Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Tim Osicka
Citation: 2014 WI 34
Docket Number: 2013AP000434-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 6, 2014

2014 WI 34 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP434-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Tim Osicka, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST OSICKA 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 6, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
         
 
COUNTY: 
       
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., concurs. (Opinion filed.)   
 
DISSENTED: 
PROSSER, J., dissents. (Opinion filed.)   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: BRADLEY, J., did not participate.    
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 34
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP434-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Tim Osicka, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 6, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of the referee, 
Reserve Judge Robert E. Kinney, recommending that the court 
suspend the license of Attorney Tim Osicka for 60 days 
concurrently with any suspension imposed in Case No. 2012AP60-D, 
and that the court order Attorney Osicka to pay the full costs 
of this disciplinary proceeding, which were $1,120.04 as of 
September 12, 2013. 
¶2 
Because no appeal has been filed from the referee's 
report and recommendation, we review the matter pursuant to 
No. 
2013AP434-D   
 
2 
 
SCR 22.17(2).1  After considering the referee's report and the 
record in this matter, we agree that Attorney Osicka committed 
the acts of professional misconduct alleged in the three counts 
of the complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  
We further agree with the referee that, since the misconduct 
here could have been included in the complaint in the previously 
filed disciplinary proceeding against Attorney Osicka, Case 
No. 2012AP60-D, the proper level of discipline to be imposed is 
a 60-day suspension that is concurrent with the suspension 
imposed in that case.  Finally, since Attorney Osicka initially 
disputed 
some 
portions 
of 
the 
OLR's 
complaint 
and 
the 
stipulation he entered was only partial in nature, we require 
Attorney Osicka to pay the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Osicka was admitted to the practice of law in 
this state in September 1986.  He most recently maintained a 
private law practice in Schofield.  His license has been 
temporarily suspended since February 2012 due to his failure to 
cooperate in an OLR investigation. 
¶4 
Attorney Osicka has been the subject of professional 
discipline on multiple prior occasions.  In 2002 he consented to 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2013AP434-D   
 
3 
 
the imposition of a public reprimand for misconduct arising out 
of four separate matters.  Public Reprimand of Tim Osicka, 
No. 2002-02.  His misconduct in that proceeding involved failing 
to act with diligence, failing to communicate adequately with 
his clients, failing to provide competent representation, making 
statements regarding the integrity of a judge with reckless 
disregard for the truth, and violating his attorney's oath. 
¶5 
In 
2009 
this 
court 
publicly 
reprimanded 
Attorney Osicka after concluding that he had failed to respond 
adequately to his client's reasonable requests for billing 
information and an accounting of the advanced fee she had paid, 
and that in another matter he had willfully failed to disclose 
relevant factual information to the OLR in response to its 
requests.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Osicka, 2009 
WI 38, 317 Wis. 2d 135, 765 N.W.2d 775. 
¶6 
In 2010 Attorney Osicka again consented to the 
imposition 
of 
a 
public 
reprimand. 
 
Public 
Reprimand 
of 
Tim Osicka, No. 2010-OLR-7.  The misconduct underlying this 
reprimand included failing to deposit an advanced fee into a 
client trust account, failing to communicate adequately with his 
client, failing to refund the unearned portion of an advanced 
fee, and engaging in the practice of law while his law license 
was administratively suspended for nonpayment of dues and 
assessments. 
¶7 
As noted above, Attorney Osicka is also the subject of 
another pending disciplinary proceeding, Case No. 2012AP60.  In 
that proceeding, which is being resolved by a separate opinion 
No. 
2013AP434-D   
 
4 
 
and order issued today, we conclude, based on Attorney Osicka's 
default, that he engaged in four counts of misconduct, including 
that he failed to place a client's advanced fee into a client 
trust account or to provide the notices required by the 
alternative 
advanced 
fee 
procedure, 
that 
he 
charged 
an 
unreasonable fee because he did not complete the representation, 
that he failed to refund unearned fees, and that he failed to 
provide full and timely responses to the OLR's requests for 
information.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Osicka, 
2014 WI 33, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___.  In that case, we 
determine that a 60-day suspension of Attorney Osicka's license 
to practice law in this state is an appropriate level of 
discipline for the misconduct at issue there.  The misconduct 
alleged in that proceeding generally occurred in the fall of 
2008. 
¶8 
The OLR filed the complaint in this proceeding in 
February 
2013. 
 
