Opinion ID: 2005375
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: eisenberg's failure to satisfy his scr 22.31(1) burden

Text: ¶ 46 SCR 22.31(1) imposes a burden on an attorney seeking reinstatement. Among other things, the attorney must demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence [t]hat his or her resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest. SCR 22.31(1)(b). Part of satisfying the SCR 22.31(1)(b) burden includes satisfying the requirements under SCR 22.29(4). Majority op., ¶ 14. ¶ 47 In concluding that Attorney Eisenberg had satisfied his burden, the court focused on where it departed from agreement with the referee's rationale for his recommendation. Mainly, it indicates that the referee made his decision based on Attorney Eisenberg neither going to counseling nor having a satisfactory level of contrition related to incidents leading to his latest suspension. The court pointed out that the rules governing reinstatement require neither and that the record reveals that Attorney Eisenberg has expressed remorse for his past conduct. Majority op., ¶ 25. ¶ 48 Attorney Eisenberg's history alone provides plenty of evidence to garner skepticism about his remorse. Nevertheless, his history of disciplinary problems does not directly affect his petition for reinstatement. Rather, it is his own words during his reinstatement hearing that establish that he falls well short of satisfying his SCR 22.31(1) reinstatement burden. Some may dismiss Attorney Eisenberg's testimony as including some cantankerous and grouchy remarks, majority op., ¶ 23, but even a small selection of his testimony found in the record leads to the conclusion that he should not be reinstated at this time. ¶ 49 First, Attorney Eisenberg's testimony at the hearing illustrates he lacks a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with the standards. SCR 22.29(4)(f). A review of his testimony leaves me concluding that his understanding of the rules is distorted and his attitude toward them is hostile. Stated another way, he has an improper understanding of, and attitude toward, the rules. ¶ 50 Attorney Eisenberg's attorney selected an incident that occurred with Attorney Michele Ford for Attorney Eisenberg to express his proper understanding and attitude. [1] Attorney Ford appeared at Attorney Eisenberg's reinstatement hearing to oppose his reinstatement. She testified in regard to a phone conversation that she had with Attorney Eisenberg when she was working in her capacity as City Attorney for the City of St. Francis. According to Attorney Ford, after she refused to accept a deal demanded by Attorney Eisenberg he said, I'm going to rip you a new asshole and slammed down the phone. Attorney Eisenberg disputed whether he used the term asshole, but conceded that he said he was going to rip her a new one. ¶ 51 In asking about the incident Attorney Eisenberg's attorney said: We're obligated, Mr. Eisenberg, to show in connection with our petition that you're mindful of the rules that are that bind lawyers and are resolved to conform your conduct to them. And with respect to this phone call with Michele FordI'd like to have you tell the Referee what you can about the effect of the suspension on your attitude towards those kinds of interchanges and the likelihood that they're going to recur. Attorney Eisenberg began his response by saying the following: Well, the effect of the suspension to me felt like an atom smasher on a tsetse fly, and I'm the tsetse fly. He concluded his response with, I will tell you that I've had discussions with [my attorney], who's told me that if in confession with my priest, I look at the priest and I say, You're an asshole, I stand a good chance of drawing a Bar complaint because there's probably a new set of rules for me. Attorney Eisenberg chose to say he has a unique set of rules applied to him, rather than discussing his understanding and appreciation of the rules of professional conduct. ¶ 52 Maybe if this were an isolated comment I could be convinced that Attorney Eisenberg was merely making an exaggerated comment for effect. Yet, this was not an isolated comment. Attorney Eisenberg repeatedly forwarded his distorted view that a different set of rules applied to his conduct. When the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) attorney cross-examined Attorney Eisenberg, the following exchange occurred: OLR: Mr. Eisenberg, you mentioned in your testimony that you feel you have to be very circumspect in terms of your professional behavior because there's a, quote, new set of rules for you, end of quote Eisenberg: Right. OLR:do you remember that testimony? Eisenberg: It's accurate, too. OLR: In a sense you're telling this Referee and us and everyone here that there's a different set of professional code rules for Alan Eisenberg as compared to all other attorneys? Eisenberg: There sure is. OLR: There is? Eisenberg: Yes, there is. Yes. It's called State of Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation versus Alan Eisenberg. Those are the rules. That's the law of the land. That's the case that dictates what I must do, how I must behave. That's the rule of me. With such a distorted view of the rules of conduct, I cannot agree with the court that Attorney Eisenberg has satisfied his burden of proving that he has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with the standards. SCR 22.29(4)(f). [2] ¶ 53 Attorney Eisenberg's failure to exhibit a proper understanding of, and attitude toward, the rules of professional conduct alone should be enough for this court to not reinstate him. Nevertheless, his behavior leading up to his reinstatement hearing raises questions about whether his conduct has been exemplary and above reproach, SCR 22.29(4)(e), and he can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them, SCR 22.29(4)(g). ¶ 54 Attorney Eisenberg's conduct leading up to the hearing was described as intimidating. The week before Attorney Ford appeared at the reinstatement hearing in opposition to Attorney Eisenberg's reinstatement, Attorney Eisenberg called her. According to Attorney Ford, Attorney Eisenberg said, You know, I'm good friends with your law firm. Attorney Ford stated that during the course of [the] conversation, I started to feel, you know, I got the distinct impression that there was an attempt to intimidate me. ¶ 55 The intimidating phone conversation with Attorney Ford alone may not be enough for this court to not reinstate his license, but it indicates concern about his conduct during his suspension. At the very least, it makes me hesitate to join an opinion that declares that Attorney Eisenberg's conduct has been exemplary and above reproach. ¶ 56 Related to safely recommending Attorney Eisenberg to the legal profession, courts and clients, his testimony at his reinstatement hearing indicates he is ill-equipped to return to his practice. Specifically, he testified that during his suspension he attempted to stay involved in constructive things that would keep him out of trouble . . . in activities that would not be adversarial. He focused on real estate, which he described as negotiating and bringing people together. It doesn't involve getting people off of anything or advocating for the defense of people or anything like that or plaintiffs or civil cases or anything. It's just the opposite. So that's one of the things that I spent a great deal of time. He also said the following about his latest suspension: it's brought me to the realization that when people do things to stress me out, I can't handle [them] the way [I did] when I was younger. I'm much more stressed out now about these kinds of things than I was when I was a younger man. ¶ 57 For a person that has such a disastrous history with disciplinary problems, this is more than a little troubling. When he was a younger man he got suspended only four years after being admitted to practice law for behavior that is nothing short of offensive. The offensive behavior he exhibited as a younger man has remained a hallmark of his practice of law for almost 40 years. A district attorney, in explaining why he had made the effort to oppose Attorney Eisenberg's reinstatement, said, it's his lack of civility. It is his abrasive approach. ¶ 58 If he has avoided all adversarial situations during his suspension, and gets more stressed out now than when he was younger, it seems difficult to conclude that Attorney Eisenberg has satisfied his burden of proving that he can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of the courts. SCR 22.29(4)(g).