Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks
Citation: 2012 WI 18
Docket Number: 2011AP002326-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: March 1, 2012

2012 WI 18 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP2326-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST EICHHORN-HICKS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 1, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 18
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP2326-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 1, 2012 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded and attorney's license suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This disciplinary proceeding involves 
two reciprocal discipline matters.  In the first, the Supreme 
Court of Minnesota in 2000 suspended the license of Attorney 
Tracy Eichhorn-Hicks to practice law in Minnesota for a period 
of one year.  In the second, that same court publicly 
reprimanded Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks in 2009 and placed him on 
two years of probation.   
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
In light of Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' admission of 
these impositions of public discipline in another jurisdiction, 
we impose a public reprimand and a one-year suspension as 
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of 
Minnesota.  Given Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' failure to notify the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) of these instances of public 
discipline, we conclude that the one-year suspension should be 
prospective in nature and not retroactive to the date of his 
Minnesota suspension.  Finally, because this matter is being 
resolved without the need to appoint a referee and incur 
substantial expenses, we do not require Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks 
to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks was licensed to practice law 
in Minnesota in September 1975.  In July 1984 he became licensed 
to practice law in Wisconsin.  The most recent address he 
furnished to the State Bar of Wisconsin is a law firm in 
Minneapolis, Minnesota. 
¶4 
On October 5, 2011, the OLR filed a complaint, an 
order to answer, and a motion requesting the court to direct 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks to inform the court in writing of any 
claim, predicated upon the grounds set forth in SCR 22.22(3),1 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22(3) provides as follows: 
The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process. 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
3 
 
that the imposition of discipline identical to that imposed in 
Minnesota would be unwarranted, and of the factual basis for any 
such claim.  The court granted the OLR's motion and issued such 
an order.   
¶5 
Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks did not file a specific 
response to the court's order, but he did file an answer to the 
OLR's complaint, which we will treat as a response to the 
court's order.  With the exception of one technical correction, 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' answer admitted all of the factual 
allegations of the OLR's complaint.  Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' 
answer affirmatively alleged "in mitigation" that he had not 
practiced law in either Minnesota or Wisconsin during the term 
of his Minnesota suspension.  He therefore contended that it 
would be punitive and a violation of public policy for this 
court now to impose a reciprocal suspension of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶6 
Given Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' admissions, we set 
forth the facts as alleged in the OLR's complaint.  On 
August 21, 2000, the Supreme Court of Minnesota suspended 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' license for a period of one year due to 
Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks' 
professional 
misconduct, 
including 
                                                                                                                                                             
(b) There 
was 
such 
an 
infirmity 
of 
proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity. 
(c) The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
4 
 
misuse of his trust account, failure to maintain proper trust 
account records, temporary misappropriation of funds, making a 
false certification on his attorney registration statements, and 
making false statements to the director of the Minnesota Office 
of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.  In re Disciplinary 
Action Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 615 N.W.2d 356 (Minn. 2000).  The 
suspension was based on Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' admission to 
his professional misconduct and his stipulation that a one-year 
suspension of his license to practice law in Minnesota was an 
appropriate level of discipline.2  Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks did 
not report this suspension to the OLR, as he was required to do.  
See SCR 22.22(1).  The OLR learned of this suspension through 
other sources in June 2011. 
¶7 
On June 23, 2009, the Supreme Court of Minnesota 
publicly 
reprimanded 
Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks 
for 
his 
professional misconduct involving (1) his receipt on two 
occasions of advance fee payments in a client matter in which 
there was no written fee agreement without depositing such funds 
into a client trust account, and (2) his failure to disclose 
during a disciplinary investigation the full amount of the 
payments he had received for the representation of a client.  In 
re Disciplinary Action Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 767 N.W.2d 20 
(Minn. 2009).  Like the 2000 suspension, this public reprimand 
was 
based 
on 
Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks' 
admission 
of 
his 
                                                 
2 Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' license to practice law in 
Minnesota was reinstated on February 8, 2002. 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
5 
 
professional misconduct and his stipulation to the level of 
discipline.  Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks also did not timely inform 
the OLR of this public reprimand. 
¶8 
In addition to the public reprimand, the Minnesota 
Supreme Court also placed Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks on probation 
for a period of two years with a number of conditions.  Under 
the terms of the Minnesota order, the period of probation was 
scheduled to expire in June 2011.  The OLR's complaint does not 
allege that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks violated any of the terms of 
his professional probation or that the probationary period was 
extended for any reason.   
¶9 
Under SCR 22.22(3), this court shall impose the 
identical discipline imposed by the other jurisdiction unless 
one of three exceptions are present.  The first two exceptions 
involve situations where the disciplinary proceeding in the 
other jurisdiction deprived the respondent attorney of due 
process or suffered from a lack of proof.  SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(b).  
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' answer to the OLR's complaint does not 
contain any allegation of a lack of due process or a lack of 
proof in the two Minnesota disciplinary proceedings at issue in 
this matter.  Indeed, in each case Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks 
admitted that his conduct violated the Minnesota professional 
responsibility rules and stipulated to the level of discipline. 
¶10 The third exception to the imposition of reciprocal 
discipline applies where the misconduct justifies substantially 
different discipline in Wisconsin.  SCR 22.22(3)(c).  Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks does not allege that this court's prior decisions 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
6 
 