The 
complaint 
alleged 
three 
counts 
of 
misconduct.  Attorney Osicka initially filed an answer in March 
2013, in which he admitted some of the factual allegations of 
the complaint and denied other allegations.  He also alleged in 
his answer that the OLR had engaged in disparate treatment of 
him with an intent to injure his reputation and take away his 
law license.  Attorney Osicka's answer asked the court to find 
no 
violation, 
technical 
or 
otherwise, 
of 
the 
Rules 
of 
Professional Conduct for Attorneys and to assess no costs 
against him related to this proceeding. 
No. 
2013AP434-D   
 
5 
 
¶9 
Attorney 
Osicka 
subsequently 
entered 
into 
a 
stipulation and no contest plea.  In the stipulation, he 
withdrew his answer and pled no contest to each of the factual 
allegations in the OLR's complaint.  He further agreed that the 
referee could make a determination of misconduct on the three 
counts alleged in the complaint on the basis of those facts.  
Attorney Osicka also verified in the stipulation that his no 
contest plea was not the result of plea bargaining, that he 
fully understood the misconduct allegations against him and his 
right to contest those allegations, that he understood the 
ramifications of his entry into the stipulation, that he also 
understood his right to consult with counsel but was choosing to 
proceed pro se, and that his entry into the stipulation was made 
knowingly and voluntarily. 
¶10 The stipulation did not contain an agreement regarding 
the appropriate level of discipline to be imposed.  It provided 
that the parties would submit written arguments on that issue to 
the referee. 
¶11 The referee accepted the stipulation and found, based 
on the stipulation, that the facts in the OLR's complaint were 
true and that they supported a conclusion of misconduct on all 
three counts. 
¶12 The facts underlying the three counts of misconduct 
are as follows.  In May 2011 Attorney Osicka was retained by 
R.B. to represent him in a divorce proceeding in the Lincoln 
County circuit court.  On June 6, 2011, Attorney Osicka's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin was administratively 
No. 
2013AP434-D   
 
6 
 
suspended due to his failure to comply with the obligation to 
report the required number of continuing legal education (CLE) 
credits.  On June 16, 2011, despite his license having been 
suspended, Attorney Osicka filed a letter brief in the divorce 
case in response to arguments that had taken place at the end of 
May.2  After subsequently discovering that Attorney Osicka's 
license had been suspended, the circuit court wrote a letter to 
Attorney Osicka and informed him that it could not consider the 
contents of his letter brief because of his suspension. 
¶13 In addition, Attorney Osicka failed to notify any of 
his clients or the courts in which he had matters pending that 
his license had been administratively suspended.  He also failed 
to advise opposing counsel in R.B.'s divorce action.  He further 
did not file the affidavit that SCR 22.26 requires a suspended 
attorney to file with the OLR. 
¶14 When the OLR was advised of Attorney Osicka's action 
after the suspension of his license, it sent a letter to him on 
July 21, 2011, requesting that he respond to the allegations of 
misconduct it had received.  Attorney Osicka failed to respond 
to this letter.  The OLR then sent a second letter on 
September 30, 2011, and a third letter on November 28, 2011, 
                                                 
2 In his answer and in the stipulation, Attorney Osicka 
asserts that he filed the letter brief because he felt that 
SCR 22.26(1)(d) allowed him to wrap up his work on the case 
before transferring it to another lawyer and, in any event, his 
duty to file the brief on behalf of his client, as the circuit 
court had previously directed, superseded any violation of 
SCR 22.26, which he considered to be a technical violation at 
most. 
No. 
2013AP434-D   
 
