Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Peter J. Kovac
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2018AP001872-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 23, 2020

2020 WI 58 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2018AP1872-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: 
June 23, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2020 WI 58 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2018AP1872-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 
 
JUN 23, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review Referee Kim M. Peterson's 
recommendation that Attorney Peter J. Kovac's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin be suspended for six months for four counts of 
professional misconduct.  The referee also recommended that 
Attorney Kovac pay the full costs of this proceeding, which are 
$4,403.92 as of December 10, 2019.   
¶2 
Upon careful review of the matter, we conclude that the 
referee's findings of fact are supported by clear, satisfactory, 
No. 
2018AP1872-D   
 
2 
 
and convincing evidence.  We agree with the referee's conclusions 
of law that Attorney Kovac engaged in professional misconduct.   We 
conclude, however, that the appropriate sanction for Attorney 
Kovac's misconduct is a five-month suspension of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  As the misconduct at issue in this 
case occurred during approximately the same time period as 
misconduct that recently resulted in a five-month license 
suspension, we find it appropriate to make the five-month 
suspension imposed in this case concurrent with the five-month 
suspension in the previous case.  We also agree with the referee 
that Attorney Kovac should bear the full costs of this proceeding.  
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) did not request restitution, 
and we impose none.   
¶3 
Attorney Kovac was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin 
in 1973 and practiced in Milwaukee.  This is his fifth disciplinary 
proceeding.  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 the status of their appeals; continuing to represent a client 
after a conflict of interest arose; and failure to cooperate with 
the OLR concerning three of the investigations.  Public Reprimand 
of Peter J. Kovac, No. 2008-05 (electronic copy available at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002031.html). 
¶4 
In 2012, Attorney Kovac received a public reprimand for 
failure to timely respond to a notice of formal investigation from 
No. 
2018AP1872-D   
 
3 
 
the OLR.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kovac, 2012 
WI 117, 344 Wis. 2d 522, 823 N.W.2d 371.   
¶5 
In 2016, Attorney Kovac's license to practice law was 
suspended for 90 days for failing to have a written fee agreement; 
failing upon termination of representation to promptly turn over 
a client file to successor counsel; failure to file a notice of 
intent to pursue post-conviction relief; failure to respond to 
multiple orders from the court of appeals; and failing to provide 
a timely initial response to a grievance and failing to timely 
respond to the OLR's request for a supplemental response to the 
grievance.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kovac, 2016 
WI 62, 370 Wis. 2d 388, 881 N.W.2d 44. 
¶6 
On May 27, 2020, Attorney Kovac's law license was 
suspended for five months, effective July 8, 2020, for failure to 
take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a 
client's interests upon termination of representation; failure to 
provide the OLR with timely responses to grievances; failure to 
pursue post-conviction relief after filing a notice of intent to 
do so; and failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
when representing a client.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kovac, 2020 WI 47, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___. 
¶7 
On October 1, 2018, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Kovac alleging five counts of misconduct with respect to 
two clients.  Attorney Kovac did not file a timely answer to the 
complaint.  The OLR moved for default judgment.  Just prior to a 
telephonic scheduling conference, Attorney Kovac filed a belated 
answer to the complaint.  Based upon that filing, the referee set 
No. 
2018AP1872-D   
 
4 
 
a new hearing date of April 12, 2019 for the OLR's default judgment 
motion.  The parties appeared for that hearing, and the referee 
denied the OLR's motion. 
¶8 
On May 31, 2019, the parties entered into a stipulation 
whereby the OLR dismissed Count 1 of its complaint and Attorney 
Kovac pled no contest to the other four counts. 
¶9 
A sanctions hearing was scheduled for July 17, 2019.  
Attorney Kovac requested a continuance, and the matter was 
rescheduled to August 15, 2019.  Attorney Kovac was the only 
witness at the hearing.  At the close of the hearing, the parties 
agreed upon a briefing schedule, which required Attorney Kovac to 
file his brief on September 23, 2019.  He failed to do so.  On 
October 22, 2019, he asked the referee for an additional week to 
file his brief.  The referee filed her report and recommendation 
on November 21, 2019, having never received a brief from Attorney 
Kovac.  The referee agreed with the OLR's recommendation for a 
six-month suspension of Attorney Kovac's license. 
¶10 The first client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint 
involved Attorney Kovac's representation of L.H.  In May of 2015, 
L.H. retained Attorney Kovac for post-conviction representation in 
a criminal matter in Milwaukee County.  Attorney Kovac was to file 
a motion for a mistrial and to represent L.H. at the sentencing 
hearing.  Attorney Kovac did not memorialize the terms, scope, and 
fees of the representation in a written fee agreement.   
¶11 L.H. paid an advanced fee to Attorney Kovac in excess of 
$1,000.  Attorney Kovac did not communicate the purpose and effect 
of the advanced fee in writing to L.H. 
No. 
2018AP1872-D   
 
