2016 WI 62

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2015AP654-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Peter J. Kovac, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Peter J. Kovac,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KOVAC

OPINION FILED: July 8, 2016

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2016 WI 62

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2015AP654-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Peter J. Kovac, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Peter J. Kovac,

 Respondent.

FILED

JUL 8, 2016

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

suspended. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review referee James J. Winiarski's 

recommendation that Attorney Peter J. Kovac be declared in 

default and that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be 

suspended for 90 days for professional misconduct. The referee 

also recommended that Attorney Kovac pay the full costs of the 

proceeding, which are $1,824.83 as of February 2, 2016. 
No. 2015AP654-D 

2

¶2 We declare Attorney Kovac to be in default. We agree 

with the referee that Attorney Kovac's professional misconduct 

warrants a 90-day suspension of his license to practice law in 

Wisconsin. We also agree that Attorney Kovac should pay the 

full costs of this proceeding. 

¶3 Attorney Kovac was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1973 and practices in Milwaukee. In 2008, he 

agreed to a consensual public reprimand for failure to 

competently represent a criminal appellate client; failure to 

diligently represent three criminal clients; failure to 

communicate with clients; failure to communicate with clients 

about their appeal status; continuing to represent a client 

after a conflict of interest arose; and failing to cooperate 

with the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) concerning three of 

the investigations. Public Reprimand of Peter J. Kovac, 2008-

OLR-05. In 2012, Attorney Kovac was publicly reprimanded for 

failure to timely respond to a notice of formal investigation 

from the OLR. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kovac, 

2012 WI 117, 344 Wis. 2d 522, 823 N.W.2d 371.

¶4 On April 2, 2015, the OLR filed a complaint against 

Attorney Kovac alleging seven counts of misconduct with respect 

to two client matters. The first client matter detailed in the 

OLR's complaint involved Attorney Kovac's representation of 

K.R., who hired Attorney Kovac to defend him on felony criminal 

charges pending in the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Wisconsin. K.R. paid Attorney Kovac an 

initial fee of $5,000 via credit card. Attorney Kovac did not 
No. 2015AP654-D 

3

enter into a written fee agreement with K.R. Attorney Kovac 

discussed a $15,000 to $25,000 range as fees for K.R.'s felony 

matter. After the first day of trial, Attorney Kovac received 

an additional $2,500 paid from K.R.'s credit card. K.R. 

subsequently rescinded the $2,500 payment. 

¶5 K.R. was convicted and sentenced to a six-month term 

of incarceration, supervised release, and restitution. Attorney 

Jeffrey Jensen filed a motion to substitute as K.R.'s attorney, 

which was granted. After being appointed as successor counsel, 

Attorney Jensen attempted on numerous occasions to obtain the 

client file from Attorney Kovac, but Attorney Kovac failed to 

respond. 

¶6 Attorney Jensen filed a motion to compel, requesting 

Attorney Kovac be ordered to turn over his client file. The 

district court issued an order directing Attorney Kovac to turn 

over the client file. The order stated that failure to turn 

over the file would cause the United States Marshal to arrest 

Attorney Kovac and hold him in custody until he had turned over 

the file. Attorney Kovac delivered K.R.'s file to Attorney 

Jensen's office prior to the deadline established in the 

district court's order. 

¶7 K.R. filed a grievance against Attorney Kovac. The 

OLR notified Attorney Kovac of its investigation and requested 

him to submit a written response to the grievance. Attorney 

Kovac failed to respond. It was not until after this court 

issued an order to show cause as to why Attorney Kovac's law 

license should not be suspended that he responded to the 
No. 2015AP654-D 

4

grievance. The OLR withdrew its motion for a temporary 

suspension of Attorney Kovac's license. 