7 
 
again asking for a response.  Attorney Osicka still failed to 
provide a response. 
¶15 In December 2011 the OLR moved this court for a 
temporary suspension of Attorney Osicka's license due to his 
failure to cooperate with their investigation.  The court issued 
an order to Attorney Osicka directing him to show cause why his 
law license should not be suspended due to his willful failure 
to cooperate.  When Attorney Osicka did not respond to the 
court's order, the court temporarily suspended Attorney Osicka's 
license on February 23, 2012.3  Attorney Osicka's license has 
remained suspended to the date of this opinion and order. 
¶16 On the basis of these facts, the referee concluded 
that Attorney Osicka had committed three counts of professional 
misconduct.  First, by submitting a letter brief to a court on 
behalf of a client and thereby engaging in the practice of law 
while his license was suspended, Attorney Osicka violated 
SCR 31.10,4 which is enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f).5  Second, by 
                                                 
3 Attorney Osicka did finally respond in September 2012 to a 
report that the OLR had sent him, although he apparently did not 
respond to the OLR's requests for information about its 
grievance investigation, as the OLR has never asked for the 
temporary suspension to be lifted.  In his September 2012 
response, Attorney Osicka advised the OLR that he had closed his 
law practice in June 2011. 
4 SCR 31.10 states as follows: 
 
(1)  If a lawyer fails to comply with the 
attendance requirement of SCR 31.02, fails to comply 
with the reporting requirement of SCR 31.03(1), or 
fails to pay the late fee under SCR 31.03(2), the 
board shall serve a notice of noncompliance on the 
lawyer.  This notice shall advise the lawyer that the 
No. 
2013AP434-D   
 
8 
 
failing to notify clients, opposing counsel, and relevant courts 
of his suspension; by failing to submit the required affidavit 
to the OLR; and by engaging in the practice of law following his 
suspension, Attorney Osicka violated SCR 22.26(1) and (2),6 which 
                                                                                                                                                             
lawyer's state bar membership shall be automatically 
suspended for failing to file evidence of compliance 
or to pay the late fee within 60 days after service of 
the notice.  The board shall certify the names of all 
lawyers so suspended under this rule to the clerk of 
the supreme court, all supreme court justices, all 
court of appeals and circuit court judges, all circuit 
court commissioners appointed under SCR 75.02(1) in 
this state, all circuit court clerks, all juvenile 
court clerks, all registers in probate, the executive 
director of the state bar of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin 
State Public Defender's Office, and the clerks of the 
federal district courts in Wisconsin.  A lawyer shall 
not engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while 
his or her state bar membership is suspended under 
this rule. 
 
(2)  If the board believes that a false report 
has been filed, the board may refer the matter to the 
office of lawyer regulation. 
5 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers; . . . ." 
6 SCR 22.26(1) and (2) state: 
 
(1)  On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
 
(a)  Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
 
(b)  Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere. 
No. 
2013AP434-D   
 
9 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(c)  Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation.  The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence. 
 
(d)  Within the first 15 days after the effective 
date of the suspension or revocation, make all 
arrangements for the temporary or permanent closing or 
winding up of the attorney's practice.  The attorney 
may assist in having others take over clients' work in 
progress. 
 
(e)  Within 25 days after the effective date of 
suspension or revocation, file with the director an 
affidavit showing all of the following: 
 
(i)  Full compliance with the provisions of the 
suspension or revocation order and with the rules and 
procedures regarding the closing of the attorney's 
practice. 
 
(ii)  A list of all jurisdictions, including 
state, federal and administrative bodies, before which 
the attorney is admitted to practice. 
 
(iii)  A list of clients in all pending matters 
and a list of all matters pending before any court or 
administrative agency, together with the case number 
of each matter. 
 
(f)  Maintain records of the various steps taken 
under this rule in order that, in any subsequent 
proceeding instituted by or against the attorney, 
proof of compliance with the rule and with the 
suspension or revocation order is available. 
 
