2023 WI 78

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2023AP1294-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings

Against Peter James Nickitas, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Peter James Nickitas,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NICKITAS

OPINION FILED: December 15, 2023 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: 

COUNTY: 

JUDGE: 

JUSTICES:

Per curiam. 

ATTORNEYS:
2023 WI 78

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2023AP1294-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Peter James Nickitas, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Peter James Nickitas,

 Respondent.

FILED

DEC 15, 2023

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

suspended. 

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

On July 21, 2023, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a 

complaint and motion, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 

22.22, asking this court to suspend Attorney Peter James 

Nickitas's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 

120 days, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the 

Supreme Court of Minnesota. 
No. 2023AP1294-D 

2

¶2 On September 19, 2023, in response to OLR's motion, 

this court issued an order directing Attorney Nickitas to show 

cause, in writing, within twenty days, why the imposition of 

discipline reciprocal to that imposed in Minnesota would be 

unwarranted. On October 3, 2023, Attorney Nickitas filed a 

response to this court's motion. Attorney Nickitas does not 

object to the imposition of reciprocal discipline, but he 

requests that the 120-day suspension be applied retroactively so 

as to run coterminous with the term of his Minnesota suspension. 

On October 11, 2023, OLR filed a response opposing a retroactive 

suspension. Upon review of the matter, we decline to make the 

120-day suspension retroactive.

¶3 Attorney Nickitas was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1991. He is also admitted to practice law in 

Minnesota. His most recent address on file with the State Bar 

of Wisconsin is in Saint Paul, Minnesota. 

¶4 Attorney Nickitas's professional disciplinary history 

in Wisconsin consists of a 90-day suspension imposed in 2006, 

reciprocal to a suspension in Minnesota, see In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Nickitas, 2006 WI 20, 289 Wis. 2d 18, 710 

N.W.2d 464, and a 30-day suspension imposed in 2014, also 

reciprocal to a suspension in Minnesota. See In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Nickitas, 2014 WI 12, 352 Wis. 2d 641, 843 

N.W.2d 438.

¶5 On January 11, 2023, the Supreme Court of Minnesota 

suspended Attorney Nickitas's Minnesota law license for 120 days 

for using profane, abusive, and obscene language while 
No. 2023AP1294-D 

3

communicating with court staff, making false and disparaging 

comments about a judge, and attempting to exert improper 

influence on a judge. Attorney Nickitas timely notified OLR of 

the Minnesota suspension.

¶6 Supreme Court Rule 22.22(3) provides that this court 

"shall impose the identical discipline or license suspension 

unless . . . [t]he procedure in the other jurisdiction was so 

lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a 

deprivation of due process"; "[t]here was such an infirmity of 

proof establishing the misconduct . . . that the supreme court 

could not accept as final the conclusion in respect to the 

misconduct . . ."; or "[t]he misconduct justifies substantially 

different discipline in this state."

¶7 Attorney Nickitas has not claimed that any of these 

three exceptions exist and, as noted, he does not oppose the 

imposition of reciprocal discipline. His only argument is that 

the 120-day suspension in Wisconsin should be made retroactive 

to the term of the Minnesota suspension because he says he was 

not practicing law in Wisconsin during that time.

¶8 In opposing the request for a retroactive suspension, 

OLR notes that Attorney Nickitas made an identical request when

reciprocal discipline was last imposed in 2014. OLR says that 

Attorney Nickitas's purported voluntary cessation of the 

practice of law in Wisconsin during the term of his Minnesota 

suspension does not warrant retroactive application of the 

suspension imposed by this court. As in 2014, we agree with 

OLR's reasoning. Suspensions are generally not imposed 
No. 2023AP1294-D 

4

retroactively, and there are no special circumstances present in 

this case that would warrant a retroactive suspension.

¶9 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Peter James Nickitas 

to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 120 

days, effective January 19, 2024.

¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Peter James Nickitas 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.

¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 

conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See SCR 

22.28(2).
No. 2023AP1294-D 

1