Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2022AP000304-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: March 28, 2023

2023 WI 23 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2022AP304-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 28, 2023   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
Per curiam.    
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
      
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2023 WI 23
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2022AP304-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 28, 2023 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney’s 
license 
suspended indefinitely.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
has filed a complaint under Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22 
asking this court to suspend indefinitely the license of 
Attorney Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks due to a medical incapacity as 
a reciprocal action to a transfer to "disability inactive 
status" ordered by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in a pending 
disciplinary proceeding.  In re Disciplinary Action against 
Eichhorn-Hicks, No. A20-1123, unpublished order (Minn. S. Ct. 
No. 
2022AP304-D   
 
2 
 
December 15, 2020).  Having reviewed the OLR's complaint and the 
relevant documents from the Minnesota proceeding, we conclude 
that 
a 
reciprocal 
indefinite 
suspension 
due 
to 
medical 
incapacity should be imposed on Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶2 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks was admitted to the practice 
of law in Minnesota in 1975.  He was admitted to the practice of 
law in Wisconsin in July 1984.  He most recently practiced law 
in Minneapolis.   
¶3 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks has been the subject of three 
instances of public discipline in this state, all of which 
occurred as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme 
Court of Minnesota.  In 2012, this court addressed two separate 
Minnesota disciplinary actions by both publicly reprimanding 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks and imposing a one-year suspension of 
his Wisconsin license.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Eichhorn-Hicks, 2012 WI 18, 338 Wis. 2d 753, 809 N.W.2d 379 
(Eichhorn-Hicks I).1  In 2019, pursuant to Attorney Eichhorn-
                                                 
1 The two underlying Minnesota disciplinary proceedings were 
In re Disciplinary Action Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 767 N.W.2d 20 
(Minn. 2009) (public reprimand for (1) receipt of advance fee 
payments without a written fee agreement and without depositing 
the funds into a client trust account and (2) failing to 
disclose information during a disciplinary investigation), and 
In re Disciplinary Action Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 615 N.W.2d 356 
(Minn. 2000) (one-year suspension for misconduct including 
misuse of client trust account, failure to maintain proper trust 
account records, temporary misappropriation of trust account 
funds, making a false certification on attorney registration 
statements, 
and 
making 
false 
statements 
to 
disciplinary 
authorities). 
No. 
2022AP304-D   
 
3 
 
Hicks's stipulation, this court suspended Attorney Eichhorn-
Hicks's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 120 
days and ordered him to comply with conditions imposed by the 
Supreme Court of Minnesota.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 2019 WI 91, 388 Wis. 2d 478, 933 N.W.2d 
106 (Eichhorn-Hicks II).2  We concluded that the suspension and 
the requirement to comply with the Minnesota conditions were the 
best way to replicate the discipline imposed by the Supreme 
Court of Minnesota.  Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks's license remains 
subject to this disciplinary suspension. 
¶4 
In addition to the continuing disciplinary suspension, 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks's license to practice law in Wisconsin 
is also currently subject to a number of administrative 
suspensions. 
 
In 
October 
2018, 
Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks's 
Wisconsin license was administratively suspended due to his 
failure to pay his State Bar dues and to submit a signed client 
trust account certification.  In June 2019, Attorney Eichhorn-
Hicks's Wisconsin license was also administratively suspended 
for failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal education 
(CLE) reporting requirements.  Those administrative suspensions 
have not been lifted. 
¶5 
This proceeding began with the filing of a complaint 
and order to answer.  Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks subsequently 
submitted an admission of service, but he did not file an answer 
                                                 
2 The underlying Minnesota disciplinary proceeding was In re 
Disciplinary Action Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 916 N.W.2d 32 (Minn. 
2018).  
No. 
2022AP304-D   
 