(2)  An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
No. 
2013AP434-D   
 
10 
 
is also enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f).  Finally, by failing to 
respond to the OLR's notice of grievance or to otherwise provide 
information requested by the OLR, Attorney Osicka violated 
SCR 22.03(2) and (6),7 which are enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).8 
                                                                                                                                                             
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
7 SCR 22.03(2) and (6) state as follows: 
 
(2) 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. 
 
. . . . 
 
(6) 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. 
8 SCR 20:8.4(h) states 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. 
2013AP434-D   
 
11 
 
¶17 The referee agreed with the OLR that a 60-day 
suspension would be an appropriate level of discipline to be 
imposed.  He agreed that this level of discipline was supported 
by 
the 
60-day 
suspension 
this 
court 
imposed 
against 
Attorney Richard Engelbrecht, who had (1) engaged in the 
practice of law by conducting a trial and submitting a letter 
brief in a small claims eviction action while his license to 
practice law was administratively suspended, (2) failed to 
provide notice of his suspension to the small claims court or 
opposing 
counsel, 
and 
(3) 
provided 
false 
and 
misleading 
information about his conduct to the Board of Bar Examiners 
(BBE) and the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility 
(BAPR).  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Engelbrecht, 
2000 WI 120, 239 Wis. 2d 236, 618 N.W.2d 743. 
¶18 The referee disagreed with the OLR, however, regarding 
its request that the suspension issued in this case be made 
consecutive to the suspension imposed in Case No. 2012AP60-D.  
The referee questioned why the OLR had filed two separate 
disciplinary complaints.  He pointed out that Attorney Osicka's 
filing of the letter brief during his suspension occurred in 
June 2011, and that his misconduct was noticed by the circuit 
court and brought to the attention of the OLR within weeks.  
Moreover, Attorney Osicka's failure to respond to the OLR's 
letters took place in the fall of 2011.  Thus, all of the 
misconduct alleged in this action occurred prior to the filing 
of the complaint in Case No. 2012AP60-D.  The referee commented 
that there really should not have been a concurrent versus 
No. 
2013AP434-D   
 
12 
 
consecutive issue here.  All of the misconduct could have been 
addressed in a single proceeding, which would have resulted in a 
single sanction.  Further, the referee, who also presided over 
the proceedings in Case No. 2012AP60-D, stated that if all of 
the counts of misconduct had been included in a single 
complaint, it was doubtful that the OLR would have sought more 
than a 60-day suspension.  According to the referee, the only 
reason for the request for a consecutive suspension was that the 
OLR allowed 13 months to pass after the filing of the first 
complaint, and then filed a second complaint.  The referee 
concluded that a consecutive suspension would not be a fair or 
proper result in these circumstances:  "Because the respondent 
should not be punished for the agency's inattention, and because 
60 days is a sufficient sanction, in any event, I will decline 
to recommend a consecutive suspension." 
¶19 Finally, on the issue of costs, the referee agreed 
with the OLR that this case did not present any extraordinary 
circumstances, that the costs requested by the OLR had been 
necessarily incurred, and that those costs were reasonable in 
amount.  He therefore recommended that Attorney Osicka be 
required to pay the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶20 When reviewing a referee's report and recommendation, 
we affirm the referee's findings of fact unless they are found 
to be clearly erroneous, but we review the referee's conclusions 
of law on a de novo basis.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Inglimo, 
2007 
WI 
126, 
¶5, 
305 
Wis. 2d 71, 
740 N.W.2d 125. 
 
