2019 WI 36
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2019AP118-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
B. C. Fischer, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
B. C. Fischer,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FISCHER
OPINION FILED: April 16, 2019
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2019 WI 36
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2019AP118-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In re Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against B. C. Fischer, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant, APR 16, 2019
v. Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Supreme Court
B. C. Fischer,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. This is a reciprocal discipline matter.
On January 14, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed
a complaint and motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
(SCR) 22.22,1 requesting this court suspend Attorney B.C.
1 SCR 22.22 provides:
(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
(continued)
No. 2019AP118-D
effective date of the order or judgment of the other
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.
(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.
(continued)
2
No. 2019AP118-D
Fischer's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of
90 days, and direct him to comply with the terms of a Minnesota
court order, as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed
by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
¶2 Attorney Fischer and the OLR executed a stipulation,
in which Attorney Fischer agrees that he should be suspended for
a period of 90 days as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by
the Supreme Court of Minnesota, and directed to comply with the
conditions imposed by the Minnesota court. Upon our review, we
accept the stipulation and we suspend Attorney Fischer's license
to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 90 days and order
him to abide by the terms imposed by the Supreme Court of
Minnesota. The OLR does not seek costs. Because the parties
were able to resolve this matter without appointment of a
referee, no costs will be imposed.
(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
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.
3
No. 2019AP118-D
¶3 Attorney Fischer was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 2002. His Wisconsin law license is currently
suspended for failure to comply with continuing legal education
reporting requirements, for failure to pay annual bar dues, and
for failure to provide a required trust account certification.
¶4 Attorney Fischer is also admitted to practice law in
Minnesota under the name Brian Campbell Fischer. He presently
resides in Duluth, Minnesota.
¶5 Attorney Fischer's professional disciplinary history
in Wisconsin consists of a 2014 public reprimand imposed as
discipline reciprocal to that imposed in Minnesota for
professional misconduct. That misconduct involved failing to
supervise a suspended attorney and assisting a suspended
attorney in the unauthorized practice of law; failing to provide
the Minnesota Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional
Responsibility with timely notice of employment of a suspended
attorney; using misleading advertising and law firm signage and
letterhead; neglecting and failing to communicate with two
clients; failing to comply with a court order; failing to return
client files; failing to expedite litigation; and noncooperation
in disciplinary investigations. In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Fischer, 2014 WI 107, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 852 N.W.2d 487;
In re Disciplinary Action Against Fischer, 836 N.W.2d 525 (Minn.
2013).
¶6 On May 3, 2017, the Supreme Court of Minnesota
suspended Attorney Fischer for a minimum of 90 days, and imposed
numerous conditions in response to professional misconduct that
4
No. 2019AP118-D
included neglecting six client matters, failing to communicate
with those clients, making false statements to a client, failing
to return a client's file, and failing to cooperate with
disciplinary investigations. The Minnesota court concluded that
Attorney Fischer violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4,
1.16(d), 3.2, 4.1, 8.1(b), and 8.4(c)-(d), and Rule 25, Rules on
Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
¶7 Fischer did not notify the OLR of the Minnesota
suspension within 20 days of its effective date.
¶8 On September 12, 2017, the Minnesota Court conditionally
reinstated Attorney Fischer from the 90-day suspension, and
placed him on probation for two years, with conditions. In re
Disciplinary Action Against Fischer, 901 N.W.2d 155 (Minn.
2017).
¶9 In its complaint, the OLR alleged that Attorney
Fischer is subject to reciprocal discipline and that, by failing
to notify the OLR of his suspension in Minnesota for
professional misconduct within 20 days of the effective date of
its imposition, Attorney Fischer violated SCR 22.22(1).
¶10 On February 22, 2019, Attorney Fischer and the OLR
filed a stipulation, agreeing that by virtue of his Minnesota
suspension as described in the complaint and motion, Attorney
Fischer is subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin.
