2015 WI 9

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Jeffrey A. Reitz, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant-Respondent,

 v.

Jeffrey A. Reitz,

 Respondent-Appellant.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST REITZ

OPINION FILED: February 4, 2015

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2015 WI 9

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2010AP1576-D

2011AP1764-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Jeffrey A. Reitz, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant-Respondent,

 v.

Jeffrey A. Reitz,

 Respondent-Appellant.

FILED

FEB 4, 2015

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed by referee 

Christine Harris Taylor, recommending that the court reinstate 

the license of Jeffrey A. Reitz to practice law in Wisconsin. 

After careful review of the matter, we agree that Attorney 

Reitz's license should be reinstated, with conditions. We also 

agree with the referee that Attorney Reitz should be required to 

pay the full costs of this proceeding, which are $2,701.40 as of 

November 21, 2014. 
No. 2010AP1576-D

2011AP1764-D 

2

¶2 Attorney Reitz was licensed to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1981 and practiced in Milwaukee. His license was 

suspended for a period of ten months, commencing on May 3, 2013, 

for multiple counts of misconduct, primarily related to his 

mishandling of his trust accounts and client funds. He had 

previously been disciplined on two prior occasions.

¶3 On February 11, 2014, Attorney Reitz filed a petition 

for the reinstatement of his license to practice law in 

Wisconsin. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a 

response on July 31, 2014. The OLR did not oppose the petition 

for reinstatement but recommended that conditions be imposed 

upon Attorney Reitz's resumption of the practice of law.

¶4 A public hearing was held in the matter on 

September 24, 2014. The referee filed her report and 

recommendation on October 29, 2014. 

¶5 Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.31(1) provides the 

standards to be met for reinstatement. Specifically, the 

petitioner must show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 

evidence that he or she has the moral character to practice law, 

that his or her resumption of the practice of law will not be 

detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive to 

the public interest, and that he or she has complied with 

SCR 22.26 and the terms of the order of suspension. In addition 

to these requirements, SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m) provides additional 

requirements that a petition for reinstatement must show. All 
No. 2010AP1576-D

2011AP1764-D 

3

of these additional requirements are effectively incorporated 

into SCR 22.31(1).

¶6 When we review a referee's report and recommendation, 

we will adopt the referee's findings of fact unless they are 

clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 

See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 

2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.

¶7 We conclude that the referee's findings support a 

determination that Attorney Reitz has met his burden to 

establish by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that 

he has met all of the standards required for reinstatement. The 

referee found that Attorney Reitz has not practiced law during 

the period of his suspension; that he has fully complied with 

the terms of the order of suspension; that he has maintained 

competence and learning in the law; that his conduct since the 

suspension has been exemplary and above reproach; and that he 

has a proper understanding of and attitude towards the standards 

that are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in 

conformity with those standards. The referee found that 

Attorney Reitz can safely be recommended to the legal 

profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit to be 

consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in 

matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in the 

administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an 

officer of the courts. The referee also found that Attorney 
No. 2010AP1576-D

2011AP1764-D 

4

Reitz has fully complied with the requirements as set forth in 

SCR 22.26.

¶8 The referee noted that the OLR's investigation 

revealed no information that Attorney Reitz failed to meet his 

burden to show that he has met all of the requirements required 

for the reinstatement of his license. The referee also noted

that this court's suspension order provides that, upon his 

resumption of the practice of law, Attorney Reitz's trust 

account shall be subject to monitoring by the OLR for a period 

of two years. The referee found this condition of reinstatement 

to be well-founded. The OLR had also recommended that, as an 

additional condition of reinstatement, Attorney Reitz be 

required to work under the supervision of an attorney under 

SCR 20:5.1 or, at a minimum, that he be monitored by an attorney 

who works in the area of bankruptcy. The referee said this 

condition of reinstatement was unfounded and unsubstantiated by 

the testimony presented at the reinstatement hearing. 

¶9 From our review of the matter, we agree with the 

referee that having the OLR monitor Attorney Reitz's trust 

account for a period of two years after he resumes the practice 

of law is a sufficient condition of reinstatement and that the 

additional condition suggested by the OLR is unnecessary.

¶10 It is this court's general practice to assess the full 

costs of a proceeding against a respondent. See SCR 22.24(1m). 

In order to award something less than full costs, the court must 

find extraordinary circumstances. We find no extraordinary 
No. 2010AP1576-D

2011AP1764-D 

5

circumstances here, and we find it appropriate to assess the 

full costs of the proceeding against Attorney Reitz. 

¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jeffrey A. Reitz to 

practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date of 

this order, subject to the condition that upon his resumption of 

the practice of law, his trust account shall be subject to 

monitoring by the Office of Lawyer Regulation for a period of 

two years.

¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 

of this order, Jeffrey A. Reitz shall pay to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 

$2,701.40.

¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the 

terms of this order remain a condition of Jeffrey A. Reitz's 

license to practice law in Wisconsin.
No. 2010AP1576-D

2011AP1764-D 

1