We 
determine 
the 
appropriate 
level 
of 
No. 
2013AP434-D   
 
13 
 
discipline to impose given the particular facts of each case, 
independent of the referee's recommendation, but benefiting from 
it.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, 
¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶21 In light of Attorney Osicka's stipulation and no 
contest plea, we accept the referee's findings of fact based 
upon the allegations of the complaint.  We agree with the 
referee that those facts demonstrate that Attorney Osicka 
committed each of the three counts of misconduct alleged in the 
OLR's complaint. 
¶22 We comment briefly on Attorney Osicka's contention 
that his duty to protect his client's interests trumped his 
obligation under SCR 22.26 not to practice law during the period 
when 
his 
license 
was 
administratively 
suspended.  
Attorney Osicka's argument is based upon a false choice—either 
he had to submit the brief in violation of SCR 22.26 or his 
client would have suffered injury from an inability to present 
argument to the circuit court.  There is no evidence in the 
record that Attorney Osicka notified the circuit court of his 
suspension or asked for an extension of time from the circuit 
court so that he could either resolve his administrative 
suspension and then file the letter brief or assist his client 
to find another attorney who could take over the client's case.  
As the referee commented, Attorney Osicka "was not the only 
attorney 
in 
Marathon 
County 
capable 
of 
providing 
representation."  It seems highly unlikely that a circuit court 
would cause the client to forfeit his/her rights in this 
No. 
2013AP434-D   
 
14 
 
situation where it is the lawyer whose conduct has created the 
need for a delay and/or a substitution of counsel. 
¶23 Moreover, there was no need for this "crisis" to have 
occurred.  The deadline for Attorney Osicka to have complied 
with his CLE reporting requirements was February 1, 2011.  
SCR 31.03(1).  Anyone who fails to meet this requirement is 
given a 60-day notice by the BBE that the failure to file 
evidence of CLE compliance and to pay the applicable late fee 
will result in the administrative suspension of the attorney's 
license.  SCR 31.10(1).  The administrative suspension of 
Attorney Osicka's license was therefore no surprise to him.  He 
cannot 
fail 
to 
take 
action 
to 
avoid 
the 
administrative 
suspension of his license and then argue that he should be 
allowed to continue working on pending cases during his 
suspension in order to avoid harm to the client. 
¶24 Turning to the level of discipline and the relation of 
this proceeding to Case No. 2012AP60-D, we agree with the 
referee that the proper level of discipline is a 60-day 
suspension and that it should be served concurrently with the 
suspension imposed in Case No. 2012AP60-D.  Like the referee, we 
see no reason why the allegations in this complaint could not 
have been included in the complaint in Case No. 2012AP60-D, 
either 
originally 
or 
by 
amending 
the 
complaint 
in 
that 
proceeding.  We further agree that a reasonable sanction for all 
of the misconduct alleged in the two complaints would be a 60-
day suspension and that it would be unfair to impose two 
No. 
2013AP434-D   
 
15 
 
separate and consecutive suspensions on Attorney Osicka merely 
because of the OLR's choice to file two separate complaints. 
¶25 We also determine that it is appropriate to impose the 
full costs of this proceeding on Attorney Osicka.  Presumably, 
even if the OLR had included these misconduct allegations in the 
original complaint in Case No. 2012AP60-D or if it had moved to 
amend the complaint in that case to add these allegations, there 
would have been an increase in the costs beyond what has been 
requested in that proceeding.  Given that we cannot know if 
there would have been some decrease in the total amount of costs 
and that the disciplinary proceedings, whether one or two, were 
caused by Attorney Osicka's conduct, we conclude that it would 
be appropriate for him to pay the full costs of this proceeding, 
which were relatively modest in amount. 
¶26 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Tim Osicka to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective June 6, 2014, which is also the effective date of the 
suspension being imposed in Case No. 2012AP60-D. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary license 
suspension of February 23, 2012, which arose out of Tim Osicka's 
willful failure to respond to or cooperate with the OLR's 
grievance investigation in this matter, is lifted. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Tim Osicka shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Tim Osicka shall comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
No. 
2013AP434-D   
 
16 
 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
¶31 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., did not participate. 
 
