2015 WI 9
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2010AP1576-D & 2011AP1764-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Jeffrey A. Reitz, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant-Respondent,
v.
Jeffrey A. Reitz,
Respondent-Appellant.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST REITZ
OPINION FILED: February 4, 2015
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2015 WI 9
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2010AP1576-D
2011AP1764-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Jeffrey A. Reitz, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant-Respondent,
FEB 4, 2015
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Jeffrey A. Reitz,
Respondent-Appellant.
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed by referee
Christine Harris Taylor, recommending that the court reinstate
the license of Jeffrey A. Reitz to practice law in Wisconsin.
After careful review of the matter, we agree that Attorney
Reitz's license should be reinstated, with conditions. We also
agree with the referee that Attorney Reitz should be required to
pay the full costs of this proceeding, which are $2,701.40 as of
November 21, 2014.
No. 2010AP1576-D
2011AP1764-D
¶2 Attorney Reitz was licensed to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1981 and practiced in Milwaukee. His license was
suspended for a period of ten months, commencing on May 3, 2013,
for multiple counts of misconduct, primarily related to his
mishandling of his trust accounts and client funds. He had
previously been disciplined on two prior occasions.
¶3 On February 11, 2014, Attorney Reitz filed a petition
for the reinstatement of his license to practice law in
Wisconsin. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a
response on July 31, 2014. The OLR did not oppose the petition
for reinstatement but recommended that conditions be imposed
upon Attorney Reitz's resumption of the practice of law.
¶4 A public hearing was held in the matter on
September 24, 2014. The referee filed her report and
recommendation on October 29, 2014.
¶5 Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.31(1) provides the
standards to be met for reinstatement. Specifically, the
petitioner must show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing
evidence that he or she has the moral character to practice law,
that his or her resumption of the practice of law will not be
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive to
the public interest, and that he or she has complied with
SCR 22.26 and the terms of the order of suspension. In addition
to these requirements, SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m) provides additional
requirements that a petition for reinstatement must show. All
2
No. 2010AP1576-D
2011AP1764-D
of these additional requirements are effectively incorporated
into SCR 22.31(1).
¶6 When we review a referee's report and recommendation,
we will adopt the referee's findings of fact unless they are
clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg,
2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.
¶7 We conclude that the referee's findings support a
determination that Attorney Reitz has met his burden to
establish by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that
he has met all of the standards required for reinstatement. The
referee found that Attorney Reitz has not practiced law during
the period of his suspension; that he has fully complied with
the terms of the order of suspension; that he has maintained
competence and learning in the law; that his conduct since the
suspension has been exemplary and above reproach; and that he
has a proper understanding of and attitude towards the standards
that are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in
conformity with those standards. The referee found that
Attorney Reitz 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. The referee also found that Attorney
3
No. 2010AP1576-D
2011AP1764-D
Reitz has fully complied with the requirements as set forth in
SCR 22.26.
¶8 The referee noted that the OLR's investigation
revealed no information that Attorney Reitz failed to meet his
burden to show that he has met all of the requirements required
for the reinstatement of his license. The referee also noted
that this court's suspension order provides that, upon his
resumption of the practice of law, Attorney Reitz's trust
account shall be subject to monitoring by the OLR for a period
of two years. The referee found this condition of reinstatement
to be well-founded. The OLR had also recommended that, as an
additional condition of reinstatement, Attorney Reitz be
required to work under the supervision of an attorney under
SCR 20:5.1 or, at a minimum, that he be monitored by an attorney
who works in the area of bankruptcy. The referee said this
condition of reinstatement was unfounded and unsubstantiated by
the testimony presented at the reinstatement hearing.
¶9 From our review of the matter, we agree with the
referee that having the OLR monitor Attorney Reitz's trust
account for a period of two years after he resumes the practice
of law is a sufficient condition of reinstatement and that the
additional condition suggested by the OLR is unnecessary.
¶10 It is this court's general practice to assess the full
costs of a proceeding against a respondent. See SCR 22.24(1m).
In order to award something less than full costs, the court must
find extraordinary circumstances. We find no extraordinary
4
No. 2010AP1576-D
2011AP1764-D
circumstances here, and we find it appropriate to assess the
full costs of the proceeding against Attorney Reitz.
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jeffrey A. Reitz to
practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date of
this order, subject to the condition that upon his resumption of
the practice of law, his trust account shall be subject to
monitoring by the Office of Lawyer Regulation for a period of
two years.
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Jeffrey A. Reitz shall pay to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are
$2,701.40.
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the
terms of this order remain a condition of Jeffrey A. Reitz's
license to practice law in Wisconsin.
5
No. 2010AP1576-D
2011AP1764-D
1