Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. B. C. Fischer
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2019AP000118-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: April 16, 2019

2019 WI 36 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP118-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
B. C. Fischer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
B. C. Fischer, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FISCHER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 16, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2019 WI 36
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2019AP118-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In re Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against B. C. Fischer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
B. C. Fischer, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
APR 16, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter. 
On January 14, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed 
a 
complaint 
and 
motion 
pursuant 
to 
Supreme 
Court 
Rule 
(SCR) 22.22,1 
requesting 
this 
court 
suspend 
Attorney 
B.C. 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 provides:  
(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
shall promptly notify the director of the matter. 
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
(continued) 
No. 
2019AP118-D   
 
2 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
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.  
(continued) 
No. 
2019AP118-D   
 
3 
 
Fischer's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 
90 days, and direct him to comply with the terms of a Minnesota 
court order, as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed 
by the Minnesota Supreme Court.    
¶2 
Attorney Fischer and the OLR executed a stipulation, 
in which Attorney Fischer agrees that he should be suspended for 
a period of 90 days as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by 
the Supreme Court of Minnesota, and directed to comply with the 
conditions imposed by the Minnesota court.  Upon our review, we 
accept the stipulation and we suspend Attorney Fischer's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 90 days and order 
him to abide by the terms imposed by the Supreme Court of 
Minnesota.  The OLR does not seek costs.  Because the parties 
were able to resolve this matter without appointment of a 
referee, no costs will be imposed. 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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.  
(6) If the discipline or license suspension 
imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any 
reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by 
the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the 
stay expires.  
No. 
2019AP118-D   
 
4 
 
¶3 
Attorney Fischer was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2002.  His Wisconsin law license is currently 
suspended for failure to comply with continuing legal education 
reporting requirements, for failure to pay annual bar dues, and 
for failure to provide a required trust account certification.   
¶4 
Attorney Fischer is also admitted to practice law in 
Minnesota under the name Brian Campbell Fischer.  He presently 
resides in Duluth, Minnesota.  
¶5 
Attorney Fischer's professional disciplinary history 
in Wisconsin consists of a 2014 public reprimand imposed as 
discipline 
reciprocal 
to 
that 
imposed 
in 
Minnesota 
for 
professional misconduct.  That misconduct involved failing to 
supervise a suspended attorney and assisting a suspended 
attorney in the unauthorized practice of law; failing to provide 
the Minnesota Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional 
Responsibility with timely notice of employment of a suspended 
attorney; using misleading advertising and law firm signage and 
letterhead; neglecting and failing to communicate with two 
clients; failing to comply with a court order; failing to return 
client files; failing to expedite litigation; and noncooperation 
in disciplinary investigations.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Fischer, 2014 WI 107, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 852 N.W.2d 487; 
In re Disciplinary Action Against Fischer, 836 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. 
2013).  
¶6 
On May 3, 2017, the Supreme Court of Minnesota 
suspended Attorney Fischer for a minimum of 90 days, and imposed 
numerous conditions in response to professional misconduct that 
No. 
2019AP118-D   
 
5 
 
included neglecting six client matters, failing to communicate 
with those clients, making false statements to a client, failing 
to return a client's file, and failing to cooperate with 
disciplinary investigations.  The Minnesota court concluded that 
Attorney Fischer violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 
1.16(d), 3.2, 4.1, 8.1(b), and 8.4(c)-(d), and Rule 25, Rules on 
Lawyers Professional Responsibility.  
¶7 
Fischer did not notify the OLR of the Minnesota 
suspension within 20 days of its effective date. 
¶8 On September 12, 2017, the Minnesota Court conditionally 
reinstated Attorney Fischer from the 90-day suspension, and 
placed him on probation for two years, with conditions.  In re 
Disciplinary Action Against Fischer, 901 N.W.2d 155 (Minn. 
2017). 
¶9 
In its complaint, the OLR alleged that Attorney 
Fischer is subject to reciprocal discipline and that, by failing 
to 
notify 
the 
OLR 
of 
his 
suspension 
in 
Minnesota 
for 
professional misconduct within 20 days of the effective date of 
its imposition, Attorney Fischer violated SCR 22.22(1).   
¶10 On February 22, 2019, Attorney Fischer and the OLR 
filed a stipulation, agreeing that by virtue of his Minnesota 
suspension as described in the complaint and motion, Attorney 
Fischer is subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin. 
Attorney Fischer agrees that it would be appropriate for this 
court to suspend his law license for a period of 90 days and 
order that he comply with the terms of the Supreme Court of 
Minnesota's reinstatement order dated September 12, 2017.  The 
No. 
2019AP118-D   
 
6 
 
parties state that the stipulation did not result from a plea 
bargain.  Attorney Fischer does not contest the facts and 
misconduct alleged by the OLR and he agrees to the level of 
discipline sought by the OLR.  Attorney Fischer represents and 
verifies that he fully understands the misconduct allegations, 
he fully understands the ramifications should the court impose 
the stipulated level of discipline, he fully understands his 
right to contest this matter, he understands his right to 
consult with and retain counsel, and states that his entry into 
the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily.  Attorney 
Fischer also stipulates that he does not claim any of the 
potential defenses set forth in SCR 22.22(3)(a)–(c). 
¶11 Upon 
our 
review 
of 
the 
matter, 
we 
accept 
the 
stipulation and impose a 90-day suspension, reciprocal to that 
imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, and we order Attorney 
Fischer to comply with the terms of the Minnesota court's 
September 12, 2017 reinstatement order.2  See SCR 22.22(3). 
                                                 