 
 
 
 
No.  2013AP434-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
 
¶32 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (concurring).  I join 
the per curiam opinion.  My concurrence in OLR v. Osicka, 2014 
WI 33, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, is also applicable here:   
¶33 Although Attorney Osicka's repeated violations of the 
Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys in the present case 
are not the most horrific the court has encountered, Attorney 
Osicka did harm his clients.  (And this is not the first time.  
Attorney Osicka is a repeat offender.)  His clients have 
registered complaints and they want to be assured that this 
court's lawyer discipline system cares about them as victims of 
an attorney's misconduct and that the court will provide the 
victims with relief.  
¶34 Victims do not expect the court to ignore them and to 
treat them as not important enough to redress their grievances.  
Victims of attorney misconduct deserve OLR's and the court's 
attention. 
¶35 I turn to a procedural issue relating to current OLR 
practice.   
¶36 The OLR filed two complaints against Attorney Osicka 
within about a year of each other.  The same referee presided 
over both proceedings against Attorney Osicka.  The referee's 
report and recommendation in this, the second action, is dated 
August 23, 2013 and is an open public file.     
¶37 I note here that the referee commented critically as 
follows about the OLR's filing two complaints within about a 
year of each other complaining about conduct in which Attorney 
No.  2013AP434-D.ssa 
 
2 
 
Osicka engaged during approximately the same time period.  The 
referee stated: 
It is unclear why the matters involving [Attorney 
Osicka] resulted in the filing of two separate 
cases. . . . [E]verything else charged in the present 
Complaint . . . pre-dated the filing, on January 11, 
2012, of the earlier complaint in 2012AP60-D, and the 
OLR had knowledge of all the violations at least 
several months before January 11, 2012 when the 
earlier Complaint was filed. . . . The point is, there 
should have been only one Complaint. 
¶38 As I have written in OLR v. Johns, 2014 WI 32, ___ 
Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, of even date, the OLR disciplinary 
system is about 15 years old.  Several anomalies and proposed 
amendments have been brought to the court's attention.  It is 
time to institute a review of the system rather than to make 
piecemeal adjustments at this time.   
¶39 The present case presents issues that should be 
considered in such a review. 
¶40 For the reasons stated, I write separately.      
 
No.  2013AP434-D.dtp 
 
1 
 
¶41 DAVID T. PROSSER, J.   (dissenting).  This is the 
fifth time Attorney Tim Osicka has been prosecuted by the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  This fact permits the majority to 
proclaim 
that 
Attorney 
Osicka 
"has 
been 
the 
subject 
of 
professional discipline on multiple prior occasions," Majority 
op., ¶4, implying that Attorney Osicka is a truly bad actor. 
¶42 There is more to the story. 
¶43 The present complaint was filed on February 13, 2013, 
almost a year and a half after OLR learned in September 2011 
that Attorney Osicka had closed his law office.  Attorney Osicka 
formally terminated his practice in June 2011 after his 
suspension for a continuing legal education (CLE) violation.  
OLR 
nonetheless 
succeeded 
in 
getting 
Attorney 
Osicka 
"temporarily" suspended on different grounds eight months after 
his practice had closed.  A year later it filed this complaint. 
¶44 This fifth prosecution is based on events that 
occurred in the summer and fall of 2011.  OLR knew about and 
monitored these events.  But when OLR filed its fourth complaint 
against Attorney Osicka on January 11, 2012, it did not include 
the events from 2011 in its fourth complaint.  OLR has not 
explained its reasons.  However, filing a fifth complaint 
instead of incorporating the 2011 events into the fourth 
complaint, enabled OLR to ask for another 60-day suspension, 
which it justified as "progressive discipline."  It also 
required the appointment of another referee and leads now to the 
assessment against Attorney Osicka of more than $1,000 in 
additional costs. 
No.  2013AP434-D.dtp 
 