¶8 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 

misconduct with respect to Attorney Kovac's representation of 

K.R.:

[Count 1] By failing to have a written fee agreement 

when the total legal costs of the representation in 

connection with K.R.'s federal criminal matter were 

more than $1,000 and having received a $5,000 retainer 

from [K.R.], Kovac violated SCR 20.1.5(b)(1) and (2).1

[Count 2] By failing upon termination of 

representation, to promptly turn over his client file 

for representation of K.R. in the federal criminal 

matter to successor counsel, Kovac violated SCR 

20:1.16(d).2

 

1 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) provides: 

The scope of the representation and the basis or rate 

of the fee and expenses for which the client will be 

responsible shall be communicated to the client in 

writing, except before or within a reasonable time 

after commencing the representation when the lawyer 

will charge a regularly represented client on the same 

basis or rate as in the past. If it is reasonably 

foreseeable that the total cost of representation to 

the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000 

or less, the communication may be oral or in writing. 

Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or 

expenses shall also be communicated in writing to the 

client. 

SCR 20:1.5(b)(2) provides: "If the total cost of 

representation to the client, including attorney's fees, is more 

than $1000, the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance 

fee that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 

writing."

2 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 

(continued)
No. 2015AP654-D 

5

[Count 3] By failing to timely provide a written 

response to OLR in the matter of the grievance of 

K.R., Kovac violated SCR 22.03(2)3 and SCR 22.03(6)4

enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).5

 

Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall 

take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to 

protect a client's interests, such as giving 

reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 

employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 

property to which the client is entitled and refunding 

any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 

been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers 

relating to the client to the extent permitted by 

other law. 

3 SCR 22.03(2) provides:

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 

request for a written response. The director may 

allow additional time to respond. 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. 

4 SCR 22.03(6) provides: "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) provides: "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(6), or SCR 

22.04(1)."
No. 2015AP654-D 

6

¶9 The second client matter detailed in the OLR's 

complaint arose out of Attorney Kovac's representation of A.B. 

in a Milwaukee County criminal matter. A.B. entered a guilty 

plea to two drug-related charges, was found guilty, and was 

sentenced. Attorney Kovac did not file a notice of intent to 

appeal. A.B. filed a pro se motion to extend the time to file a 

notice of intent to appeal, seeking post-conviction relief. 

A.B. contacted Attorney Kovac on numerous occasions trying to 

obtain his client file so that successor counsel could perfect 

post-conviction relief in the criminal matter. Attorney Kovac 

failed to respond. The court of appeals directed Attorney Kovac 

to respond to A.B.'s motion, but Attorney Kovac failed to 

comply. 

¶10 Attorney Kevin Gaertner was appointed successor 

counsel for A.B. Attorney Gaertner repeatedly asked Attorney 

Kovac to turn over the client file in the criminal matter, but 

Attorney Kovac never delivered the file to Attorney Gaertner. 

Attorney Gaertner finally received the file from the State 

Public Defender's office. 

¶11 A.B. filed a grievance against Attorney Kovac. As in 

the K.R. matter, Attorney Kovac failed to respond to the OLR's 

repeated requests for a response to the grievance and it was not 

until after this court had issued an order to show cause why 

Attorney Kovac's license should not be temporarily suspended for 
No. 2015AP654-D 

7

his failure to respond to the OLR that he finally filed a 

response and the OLR withdrew its motion.

¶12 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 

misconduct with respect to Attorney Kovac's handling of the A.B. 

matter: 

[Count 4] By failing to file the notice of intent to 

pursue post conviction relief in the A.B. matter, 

[Attorney] Kovac violated SCR 20:1.3.6

[Count 5] By failing, upon termination of 

representation, to respond to phone calls and letters 

from A.B. relating to requests to return his file so 

that he could pursue post-conviction relief, 

[Attorney] Kovac violated SCR 20:1.16(d).

[Count 6] By failing to respond to multiple Orders 

from the Court of Appeals requesting that Attorney 

Kovac provide a response concerning whether he had 

counseled A.B. regarding the decision to seek postconviction relief, [Attorney] Kovac violated SCR 

20:3.4(c).7

[Count 7] By failing to provide a timely initial 

response to A.B.'s grievance and by failing to timely 

respond to OLR's request for a supplemental response 

to A.B.'s grievance, [Attorney] Kovac violated SCR 

22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforced via 20:8.4(h).

¶13 The referee was appointed on July 14, 2015. After 

Attorney Kovac failed to file an answer to the complaint, the 

OLR filed a notice of motion and motion for default judgment. 