4 
 
to the complaint.  Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks also did not respond 
to the court's order asking him whether there were any grounds 
under SCR 22.22(3) for not imposing a reciprocal suspension for 
medical incapacity.  We therefore take the allegations of the 
OLR's complaint as true. 
¶6 
The OLR's complaint and the attached certified records 
from the Supreme Court of Minnesota show that in August 2020 the 
Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility (MOLPR) 
filed a disciplinary proceeding against Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks.  
In re Disciplinary Action Against Eichhorn-Hicks, No. A20-1123 
(Minn. S. Ct.) The MOLPR's complaint alleged that Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks 
had 
violated 
a 
substantial 
number 
of 
the 
Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct in three separate client 
representations.  The complaint asked that the Supreme Court of 
Minnesota suspend or disbar Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks from the 
practice of law in that state.  Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks filed a 
handwritten answer to the MOLPR's complaint. In addition to 
responding to the allegations of the complaint, many of which 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks admitted, the answer contained two pages 
of narrative describing a series of medical problems that 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks had encountered over the preceding three 
years.   
¶7 
In response to that narrative, the MOLPR Director 
filed a motion to transfer Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks to disability 
inactive status under Rule 28(a) and (c)(1) of the Minnesota 
Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (MRLPR), alleging 
that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks was not currently competent to 
No. 
2022AP304-D   
 
5 
 
represent clients.  Rule 28(c)(1) of the MRLPR provides that in 
the event that a respondent lawyer in a disciplinary proceeding 
alleges that the lawyer is disabled and unable to assist in the 
defense of the proceeding, the Supreme Court of Minnesota may 
transfer the lawyer to "disability inactive status."  Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks stipulated to the Director's motion.  After 
reviewing the stipulation and the case file, the Supreme Court 
of Minnesota accepted the stipulation and transferred Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks to disability inactive status in that state. 
¶8 
In the context of a request for a reciprocal medical 
incapacity suspension, SCR 22.22(3) states that this court 
"shall impose the identical discipline or license suspension" 
for 
medical 
incapacity 
unless 
one 
of 
two 
exceptions 
is 
satisfied:  either (1) the procedure in the other jurisdiction 
was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process or (2) there was such an 
infirmity of proof in the other jurisdiction that this court 
could not accept as final the determination of the other 
jurisdiction.3  As noted above, Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks has not 
alleged 
that 
either 
of 
these 
exceptions 
applies 
to 
his 
situation.  We have reviewed the documents from the Minnesota 
proceeding, and we conclude that neither exception applies.  
Moreover, it is important to remember that Attorney Eichhorn-
                                                 
3 There is a third exception in SCR 22.22(3), but it does 
not apply to medical incapacity situations.  The third exception 
to the requirement to impose reciprocal discipline occurs when 
"[t]he misconduct justifies substantially different discipline 
in this state."  SCR 22.22(3). 
No. 
2022AP304-D   
 
6 
 
Hicks ultimately stipulated to the transfer to disability 
inactive status in Minnesota.  Thus, we are required by our 
rules to impose an identical medical incapacity suspension in 
this state, and it is fair to do so. 
¶9 
We do note that there is a potential procedural 
complication in this matter.  The Minnesota rule under which the 
supreme court of that state acted (MRLPR 28(c)) is predicated on 
the 
existence 
of 
a 
pending 
disciplinary 
proceeding 
and 
contemplates that the indefinite suspension will stay the 
disciplinary proceeding until the lawyer is determined to be fit 
to resume the practice of law.   
¶10 This Minnesota rule is similar to SCR 22.16(4), which 
may apply when a respondent lawyer in a disciplinary proceeding 
"claims to have a medical incapacity that makes the defense of 
the proceeding impossible."  In that event, the referee 
presiding over the disciplinary proceeding holds a hearing on 
the medical incapacity issue and makes findings of fact 
concerning whether the lawyer has a medical incapacity that 
prevents the lawyer from being able to defend against the 
allegations of professional misconduct.  If the referee makes a 
finding of such a medical incapacity and this court approves 
that finding, we "shall abate the misconduct proceeding and 
suspend the respondent's license to practice law for medical 
incapacity 
until 
the 
court 
orders 
reinstatement 
of 
the 
attorney's license under SCR 22.36."  SCR 22.16(4)(d).      
¶11 The complication in this matter is that there is no 
pending disciplinary proceeding in this state to which SCR 
No. 
2022AP304-D   
 
