Title: Donald S. Eisenberg v.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1982AP001914-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 8, 1998

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
82-1914-D and 89-0596-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the matter of the Reinstatement of the 
license of Donald S. Eisenberg to practice 
law. 
 
 
REINSTATEMENT OF EISENBERG 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
May 8, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: Abrahamson, C.J., did not participate 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 82-1914-D and 89-0596-D 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 82-1914-D and 89-0596-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of the Reinstatement of the 
License of DONALD S. EISENBERG to Practice 
Law in Wisconsin. 
FILED 
 
MAY 8, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding;  reinstatement denied. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM   On March 27, 1998, the Board of Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
(Board) 
filed 
its 
report 
recommending that the petition filed October 6, 1997 by Donald 
S. Eisenberg for reinstatement of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be denied. The district professional responsibility 
committee, to which the reinstatement petition had been referred 
for investigation and the holding of a public hearing, had 
recommended to the Board that the petition be denied. The basis 
of the Board’s and district committee’s adverse recommendations 
are Mr. Eisenberg’s failure to satisfy several of the conditions 
for reinstatement established by court rule by not making 
restitution for or settling all claims of persons injured or 
harmed by 
his professional 
misconduct,1 by 
his 
expressed 
                     
1 SCR 22.28(4)(e) and (k) provides:  
(4) The petition for reinstatement shall show that:  
 . . .  
No. 82-1914-D and 89-0596-D 
 
2 
willingness to comply with the continuing legal education 
requirements for reinstatement only if he were assured that, 
having met those requirements, his license would be reinstated,2 
and by his stated intention to practice law in Wisconsin only 
occasionally but maintain a trust account on his own, rather 
than in association with another lawyer or law firm in the 
state.3  
                                                                  
(e) The petitioner’s conduct since the suspension or 
revocation has been exemplary and above reproach.  
 . . .  
(k) The petitioner has made restitution or settled all 
claims from persons injured or harmed by petitioner’s misconduct 
or, if the restitution is not complete, petitioner’s explanation 
of the failure or inability to do so.  
2 SCR 22.28(4)(f) provides: . 
(4) The petition for reinstatement shall show that:  
 . . .  
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of and 
attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of 
the bar and will act in conformity with the standards.   
3 SCR 22.28(4)(g) provides:  
(4) The petition for reinstatement shall show that:  
 . . .  
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to the legal 
profession, the courts and the public as a person fit to be 
consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in 
matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in the 
administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an 
officer of the courts.  
No. 82-1914-D and 89-0596-D 
 
3 
¶2 
We determine that Mr. Eisenberg has failed to show 
that he has satisfied all of the conditions set forth in SCR 
22.28 so as to be entitled to the reinstatement of his license 
to practice law. Accordingly, we deny the petition.  
¶3 
Mr. Eisenberg’s license to practice law was suspended 
in 1984 for six months as discipline for having represented two 
criminal defendants whose interests were adverse and for failing 
to protect the interests of one of those clients in a case in 
which that client’s liberty was at stake.4 Mr Eisenberg twice 
petitioned for reinstatement following that suspension, each 
time unsuccessfully: first, he had engaged in the practice of 
law during the license suspension;5 second, he continued to 
practice law while his license was suspended and failed to fully 
describe all of his business activities during the suspension.6  
¶4 
Thereafter, 
Mr. 
Eisenberg 
withdrew 
a 
third 
reinstatement petition he had filed, and his fourth petition was 
remanded to the Board for further consideration because of a 
pending investigation into his handling of trust account funds. 
That fourth petition became moot when the trust account 
investigation 
resulted 
in 
a 
disciplinary 
proceeding 
that 
culminated 
in 
license 
revocation.7 
Mr. 
Eisenberg’s 
fifth 
                     
4 Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 117 Wis. 2d 
332, 344 N.W.2d 169 (1984).   
5 122 Wis. 2d 627, 363 N.W.2d 430 (1985).   
6 126 Wis. 2d 435, 377 N.W.2d 160 (1985).   
7 Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 152 Wis. 2d 
91, 447 N.W.2d 54 (1989).   
No. 82-1914-D and 89-0596-D 
 
4 
reinstatement petition -- his first following license revocation 
-- was denied on the ground that he had not made restitution to 
the client whose criminal case he handled while simultaneously 
representing 
another 
criminal 
defendant 
with 
conflicting 
interests and for his having made statements on a television 
show concerning his belief in the guilt of a criminal defendant 
he had represented.8  
¶5 
In the instant proceeding, Mr. Eisenberg, by his 
attorney, made objection to the Board to the report of the 
district committee. The district committee and the Board’s 
investigator, in correspondence to the Board’s investigator and 
to Mr. Eisenberg’s counsel, respectively, clarified or corrected 
some of the objections. After the Board filed its report, 
Attorney Eisenberg’s counsel wrote the court on April 6, 1998:  
Since the District 9 Committee and Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility recommended that 
Donald 
Eisenberg’s 
Petition 
for 
Reinstatement 
be 
denied, at this time we are requesting that the 
Supreme Court deny the Petition forthwith.  
Thus, Mr. Eisenberg has elected not to reassert in response to 
the Board’s report and adverse recommendation the objections he 
previously had made.  
¶6 
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the reinstatement 
of the license of Donald S. Eisenberg to practice law in 
Wisconsin is denied.  
                     
8 206 Wis. 2d 264, 556 N.W.2d 749 (1996).   
No. 82-1914-D and 89-0596-D 
 
5 
¶7 
SHIRLEY 
S. 
ABRAHAMSON, 
CHIEF 
JUSTICE, 
did 
not 
participate.  
 
 
1