Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John H. Peiss
Citation: 2010 WI 115
Docket Number: 2008AP001847-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: September 17, 2010

2010 WI 115 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP1847-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John H. Peiss, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
John H. Peiss, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PEISS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 17, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 115
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP1847-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John H. Peiss, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
John H. Peiss, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
SEP 17, 2010 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   In this reciprocal discipline matter, we 
review the report of the referee, John R. Decker, recommending 
the license of Attorney John H. Peiss to practice law in 
Wisconsin be suspended for one year and that he pay the full 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding.  Upon review of the 
matter, we accept the recommendation and impose a one-year 
license suspension as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by 
No. 
2008AP1847-D   
 
2 
 
the Supreme Court of Illinois.  We assess the costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding against Attorney Peiss. 
¶2 
Attorney Peiss was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin on September 13, 1982.  Attorney Peiss was previously 
admitted to practice law in Illinois on March 6, 1982.  Attorney 
Peiss's license to practice law in Wisconsin was suspended on 
June 8, 1999, for failure to comply with continuing legal 
education requirements.  His license remains suspended.   
¶3 
On July 29, 2008, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney Peiss seeking a one-
year suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin as 
discipline reciprocal to that imposed in Illinois.  The 
complaint states that on May 16, 2006, the Supreme Court of 
Illinois ordered the suspension of Attorney Peiss's law license 
for one year.  According to the OLR complaint, Attorney Peiss 
had not been previously disciplined in Illinois, and he had been 
diagnosed with opiate and benzodiazepine (sedative) dependence. 
¶4 
Attorney Peiss's misconduct in Illinois consisted of 
conversion and the unauthorized practice of the law.  Attorney 
Peiss handled a Texas medical malpractice claim without being 
admitted to practice law in Texas, converted $2,094 in client 
funds in the matter, and misrepresented to his client that the 
funds were expended on costs.  In addition, Attorney Peiss 
notarized a forged signature on a mortgage for a client and 
misled the administrator of the Illinois Attorney Registration 
and Disciplinary Commission about having observed the named 
signatory execute the documents. 
No. 
2008AP1847-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
As a result of his misconduct, Attorney Peiss was 
found to have engaged in conversion of funds, commingling of 
funds, failure to act with reasonable diligence, failure to keep 
a 
client 
reasonably 
informed, 
and 
practicing 
law 
in 
a 
jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal 
profession in that jurisdiction.  Attorney Peiss was also found 
to have made a statement of material fact in connection with the 
lawyer disciplinary matter which he knew to be false, and 
engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation.  Attorney Peiss's conduct was found to be 
prejudicial to the administration of justice, and tended to 
defeat the administration of justice and bring the courts or the 
legal profession into disrepute, all in violation of the 
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. 
¶6 
Attorney Peiss failed to notify the OLR of the 
Illinois Supreme Court's May 16, 2006, disciplinary order within 
20 days of its effective date.  The OLR first learned of 
Attorney Peiss's Illinois disciplinary ruling in February 2008 
through the American Bar Association Center for Professional 
Responsibility.  The OLR alleges that by virtue of having been 
suspended by the Supreme Court of Illinois for his violation of 
the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, Attorney Peiss is 
subject to reciprocal discipline pursuant to SCR 22.22.1 
                                                 
1 SCR 
22.22 
states, 
in 
pertinent 
part: 
 
Reciprocal 
discipline. 
(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
No. 
2008AP1847-D   
 
4 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.  
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.  
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a 
judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing 
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for 
medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the 
practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in 
this state, the director may file a complaint in the 
supreme court containing all of the following:  
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order 
from the other jurisdiction. 
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the 
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the 
grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of 
the identical discipline or license suspension by the 
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual 
basis for the claim. 
(3) 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. 
(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. 
(4) Except as provided in sub. (3), a final 
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney 
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity 
shall 
be 
conclusive 
evidence 
of 
the 
attorney's 
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a 
proceeding under this rule. 
No. 
2008AP1847-D   
 