7 
 
22.16(4)(d) could apply by its express terms.  The only pending 
disciplinary proceeding is in Minnesota and is based upon 
allegations of misconduct that occurred in that state.   
¶12 Another common procedure in this state for resolving a 
question of a lawyer's medical incapacity is a proceeding 
designed specifically for that purpose.  See SCRs 22.34-22.341.  
Under that procedure, the OLR files a complaint in a new stand-
alone action alleging that a lawyer has a medical incapacity, 
which is defined in SCR 22.001(8) as "a physical, mental, 
emotional, social or behavioral condition that is recognized by 
experts in medicine or psychology as a principal factor which 
substantially prevents a person from performing the duties of an 
attorney to acceptable professional standards."  The lawyer may 
file an answer to such a complaint, and there is a full 
litigation process in front of one of this court's referees.  
Ultimately, whether or not an appeal is taken from the referee's 
report and recommendation in such a proceeding, this court makes 
the final determination as to whether the attorney's license 
should be indefinitely suspended due to medical incapacity.  SCR 
22.341.  A suspension imposed in such a stand-alone proceeding 
remains in effect until the respondent attorney petitions for 
reinstatement under SCR 22.36 and this court grants that 
petition. 
¶13 Thus, whether the medical capacity suspension occurs 
in a pending disciplinary proceeding under SCR 22.16(4) or in a 
separate medical incapacity proceeding under SCRs 22.34-22.341, 
the suspension continues indefinitely until a petition for 
No. 
2022AP304-D   
 
8 
 
reinstatement is granted under SCR 22.36.  The length of the 
indefinite suspension and the procedure for reinstatement are 
the same in both situations.   
¶14 Consequently, 
although 
there 
was 
no 
separate 
proceeding in Minnesota comparable to a medical incapacity 
proceeding under SCRs 22.34-22.341 and although there is no 
pending disciplinary proceeding in this state comparable to the 
disciplinary proceeding pending in Minnesota to which we could 
apply SCR 22.16(4)(d), we are satisfied that, in light of 
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks's stipulation to the transfer of his 
Minnesota license to inactive disability status, it is proper to 
suspend Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks's Wisconsin license indefinitely 
due to his medical incapacity.  The indefinite suspension shall 
remain in effect until such time as Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks 
files a petition for reinstatement under SCR 22.36 and that 
petition is granted by order of this court.  This is the closest 
that we can come to imposing the "identical" license suspension 
as the Supreme Court of Minnesota adopted by transferring 
Attorney 
Eichhorn-Hicks's 
Minnesota 
license 
to 
inactive 
disability status.   
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Tracy R. Eichhorn-
Hicks to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for an 
indefinite period, commencing the date of this order and until 
further order of the court.  If at some point Attorney Eichhorn-
Hicks seeks to terminate this suspension, he shall file a 
petition for reinstatement under SCR 22.36 and shall proceed 
under that rule. 
No. 
2022AP304-D   
 
9 
 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks 
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 the existing 120-day 
disciplinary suspension imposed on Attorney Tracy R. Eichhorn-
Hicks, see In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eichhorn-
Hicks, 2019 WI 91, 388 Wis. 2d 478, 933 N.W.2d 106, will remain 
in effect until Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks is reinstated from that 
suspension pursuant to the requirements of SCR 22.28(2). 
¶18 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspensions of Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues, his 
failure to complete his trust account certification, and his 
failure to comply with mandatory CLE reporting requirements, 
will remain in effect until each reason for the administrative 
suspension has been rectified pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 
 
No. 
2022AP304-D   
 
 
 
1