciplinary proceeding and 

contemplates that the indefinite suspension will stay the 

disciplinary proceeding until the lawyer is determined to be fit 

to resume the practice of law. 

¶10 This Minnesota rule is similar to SCR 22.16(4), which 

may apply when a respondent lawyer in a disciplinary proceeding 

"claims to have a medical incapacity that makes the defense of 

the proceeding impossible." In that event, the referee 

presiding over the disciplinary proceeding holds a hearing on 

the medical incapacity issue and makes findings of fact 

concerning whether the lawyer has a medical incapacity that 

prevents the lawyer from being able to defend against the 

allegations of professional misconduct. If the referee makes a 

finding of such a medical incapacity and this court approves 

that finding, we "shall abate the misconduct proceeding and 

suspend the respondent's license to practice law for medical 

incapacity until the court orders reinstatement of the 

attorney's license under SCR 22.36." SCR 22.16(4)(d). 

¶11 The complication in this matter is that there is no 

pending disciplinary proceeding in this state to which SCR 
No. 2022AP304-D 

7

22.16(4)(d) could apply by its express terms. The only pending 

disciplinary proceeding is in Minnesota and is based upon 

allegations of misconduct that occurred in that state. 

¶12 Another common procedure in this state for resolving a 

question of a lawyer's medical incapacity is a proceeding 

designed specifically for that purpose. See SCRs 22.34-22.341. 

Under that procedure, the OLR files a complaint in a new standalone action alleging that a lawyer has a medical incapacity, 

which is defined in SCR 22.001(8) as "a physical, mental, 

emotional, social or behavioral condition that is recognized by 

experts in medicine or psychology as a principal factor which 

substantially prevents a person from performing the duties of an 

attorney to acceptable professional standards." The lawyer may 

file an answer to such a complaint, and there is a full 

litigation process in front of one of this court's referees. 

Ultimately, whether or not an appeal is taken from the referee's 

report and recommendation in such a proceeding, this court makes 

the final determination as to whether the attorney's license 

should be indefinitely suspended due to medical incapacity. SCR 

22.341. A suspension imposed in such a stand-alone proceeding 

remains in effect until the respondent attorney petitions for 

reinstatement under SCR 22.36 and this court grants that 

petition.

¶13 Thus, whether the medical capacity suspension occurs 

in a pending disciplinary proceeding under SCR 22.16(4) or in a 

separate medical incapacity proceeding under SCRs 22.34-22.341, 

the suspension continues indefinitely until a petition for 
No. 2022AP304-D 

8

reinstatement is granted under SCR 22.36. The length of the 

indefinite suspension and the procedure for reinstatement are 

the same in both situations. 

¶14 Consequently, although there was no separate 

proceeding in Minnesota comparable to a medical incapacity 

proceeding under SCRs 22.34-22.341 and although there is no 

pending disciplinary proceeding in this state comparable to the 

disciplinary proceeding pending in Minnesota to which we could 

apply SCR 22.16(4)(d), we are satisfied that, in light of 

Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks's stipulation to the transfer of his 

Minnesota license to inactive disability status, it is proper to 

suspend Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks's Wisconsin license indefinitely 

due to his medical incapacity. The indefinite suspension shall 

remain in effect until such time as Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks 

files a petition for reinstatement under SCR 22.36 and that 

petition is granted by order of this court. This is the closest 

that we can come to imposing the "identical" license suspension 

as the Supreme Court of Minnesota adopted by transferring 

Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks's Minnesota license to inactive 

disability status. 

¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Tracy R. EichhornHicks to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for an 

indefinite period, commencing the date of this order and until 

further order of the court. If at some point Attorney EichhornHicks seeks to terminate this suspension, he shall file a 

petition for reinstatement under SCR 22.36 and shall proceed 

under that rule.
No. 2022AP304-D 

9

¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Tracy R. Eichhorn-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.

¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the existing 120-day 

disciplinary suspension imposed on Attorney Tracy R. EichhornHicks, see In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against EichhornHicks, 2019 WI 91, 388 Wis. 2d 478, 933 N.W.2d 106, will remain 

in effect until Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks is reinstated from that 

suspension pursuant to the requirements of SCR 22.28(2).

¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative 

suspensions of Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks's license to practice law 

in Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues, his 

failure to complete his trust account certification, and his 

failure to comply with mandatory CLE reporting requirements, 

will remain in effect until each reason for the administrative 

suspension has been rectified pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).
No. 2022AP304-D 

1