5 
 
¶7 
In addition, the OLR states that by failing to notify 
the OLR of the suspension of his Illinois law license within 20 
days of the effective date of that jurisdiction's imposition of 
public discipline for professional misconduct, Attorney Peiss 
violated SCR 22.22(1).   
¶8 
Attorney Peiss does not dispute that his Illinois 
license to practice law was suspended.  However, as an 
affirmative defense, he asserted there was such an infirmity of 
proof establishing misconduct in Illinois that this court could 
not impose the identical discipline imposed by Illinois.  See 
SCR 22.22(3)(b).  Pursuant to SCR 22.22(5), the court referred 
the matter to a referee for a hearing. 
¶9 
On December 15, 2009, the referee conducted a hearing 
to consider the OLR's motion for summary judgment.  The OLR 
filed an affidavit transmitting the entire Illinois disciplinary 
file.  Attorney Peiss moved for a continuance and to disqualify 
the OLR's counsel.  Attorney Peiss identified no witnesses and 
offered no testimony, affidavits or other documents to oppose 
the OLR's motion.   
                                                                                                                                                             
(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint filed 
under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a report 
and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16.  At the 
hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the 
imposition 
of 
discipline 
or 
license 
suspension 
different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction 
to demonstrate 
that the imposition of identical 
discipline or license suspension by the supreme court 
is unwarranted. 
No. 
2008AP1847-D   
 
6 
 
¶10 The referee determined that Attorney Peiss presented 
no specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.  The 
referee further determined Attorney Peiss offered no reasons why 
he did not present facts by affidavit essential to justify his 
opposition to the summary judgment motion.  The referee 
concluded that as the party opposing summary judgment, Attorney 
Peiss may not rest upon mere allegations or denials in his 
pleadings, but instead through affidavits or otherwise must set 
forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.  See 
Wis. Stat. § 802.08(3); SCR 22.16(1). 
¶11 The referee concluded the pleadings and papers on file 
demonstrated that Attorney Peiss had full notice of the charges 
against him in Illinois and had the opportunity to be heard in a 
meaningful time and manner.  In addition, the referee found that 
Attorney Peiss was represented by counsel in the Illinois 
proceedings.  The referee found Attorney Peiss offered no 
evidence to the contrary in this disciplinary proceeding.   
¶12 Referee Decker observed that the record revealed 
Attorney Peiss willingly and voluntarily consented to the 
imposition of professional discipline in Illinois with the full 
opportunity to consider the evidence against him, as well as 
evidence in mitigation.  Referee Decker was satisfied the 
evidence against Attorney Peiss in the Illinois proceeding was 
well-developed and freely admitted by Attorney Peiss.  Referee 
Decker also observed Attorney Peiss made no evidentiary showing 
that he was incompetent to make the representations made in his 
affidavit to support the petition to impose discipline by 
No. 
2008AP1847-D   
 
7 
 
consent in the Illinois proceedings, or that he was incompetent 
to testify at the March 10, 2006, hearing on the petition in the 
Illinois proceedings. 
¶13 Referee Decker concluded Attorney Peiss failed to meet 
his burden of proof under SCR 22.22(5) that the imposition of 
reciprocal discipline is unwarranted in any respect enumerated 
under SCR 22.22(3).  Referee Decker noted Attorney Peiss had not 
claimed nor shown that the defense of these proceedings is made 
impossible in part due to any medical condition.  Referee Decker 
was satisfied that Attorney Peiss failed to show any disputed 
issue of fact, or reasonable conflicting inferences from 
uncontested facts, which would warrant the denial of the OLR's 
summary judgment motion.  In addition, Referee Decker concluded 
Attorney Peiss made no showing that discipline under Wisconsin 
precedent for the misconduct established in the Illinois 
proceedings would vary in material respect from the discipline 
actually imposed against him in Illinois.  The referee concluded 
the OLR is entitled as a matter of law to the entry of judgment 
imposing reciprocal discipline. 
¶14 No appeal of the referee's report and recommendation 
has been filed.  Consequently, this court reviews the matter 
pursuant to SCR 22.17(2) ("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."). 
No. 
2008AP1847-D   
 
8 
 
¶15 After fully reviewing the matter, we adopt the 
findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the 
referee's report.  We approve the referee's recommendation and 
impose the discipline identical to that imposed by the Supreme 
Court of Illinois.  SCR 22.22(3).  We assess full costs against 
Attorney Peiss in this disciplinary proceeding.2 
¶16 IT IS ORDERED that the license of John H. Peiss to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for one year, effective 
as of the date of this order.   
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
already done so, John H. Peiss shall comply with the provisions 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.   
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, John H. Peiss shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs are not 
paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to this 
court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of John H. Peiss to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of this court.   
 
                                                 
2 The OLR filed a statement of costs on July 13, 2010, 
seeking $3,062.54 in costs.  Attorney Peiss has filed no 
objection to the costs. 
No. 
2008AP1847-D   
 
 
 
1