 

6 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 

diligence and promptness in representing a client." 

7 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides: "A lawyer shall not: . . . . 

knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, 

except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid 

obligation exists." 
No. 2015AP654-D 

8

The referee advised the parties that a telephone scheduling 

conference would be held on August 12, 2015. On August 11, 

2015, at approximately 4:40 p.m., Attorney Kovac left a voice 

message with the referee's office asking for an adjournment of 

the telephonic scheduling conference. The referee issued an 

order adjourning the telephonic scheduling conference to 

September 15, 2015. The referee also ordered Attorney Kovac to 

file his answer to the complaint on or before September 11, 

2015. The referee advised Attorney Kovac that the OLR had filed 

a motion for default judgment and that the referee would not 

further extend the time to file an answer. 

¶14 Attorney Kovac failed to file an answer by the 

September 11, 2015 extended deadline. He also failed to 

participate in the telephonic scheduling conference on September 

15, 2015, at which time the OLR orally renewed its motion for 

default judgment. On October 1, 2015, the referee issued an 

order declaring Attorney Kovac to be in default. 

¶15 On October 8, 2015, the referee issued an order 

granting the parties the opportunity to file written argument 

with respect to the appropriate discipline. The referee gave 

Attorney Kovac until November 20, 2015 to file a response to the 

OLR's written argument and authorities. Attorney Kovac failed 

to file a response by November 20, 2015. On November 23, 2015, 

Attorney Kovac sent the referee a letter in which he claimed 
No. 2015AP654-D 

9

that he had tried to drop off a response at the referee's office 

on November 20. The November 23 letter included a copy of the 

response in which Attorney Kovac referenced various mitigating 

circumstances. 

¶16 In response to Attorney Kovac's letter, the referee 

sent a letter to both parties indicating that if Attorney Kovac 

wanted to have a hearing on the appropriate discipline and 

mitigating circumstances, he was to discuss available dates and 

times with the OLR. The referee also advised Attorney Kovac 

that the referee would not reopen the case and that the 

declaration of default would remain in place. Attorney Kovac 

was advised that the referee considered time to be of the 

essence and that the referee would not grant any additional time 

to Attorney Kovac to arrange a hearing. Attorney Kovac failed 

to take any action, did not contact the OLR to arrange a date 

and time for the suggested hearing, and never filed an answer or 

otherwise responded to the OLR's complaint. 

¶17 The referee issued his report and recommendation in 

the matter on January 19, 2016. The referee found that the OLR 

had met its burden of proof with respect to all seven counts of 

misconduct alleged in the complaint. With respect to the 

appropriate level of discipline, the referee pointed to Attorney 

Kovac's two prior public reprimands and commented that there 

appears to be a pattern of misconduct whereby Attorney Kovac 
No. 2015AP654-D 

10

fails to properly represent his clients and there is also a 

disturbing pattern of Attorney Kovac failing to cooperate in OLR 

investigations. The referee opined that Attorney Kovac's 

continuing misconduct shows disrespect for supreme court rules 

and his obligations as a practicing attorney. The referee 

explained: 

The respondent's misconduct is serious in nature. He 

intentionally neglects clients. He intentionally 

fails to cooperate with successor counsel. He 

intentionally fails to cooperate with OLR 

investigations. He ignores orders issued by courts, 

including appellate courts. 

By my count, respondent has now failed to cooperate 

with at least six OLR investigations of misconduct. 

His failure to cooperate is not an oversight or a 

mistake, but rather an intentional course of 

misconduct in defiance of his obligations as a 

Wisconsin lawyer. Also, he has now failed to file an 

answer in two disciplinary cases involving three 

separate grievances. 

When I review respondent's behavior in the past two 

public reprimands with his conduct in this case, I 

note another troublesome pattern. Respondent, during 

his representation of clients and in his handling of 

grievances, takes a course of delay, excuses, and 

misrepresentations. Repeated promises to clients, 

courts, OLR, and referees are simply never complied 

with. Instead, they are replaced with new promises to 

clients, courts, OLR, and referees. 