2 
 
¶45 Attorney Osicka gave up resistance to this complaint 
in July 2013 by signing a stipulation.  The referee filed his 
report in late August 2013.  OLR filed a statement of costs on 
September 12, 2013, but it never moved to lift Attorney Osicka's 
"temporary" suspension.  In sum, OLR sought a 60-day suspension, 
even though Attorney Osicka had been suspended for a CLE 
violation since June 6, 2011, and had closed his practice.  He 
has been "temporarily" suspended for one of the grounds in this 
complaint since February 23, 2012.  He has now been suspended on 
this count for more than two years. 
¶46 This writer is not the only person to comment on the 
fifth complaint.  Former Oneida County Circuit Judge Robert E. 
Kinney, the referee, observed that, 
It is unclear why the matters involving the 
respondent resulted in the filing of two separate 
cases. . . .  [T]he OLR had knowledge of all the 
violations at least several months before January 11, 
2012 when the earlier complaint was filed. . . .  The 
counts in the present Complaint could have been filed 
with the other counts in 2012AP60-D, and, from the 
point of view of judicial (or referee) expedition and 
cost-saving, should have been so filed.  If the OLR 
wished to delay for a few weeks the filing of the 
earlier Complaint to tie up loose ends on the more 
recent charges, fine.  The point is, there should have 
been only one Complaint.  Furthermore, had the three 
counts of the present Complaint been joined with the 
earlier charges, it is doubtful that more than a 60[-
day suspension] would have been sought on all the 
charges. 
¶47 In this case, Attorney Osicka is charged with engaging 
in the practice of law while his license was suspended for 
failing to satisfy, or failing to report the satisfaction of, 
CLE requirements.  After his suspension, Attorney Osicka 
No.  2013AP434-D.dtp 
 
3 
 
submitted a letter brief on behalf of a client in a divorce 
case.  He first entered an appearance in that case on May 26, 
2011——before the suspension——and was ordered that day to file a 
brief by June 16. 
¶48 On June 6, 2011, he was suspended for his CLE 
violation.  Attorney Osicka erred in continuing to practice 
after this suspension.  I would feel more strongly about this 
count if the attorney showed indifference to the client's 
interest or if the evidence of consistent OLR prosecution in 
similar situations were clear. 
¶49 The second count builds on the first——failure to 
provide notice of his suspension to all clients and courts in 
each pending matter, failure to notify adverse counsel, and 
failure to submit an affidavit to the OLR director that these 
steps had been taken.  Keeping in mind that Attorney Osicka 
closed his law practice in the same month as his CLE suspension, 
there is no evidence in the complaint or in the referee's 
findings of how many persons other than the people involved in 
Count 1 were affected by the violations in Count 2.  Part of 
Count 2, "engaging in the practice of law while his license to 
practice [ ] law was suspended," is essentially the same as 
Count 1.  Compare the cited SCR sections: "A lawyer shall not 
engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while his . . . state 
bar membership is suspended" (SCR 31.10(1)) [Count 1], with "An 
attorney . . . who is suspended from the practice of law may not 
engage in this state in the practice of law" (SCR 22.26(2)) 
[Count 2]. 
No.  2013AP434-D.dtp 
 
4 
 
¶50 Count 3 is "failing to provide relevant information to 
OLR in a timely fashion" and "failing to answer questions fully 
or otherwise provide information requested by OLR," all of which 
occurred after Attorney Osicka closed his practice. 
¶51 OLR moved to "temporarily" suspend Attorney Osicka's 
license because of the conduct in Count 3.  Two years of 
"temporary" suspension later, he is suspended for an additional 
60 days, albeit concurrently with the additional 60 days in the 
fourth complaint, based in part on this count. 
¶52 Looking at this case, it is obvious that only 
criminals are entitled to "sentence credit." 
¶53 The court's opinion in this fifth prosecution, like 
its opinion in the fourth prosecution, is one-sided.  The court 
portrays itself as fair and reasonable by making Attorney 
Osicka's 60-day suspension here concurrent with his 60-day 
suspension in the fourth case.  If the court were seriously 
interested in being equitable, however, it would make the 
effective date of this suspension retroactive to February 13, 
2013, and eliminate the costs in this case. 
¶54 For the reasons stated herein and more fully stated in 
my dissent in the fourth case,1 OLR v. Tim Osicka, 2014 WI 33, 
___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, I respectfully dissent. 
 
 
                                                 
1 For the record, my dissent in the fourth case was 
circulated to the members of the court in April 2013. 
No.  2013AP434-D.dtp 
 
1