5 
 
¶12 On July 8, 2015, Attorney Kovac filed a motion for a 
mistrial.  Following a hearing, the motion was denied.  On August 
13, 2015, Attorney Kovac represented L.H. at the sentencing 
hearing, which resulted in a term of incarceration. 
¶13 On September 1, 2015, Attorney Kovac filed a notice of 
intent to pursue post-conviction relief.  Thereafter, the State 
Public Defender's Office appointed Attorney Urszula Tempska to 
represent L.H. 
¶14 On October 27, 2015, the circuit court sent Attorney 
Tempska a copy of the court's file, which contained no discovery 
materials from the underlying case.  Attorney Tempska attempted to 
obtain the discovery from Attorney Kovac, but was unsuccessful. 
¶15 On December 27, 2016, Attorney Tempska filed a motion to 
extend the time limits to file L.H.'s post-conviction pleadings.  
This action was necessitated because despite repeated requests, 
Attorney Kovac failed to produce L.H.'s file containing the 
discovery.  
¶16 On April 5, 2016, L.H. filed a grievance with the OLR 
against Attorney Kovac.  The OLR requested a response to the 
grievance.  Attorney Kovac did not respond.  On September 14, 2016, 
the OLR filed a motion requesting Attorney Kovac show cause why 
his license should not be temporarily suspended for failing to 
cooperate in the OLR's investigation.  This court ordered Attorney 
Kovac to show cause.  He failed to respond.  On November 14, 2016, 
this court temporarily suspended Attorney Kovac's license.  Weeks 
later, Attorney Kovac filed a response to the grievance, and the 
temporary suspension was lifted on December 16, 2016. 
No. 
2018AP1872-D   
 
6 
 
¶17 On February 24, 2017, the OLR requested supplemental 
information from Attorney Kovac in the L.H. grievance matter.  
Attorney Kovac failed to respond.  On June 6, 2017, Attorney Kovac 
was 
personally 
served 
with 
the 
OLR's 
February 
24, 
2017 
correspondence requesting supplemental information.  Attorney 
Kovac still failed to respond.   
¶18 On September 6, 2017, the OLR filed a second motion 
requesting Attorney Kovac to show cause why his license should not 
be temporarily suspended for failure to cooperate in the L.H. 
investigation and a second investigation.  This court ordered 
Attorney Kovac to show cause.  Attorney Kovac requested additional 
time to respond, and this court granted him an extension. 
¶19 On October 13, 2017, Attorney Kovac filed a response to 
the order to show cause, indicating he would provide the OLR with 
a response.  When the OLR received Attorney Kovac's email response 
on October 23, 2017, it was encrypted and incapable of being 
opened.  Attorney Kovac agreed to re-send the response.  In 
reliance on that representation, the OLR asked this court to hold 
the temporary suspension matter in abeyance. 
¶20 On November 1, 2017, the OLR filed a status report with 
this court indicating Attorney Kovac had failed to re-send any 
response, and had not otherwise contacted the OLR.  Pursuant to 
the OLR's renewed request, on December 12, 2017, this court 
temporarily suspended Attorney Kovac's license for a second time.  
On December 19, 2017, Attorney Kovac provided the OLR with his 
response.  The OLR informed this court that it had received the 
No. 
2018AP1872-D   
 
7 
 
response, and Attorney Kovac's temporary suspension was vacated 
that same day. 
¶21 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Kovac's representation of 
L.H.: 
Count 2:  By failing to respond to successor counsel's 
repeated requests to obtain L.H.'s file containing the 
discovery, Attorney Kovac violated SCR 20:1.16(d).1 
Count 3:  By failing to timely respond to L.H.'s 
grievance and willfully failing to respond to the OLR's 
request for additional information relating to L.H.'s 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
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. 
No. 
2018AP1872-D   
 
8 
 
grievance, Attorney Kovac violated SCR 22.03(2)2 and 
SCR 22.03(6),3 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).4 
¶22 The other client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint 
arose out of Attorney Kovac's representation of L.W., who retained 
Attorney Kovac in October 2014 to represent him in two criminal 
cases in Milwaukee County.  The charges in one case were ultimately 
dismissed.  Attorney Kovac represented L.W. through the sentencing 
hearing in the second case.   
¶23 L.W. initiated post-conviction litigation pro se, and he 
requested his case file from Attorney Kovac.  Attorney Kovac failed 
to provide L.W. with the case file. 
                                                 
2 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 a 
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. 
3 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." 
4 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(2), SCR 22.03(6), or 
SCR 22.04(1)." 
No. 
2018AP1872-D   
 