In the present case, respondent was given multiple 

chances to file an answer. Rather than file an 

answer, he would appear at my office after deadlines 

had passed and essentially ask for more time. When he 

would be given additional time, he would again fail to 

respond. In the present case, he filed a late letter 

indicating he wanted to be heard on mitigating 

circumstances, but never follows through with any 

efforts to secure a hearing that was offered to him on 

the subject of mitigating circumstances.
No. 2015AP654-D 

11

The pattern of non-cooperation, delay, 

misrepresentation in representing clients and in 

responding to grievances is now most apparent. 

Further complicating the situation is the fact that 

respondent, in defaulting in the last two disciplinary 

cases, has not provided any explanations for his 

conduct. I fear that such conduct will continue and 

will cause harm in the future to respondent's clients. 

¶18 The referee commented that two prior public reprimands 

failed to change Attorney Kovac's behavior, and the referee said 

a higher level of discipline was needed to protect the public, 

the courts, and the legal system from a repetition of Attorney 

Kovac's misconduct. Accordingly, the referee recommended that 

Attorney Kovac's license to practice law in Wisconsin be 

suspended for 90 days. The referee also recommended that 

Attorney Kovac be ordered to pay the entire cost of the 

disciplinary proceeding. 

¶19 Supreme court rule 22.17 provides that an appeal from 

a referee's report must be filed within 20 days after the filing 

of the report. Since the referee's report was filed on January 

19, 2016, Attorney Kovac's appeal needed to be filed by February 

8, 2016 in order to be timely. Attorney Kovac did not file a 

timely appeal. Instead, on February 12, 2016, he filed a letter 

asking for additional time to file a formal response to the 

referee's report. This court construed the letter as a motion 

to extend the time to file an appeal. By order dated March 7, 

2016, this court denied the motion. 
No. 2015AP654-D 

12

¶20 Although Attorney Kovac was given the opportunity to 

file an answer and present a defense to the OLR's complaint, he 

failed to do so. Accordingly, we declare him to be in default. 

¶21 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 

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. The court may impose 

whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of the referee's 

recommendation. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. We 

adopt the referee's findings of fact and agree with the 

referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Kovac violated the 

supreme court rules referenced above. 

¶22 We also agree with the referee that a 90-day 

suspension of Attorney Kovac's license to practice law in 

Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct. We 

share the referee's concern that, in spite of receiving two 

prior public reprimands for, among other things, failing to 

diligently represent and communicate with criminal clients and 

failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigation into pending 

grievances, Attorney Kovac has continued to engage in the same 

type of behavior that led to the public reprimands. As we have 

oft noted, Wisconsin follows the concept of progressive 

discipline. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brandt, 
No. 2015AP654-D 

13

2012 WI 8, ¶21, 338 Wis. 2d 524, 808 N.W.2d 687. We agree with 

the referee that a 90-day suspension is necessary to protect the 

public, the courts, and the legal system from repetition of 

Attorney Kovac's misconduct; impress upon the attorney the 

seriousness of his misconduct; and deter other attorneys from 

committing similar misconduct. 

¶23 In addition, we find that a 90-day suspension is 

generally consistent with the sanction imposed in other somewhat 

similar cases. Although no two disciplinary proceedings are 

identical, we find this fact situation generally analogous to In 

re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Wood, 2014 WI 116, 358 

Wis. 2d 472, 854 N.W.2d 844. In Wood, an attorney received a 

90-day suspension for seven counts of misconduct that included 

failing to provide a client with a written fee agreement, 

failing to respond to a client's requests for information, and 

failing to respond to the OLR's investigation into his 

misconduct. 

¶24 Finally, we agree with the referee that Attorney Kovac 

should bear the full costs of this proceeding. 

¶25 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Peter J. Kovac to 

practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90 days, 

effective August 12, 2016.
No. 2015AP654-D 

14

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

of this order, Peter J. Kovac shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $1,824.83.

¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Peter J. Kovac shall comply 

with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an 

attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended. 

¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 

conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See SCR 

22.28(2). 
No. 2015AP654-D 

1