2 The Minnesota court reinstated Attorney Fischer 
subject 
to 
his 
successful 
compliance 
with 
the 
following conditions during a two year period of 
probation: 
a. Respondent shall cooperate fully with the 
Director's Office in its efforts to monitor compliance 
with this probation.  Respondent shall promptly 
respond to the Director's correspondence by its due 
date. Respondent shall provide the Director with a 
current mailing address and shall immediately notify 
the Director of any change of address.  Respondent 
shall cooperate with the Director's investigation of 
any allegations of unprofessional conduct that may 
come to the Director's attention. Upon the Director's 
(continued) 
No. 
2019AP118-D   
 
7 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
request, respondent shall provide authorization for 
release of information and documentation to verify 
respondent's 
compliance 
with 
the 
terms 
of 
this 
probation. 
b. Respondent shall abide by the Minnesota Rules 
of Professional Conduct. 
c. Respondent shall be supervised by a licensed 
Minnesota attorney, appointed by the Director, to 
monitor compliance with the terms of this probation. 
Within 2 weeks from the date of this order, respondent 
shall provide the Director with the names of four 
attorneys 
who 
have 
agreed 
to 
be 
nominated 
as 
respondent's supervisor.  If, after diligent effort, 
respondent is unable to locate a supervisor acceptable 
to the Director, the Director shall seek to appoint a 
supervisor.  Until a supervisor has signed a consent 
to supervise, respondent shall, on the first day of 
each month, provide the Director with an inventory of 
client files as described in paragraph (d) below.  
Respondent shall make active client files available to 
the Director upon request. 
d. Respondent shall cooperate fully with the 
supervisor's efforts to monitor compliance with this 
probation. Respondent shall contact the supervisor and 
schedule a minimum of one in-person meeting per 
calendar quarter.  Respondent shall submit to the 
supervisor an inventory of all active client files by 
the first day of each month during the probation.  
With respect to each active file, the inventory shall 
disclose the client name, type of representation, 
date opened, most recent activity, next anticipated 
action, and anticipated closing date. Respondent's 
supervisor 
shall 
file 
written 
reports 
with 
the 
Director at least quarterly, or at such more frequent 
intervals as the Director may reasonably request. 
e. Respondent shall initiate and maintain office 
procedures that ensure that there are prompt responses 
to 
correspondence, 
telephone 
calls, 
and 
other 
important communications from clients, courts, and 
other persons interested in matters that respondent is 
handling 
and 
that 
will 
ensure 
that 
respondent 
(continued) 
No. 
2019AP118-D   
 
8 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
regularly reviews each and every file and completes 
legal matters on a timely basis. 
f. Within 30 days from the date of this order, 
respondent shall provide to the Director and to his 
probation supervisor, if any, a written plan outlining 
office procedures designed to ensure that respondent 
is 
in 
compliance 
with 
probation 
requirements.  
Respondent 
shall 
provide 
progress 
reports 
as 
requested. 
g. Respondent shall continue current treatment by 
a licensed consulting psychologist or other mental 
health professional acceptable to the Director and 
shall complete all therapy programs recommended by all 
treating therapists or other specialists. 
h. Respondent shall not represent clients in 
disputes 
sounding 
in 
personal 
injury, 
medical 
malpractice, 
or 
workers' 
compensation 
without 
associating with qualified counsel through a joint 
representation agreement.  Such agreements shall be 
provided to respondent's probation supervisor, and 
respondent shall authorize his probation supervisor 
and the Director to discuss the joint representation 
with co-counsel. Respondent shall inform co-counsel of 
the terms of his probation.  Respondent shall further 
limit his practice to ensure that the only litigated 
matters he undertakes are either through a joint 
representation agreement as specified above or as 
contract counsel working under the direct supervision 
of counsel responsible for the client representation.  
Respondent 
will 
limit 
any 
non-litigation 
representation to estate or business planning work 
that is completed within a month 
In addition, the court ordered that by May 3, 
2018, respondent shall comply with Rule 18(e)(3), 
Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), 
by filing with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and 
serving upon the Director proof of respondent's 
successful 
completion 
of 
the 
written 
examination 
required for admission to the practice of law by the 
State Board of Law Examiners on the subject of 
professional responsibility.  Failure to do so shall 
result in automatic re-suspension pending proof of 
(continued) 
No. 
2019AP118-D   
 
9 
 
¶12 Because this matter was resolved by stipulation 
without the appointment of a referee, no costs are imposed.  
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of B.C. Fischer to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90 days, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that B.C. Fischer is directed to 
comply with the terms of the Supreme Court of Minnesota's 
September 12, 2017 reinstatement order.  
¶15 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of B.C. Fischer's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues, failure 
to comply with continuing legal education requirements, and 
failure to complete trust account certification, will remain in 
effect until each reason for the administrative suspension has 
been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).  
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, B.C. Fischer 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.  
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs are imposed on 
B.C. Fischer. 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
successful completion of the examination, under Rule 
18(e)(3), RLPR.  In re Disciplinary Action Against 
Fischer, 901 N.W.2d 155, 156 (Minn. 2017). 
No. 
2019AP118-D   
 
 
 
1