9 
 
¶24 On July 21, 2016, L.W. filed a grievance with the OLR 
against Attorney Kovac.  On September 16 and October 26, 2016, the 
OLR requested a response to L.W.'s grievance, but Attorney Kovac 
failed to respond.  On December 9, 2016, the OLR received Attorney 
Kovac's written response, indicating that he intended to 
cooperate.  However, Attorney Kovac failed to further respond. 
¶25 On February 23, 2017, the OLR sent written notification 
to Attorney Kovac concerning his ongoing failure to respond in the 
L.W. matter.  On June 6, 2017, the OLR had Attorney Kovac 
personally served with all three letters requesting information 
about the L.W. grievance.  Attorney Kovac failed to respond. 
¶26 On September 6, 2017, the OLR filed a motion requesting 
Attorney Kovac show cause why his license should not be temporarily 
suspended for failure to cooperate in this investigation and the 
L.H. investigation.  As previously noted, this court temporarily 
suspended Attorney Kovac's license on December 12, 2017, and it 
reinstated his license on December 19, 2017 after he finally 
provided the OLR with his response in both matters. 
¶27 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Kovac's representation of 
L.W.: 
Count 4:  By failing to provided L.W. with his file after 
the termination of representation, Attorney Kovac 
violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
Count 5:  By failing to timely respond to L.W.'s 
grievance and willfully failing to respond to the OLR's 
request for information relating to L.W.'s grievance, 
Attorney Kovac violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), 
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
No. 
2018AP1872-D   
 
10 
 
¶28 In her report, the referee found that the OLR had met 
its burden of proof with respect to the four counts of misconduct 
to which Attorney Kovac pled no contest.  With respect to the 
appropriate level of discipline, the referee noted that since 2008 
Attorney Kovac has had multiple disciplinary matters and the common 
theme running through all of them is that he has exhibited a 
pattern of procrastination, delay, and a willful failure to 
cooperate with the OLR.   
¶29 The referee said failing to turn over client files and 
failing to cooperate with the OLR is serious misconduct.  The 
referee said when an attorney fails to respond to a complaint, the 
OLR is required to expend time and resources to get the attorney 
to cooperate.  The referee said Attorney Kovac argues that his 
misconduct is not particularly serious, and said he does not 
respond to the OLR's inquiries in a timely manner because he gives 
his clients priority.  He also said that his failure to respond to 
clients' requests for their files is not particularly serious since 
most of the information in his files is in the public record 
already.   
¶30 The referee said although it is true Attorney Kovac seems 
to give client matters priority, the choice between representing 
clients and responding to the OLR is a false one since an attorney 
should be able to do both.  The referee said the fact that Attorney 
Kovac finds it difficult to do both is troubling.  The referee 
also said even if it is true that Attorney Kovac's clients files 
only contain information that is in the public record, there is no 
way for the clients, or successor counsel, to know that to be true, 
No. 
2018AP1872-D   
 
11 
 
and Attorney Kovac's failure to provide the information in a timely 
manner causes successor counsel to have to seek the information by 
other means, which causes delay and harm to the client. 
¶31 The referee said although Attorney Kovac does not appear 
to have a malicious desire to waste the OLR's time and resources 
or harm his clients, that is unfortunately the end result of his 
conduct.  The referee said if this type of conduct continues in 
the future, it is likely that more clients will be injured and the 
OLR will be forced to waste additional time and resources. 
¶32 The referee said that despite prior public reprimands 
and short license suspensions, Attorney Kovac has been unwilling 
or unable to change his behavior.  She reasoned that a six-month 
suspension would impress upon him the seriousness of the misconduct 
and perhaps give him the time he needs to remedy the difficulties 
he has been having handling all of the requirements that attach to 
a law license in Wisconsin, including proper responses to the OLR 
and former client requests.   
¶33 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.  This 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.  
No. 
2018AP1872-D   
 
12 
 
¶34 As we noted in our recent opinion imposing a five-month 
suspension, Attorney Kovac's habit of procrastination and dilatory 
practices continue.  The misconduct at issue in this matter is 
very similar to that at issue in the matter in which we recently 
imposed a five-month suspension.  In addition, the misconduct in 
both cases occurred at approximately the same time.  In the event 
the counts of misconduct at issue here had been part of the same 
OLR complaint that resulted in the five-month suspension, it is 
likely that the court would still have imposed a five-month 
suspension.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stewart, 
2017 WI 106, 378 Wis. 2d 568, 905 N.W.2d 136.  Accordingly, rather 
than the six-month suspension recommended by the referee, we find 
that five-month suspension, concurrent with the suspension imposed 
in the previous case, is the appropriate sanction for the 
misconduct at issue here. 
¶35 Finally, we agree with the referee that Attorney Kovac 
should bear the full costs of this proceeding.   
¶36 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Peter J. Kovac to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of five months, 
effective July 8, 2020, to run concurrent with the license 
suspension in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kovac, 2020 
WI 47, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___. 
¶37 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 $4,403.92 as of 
December 10, 2019. 
No. 
2018AP1872-D   
 
13 
 
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, 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. 
¶39 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions with this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2).   
 
No. 
2018AP1872-D   
 
 
 
1