Court Opinion

ID: 9382603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 13:10:52.268227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:40.430573
License: Public Domain

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,
                                                                             FILED
              Complainant,                                              MAR 28, 2023

      v.                                                                   Sheila T. Reiff
                                                                        Clerk of Supreme Court

Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks,

              Respondent.

      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

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-

       The two underlying Minnesota disciplinary proceedings were
       1

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).

                                              2
                                                                      No.    2022AP304-D

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

      2The underlying Minnesota disciplinary proceeding was In re
Disciplinary Action Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 916 N.W.2d 32 (Minn.
2018).

                                          3
                                                                            No.     2022AP304-D

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
                                                   4
                                                                             No.    2022AP304-D

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-

      3There 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).

                                                 5
                                                                                 No.     2022AP304-D

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
                                                 6
                                                                             No.    2022AP304-D

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
                                                7
                                                                             No.     2022AP304-D

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.
                                              8
                                                                     No.   2022AP304-D

    ¶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).

                                          9
    No.   2022AP304-D

1