Opinion ID: 1936508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: department of transportation hearing

Text: ¶ 17. Count Six [7] involves a violation of SCR 20:3.5(c) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct intending to disrupt a tribunal) [8] and SCR 20:3.9 (appearances before administrative tribunals are covered under SCR 20:3.5(c)). [9] Count Seven alleges a violation of SCR 20:8.4(g) (attorney shall not violate the attorney's oath), [10] and SCR 40.15 (that portion of the attorney's oath which requires abstention from all offensive personality). [11] ¶ 18. These two counts arise out of Attorney Eisenberg's appearance before a Wisconsin Department of Transportation hearing examiner in which he is alleged to have essentially taken over the hearing, refused to obey the procedural rules of the tribunal, and then left with his client before the hearing was over, all deemed to be conduct intending to disrupt the hearing. ¶ 19. The referee took testimony from the hearing examiner and Attorney Eisenberg, and also admitted into evidence the tape of the hearing. The referee concluded that Attorney Eisenberg was rude, abusive, controlling, disrespectful, had essentially high-jacked the hearing by ignoring [the examiner's] instructions, telling her to be quiet, and doing what he wanted to do, and act[ed] much like a spoiled child. Accordingly, the referee concluded as a matter of law that there had been a violation in accord with the two counts. ¶ 20. We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to these two counts. We note in particular that Attorney Eisenberg in his arguments to this court has not specifically attacked any of the findings or conclusions with respect to these counts. Rather, he has conceded that his behavior was combative for which he has expressed apology.