Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Peter James Nickitas
Citation: 2014 WI 12
Docket Number: 2013AP001770-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: March 14, 2014

2014 WI 12 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP1770-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Peter James Nickitas, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Peter James Nickitas, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NICKITAS   
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 14, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
         
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 12
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP1770-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Peter James Nickitas, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Peter James Nickitas, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 14, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
has filed a complaint and motion pursuant to SCR 22.221 asking 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 provides:  Reciprocal discipline. 
 
(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 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.  
No. 
2013AP1770-D   
 
2 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(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. 
 
(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 
No. 
2013AP1770-D   
 
3 
 
this court to impose reciprocal discipline against Attorney 
Peter James Nickitas identical to the 30-day suspension imposed 
by the Supreme Court of Minnesota. 
¶2 
On September 16, 2013, in response to the OLR's 
motion, this court issued an order directing Attorney Nickitas 
to show cause in writing by September 30, 2013, why the 
imposition of discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the 
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Minnesota 
would 
be 
unwarranted. 
 
On 
September 19, 2013, Attorney Nickitas filed a response attaching 
a copy of a letter he had previously sent to the OLR.  Attorney 
Nickitas does not object to the imposition of reciprocal 
discipline; however, he requests that the 30-day suspension be 
applied retroactively so as to run coterminous with the term of 
the Minnesota suspension.  On October 16, 2013, the OLR filed a 
response opposing a retroactive suspension.  Upon review of the 
matter, we decline to make the 30-day suspension retroactive. 
¶3 
Attorney Nickitas was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1991.  He is also admitted to practice law in 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
2013AP1770-D   
 
4 
 
Minnesota.  His most recent address furnished to the State Bar 
of Wisconsin is in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 
¶4 
Attorney Nickitas' professional disciplinary history 
in Wisconsin consists of a 90-day suspension imposed in 2006, 
reciprocal to a similar suspension in Minnesota.  Attorney 
Nickitas' misconduct in that case involved a consensual sexual 
relationship with a client; entering into multiple business 
transactions with a client without written disclosure of the 
potential 
conflicts 
and 
without 
providing 
for 
fair 
and 
reasonable terms for his client; failing to timely appeal a 
final judgment and subsequently filing motions previously 
decided by the unappealed judgment; and failing to notify the 
OLR of the Minnesota suspension.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Nickitas, 2006 WI 20, 289 Wis. 2d 18, 710 N.W.2d 464. 
¶5 
On May 7, 2013, the Supreme Court of Minnesota 
suspended Attorney Nickitas' Minnesota law license for 30 days 
for undertaking representation despite a conflict of interest; 
engaging in inappropriate conduct toward opposing counsel; and 
bringing a claim in bad faith and for an improper purpose.  The 
Supreme Court of Minnesota found that these actions violated 
Rules 1.7(a)(2), 3.1, 4.4(a), and 8.4(d) of the Minnesota Rules 
of 
Professional 
Conduct. 
 
Attorney 
Nickitas 
admitted 
substantially 
all 
allegations 
and 
agreed 
that 
a 
30-day 
suspension was appropriate. 
¶6 
Supreme Court Rule 22.22(3) provides that this court 
"shall impose the identical discipline or license suspension 
unless . . . the procedure in the other jurisdiction was so 
No. 
2013AP1770-D   
 
5 
 
lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a 
deprivation of due process"; "there was such an infirmity of 
proof establishing the misconduct . . . that the supreme court 
could not accept as final the conclusion in respect to the 
misconduct . . ."; or "the misconduct justifies substantially 
different discipline in this state." 
¶7 
Attorney Nickitas has not alleged that any of the 
three exceptions exist and, as noted, he does not oppose the 
imposition of reciprocal discipline.  His only argument is that 
the 30-day suspension in Wisconsin should be made retroactive to 
the term of the Minnesota suspension.  In support of this 
argument Attorney Nickitas says that the United States District 
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin reciprocally 
suspended him from May 24, 2013 through June 30, 2013, and 
reinstated him upon the conditional reinstatement by the Supreme 
Court of Minnesota which occurred on June 20, 2013.  He says at 
the time of the Minnesota suspension he had one case pending in 
Wisconsin circuit court and found substitute counsel to handle 
that case for him during the term of the Minnesota and Western 
District suspensions.  Attorney Nickitas argues that to suspend 
him once again in Wisconsin, after he had already served a 
suspension in the Western District and voluntarily withdrew from 
all pending Wisconsin state cases for more than 30 days as if he 
were suspended would be unfair and would also prejudice a client 
he is currently representing in both a Wisconsin circuit court 
and federal court. 
No. 
2013AP1770-D   
 
6 
 
¶8 
The OLR opposes a retroactive suspension, saying a 
lawyer's voluntary cessation of practice does not result in the 
court backdating the suspension.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Frank, 206 Wis. 2d 233, 241, 556 N.W.2d 717 
(1996).  The OLR argues that in the event the suspension were 
not made retroactive, this court would not be effectively 
doubling the discipline since Attorney Nickitas had the ability 
to continue to practice in Wisconsin during the term of his 
Minnesota suspension.  The OLR says Attorney Nickitas' purported 
voluntary cessation of practice in Wisconsin during the term of 
the 
Minnesota 
suspension 
does 
not 
warrant 
retroactive 
application of the suspension imposed by this court.  We agree 
with the OLR's reasoning.  Suspensions are generally not imposed 
retroactively.  There are no special circumstances in this case 
that would warrant a retroactive suspension. 
¶9 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Peter James Nickitas 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 30 
days, effective April 18, 2014. 
¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Peter James Nickitas 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. 
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
 
No. 
2013AP1770-D   
 
 
 
1