in cases involving similar types of misconduct would justify a 
lesser sanction than his 2009 public reprimand or his 2000 one-
year suspension.  It is not the nature of the public reprimand 
or the length of the suspension that he challenges.  Indeed, it 
would be hard for Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks to argue for a 
substantially less severe level of discipline in Wisconsin given 
that he stipulated to the level of discipline in both Minnesota 
disciplinary cases.  Thus, we conclude that the third exception 
does not apply in this case.  Accordingly, pursuant to our 
rules, we impose both a public reprimand and a one-year 
suspension in this state as discipline that is identical to the 
discipline imposed in Minnesota in 2009 and 2000.3 
¶11 The issue raised by Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' answer is 
not really whether a public reprimand and one-year suspension 
are appropriate levels of discipline, but whether a one-year 
suspension imposed by this court should be effective now or 
whether it should be retroactive to August 21, 2000, the 
                                                 
3 Although the Supreme Court of Minnesota attached a two-
year period of probation to the 2009 public reprimand, we do not 
impose a similar period of probation.  Probation is not one of 
the forms of discipline that this court generally imposes.  In 
reciprocal discipline matters where the other jurisdiction has 
imposed a period of probation, we have approximated the effect 
of such probation by ordering the respondent attorney to comply 
with the probationary order entered in the other jurisdiction.  
See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moree, 2004 WI 
118, 275 Wis. 2d 279, 281, 684 N.W.2d 667 (published order).  We 
do not do so in this case, however, because the two-year 
Minnesota probationary period already expired in June 2011.  
Thus, there is no longer a probationary order in the other 
jurisdiction with which Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks must comply. 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
7 
 
effective date of the Minnesota suspension order.  Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks contends that because he did not practice law in 
Wisconsin 
during 
the 
2000-2001 
period 
of 
his 
Minnesota 
suspension, it would be punitive to preclude him from practicing 
law in Wisconsin for a prospective period of one year. 
¶12 We reject Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' argument.  First, 
whether or not he voluntarily chose not to practice law in 
Wisconsin during the period of his Minnesota suspension, 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks was not precluded from practicing law in 
this state due to any disciplinary suspension.  Thus, if we were 
now to make his Wisconsin suspension retroactive to 2000, he 
would effectively have avoided any discipline in Wisconsin for 
his professional misconduct.  Second, the fact that Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks' 
Wisconsin 
license 
was 
not 
suspended 
simultaneously with his Minnesota license results solely from 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' own failure to notify this state's 
regulatory authorities of his suspension.  See, e.g., In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nickitas, 2006 WI 20, ¶¶4, 6-7, 
289 Wis. 2d 18, 710 N.W.2d 464; In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Rhees, 2003 WI 110, 263 Wis. 2d 703, 665 N.W.2d 256 
(published order).  Although Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks asserts 
that he was unaware of his obligation to do so, his failure to 
ascertain his legal and ethical obligations to this state is no 
excuse.  Had he notified the OLR of his Minnesota suspension 
immediately after it had been imposed, as he was obligated to 
do, it is possible that his Wisconsin suspension may have been 
made coterminous with his Minnesota suspension.  Given that the 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
8 
 
OLR learned of his suspension from other sources more than a 
decade after it was imposed, we perceive no unfairness in making 
the one-year suspension prospective from a specific date in the 
near future that will allow Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks to make 
arrangements to transfer or conclude any representations in 
Wisconsin. 
¶13 Finally, because Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' admission of 
his misconduct and his public discipline in Minnesota has 
avoided the necessity for the appointment of a referee and a 
more involved disciplinary proceeding, we do not impose the 
costs of this proceeding against him. 
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks is publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct addressed in In re 
Disciplinary Action Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 767 N.W.2d 20 (Minn. 
2009). 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Tracy R. 
Eichhorn-Hicks to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a 
period of one year, effective April 2, 2012, as discipline 
reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in 
In re Disciplinary Action Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 615 N.W.2d 356 
(Minn. 2000). 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks 
shall comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to 
the duties of a person whose license to practice law in 
Wisconsin has been suspended. 
 
 
No. 
2011AP2326-D   
 
 
 
1