Attorney Fischer agrees that it would be appropriate for this
court to suspend his law license for a period of 90 days and
order that he comply with the terms of the Supreme Court of
Minnesota's reinstatement order dated September 12, 2017. The
5
No. 2019AP118-D
parties state that the stipulation did not result from a plea
bargain. Attorney Fischer does not contest the facts and
misconduct alleged by the OLR and he agrees to the level of
discipline sought by the OLR. Attorney Fischer represents and
verifies that he fully understands the misconduct allegations,
he fully understands the ramifications should the court impose
the stipulated level of discipline, he fully understands his
right to contest this matter, he understands his right to
consult with and retain counsel, and states that his entry into
the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily. Attorney
Fischer also stipulates that he does not claim any of the
potential defenses set forth in SCR 22.22(3)(a)–(c).
¶11 Upon our review of the matter, we accept the
stipulation and impose a 90-day suspension, reciprocal to that
imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, and we order Attorney
Fischer to comply with the terms of the Minnesota court's
September 12, 2017 reinstatement order.2 See SCR 22.22(3).
2 The Minnesota court reinstated Attorney Fischer
subject to his successful compliance with the
following conditions during a two year period of
probation:
a. Respondent shall cooperate fully with the
Director's Office in its efforts to monitor compliance
with this probation. Respondent shall promptly
respond to the Director's correspondence by its due
date. Respondent shall provide the Director with a
current mailing address and shall immediately notify
the Director of any change of address. Respondent
shall cooperate with the Director's investigation of
any allegations of unprofessional conduct that may
come to the Director's attention. Upon the Director's
(continued)
6
No. 2019AP118-D
request, respondent shall provide authorization for
release of information and documentation to verify
respondent's compliance with the terms of this
probation.
b. Respondent shall abide by the Minnesota Rules
of Professional Conduct.
c. Respondent shall be supervised by a licensed
Minnesota attorney, appointed by the Director, to
monitor compliance with the terms of this probation.
Within 2 weeks from the date of this order, respondent
shall provide the Director with the names of four
attorneys who have agreed to be nominated as
respondent's supervisor. If, after diligent effort,
respondent is unable to locate a supervisor acceptable
to the Director, the Director shall seek to appoint a
supervisor. Until a supervisor has signed a consent
to supervise, respondent shall, on the first day of
each month, provide the Director with an inventory of
client files as described in paragraph (d) below.
Respondent shall make active client files available to
the Director upon request.
d. Respondent shall cooperate fully with the
supervisor's efforts to monitor compliance with this
probation. Respondent shall contact the supervisor and
schedule a minimum of one in-person meeting per
calendar quarter. Respondent shall submit to the
supervisor an inventory of all active client files by
the first day of each month during the probation.
With respect to each active file, the inventory shall
disclose the client name, type of representation,
date opened, most recent activity, next anticipated
action, and anticipated closing date. Respondent's
supervisor shall file written reports with the
Director at least quarterly, or at such more frequent
intervals as the Director may reasonably request.
e. Respondent shall initiate and maintain office
procedures that ensure that there are prompt responses
to correspondence, telephone calls, and other
important communications from clients, courts, and
other persons interested in matters that respondent is
handling and that will ensure that respondent
(continued)
7
No. 2019AP118-D
regularly reviews each and every file and completes
legal matters on a timely basis.
f. Within 30 days from the date of this order,
respondent shall provide to the Director and to his
probation supervisor, if any, a written plan outlining
office procedures designed to ensure that respondent
is in compliance with probation requirements.
Respondent shall provide progress reports as
requested.
g. Respondent shall continue current treatment by
a licensed consulting psychologist or other mental
health professional acceptable to the Director and
shall complete all therapy programs recommended by all
treating therapists or other specialists.
h. Respondent shall not represent clients in
disputes sounding in personal injury, medical
malpractice, or workers' compensation without
associating with qualified counsel through a joint
representation agreement. Such agreements shall be
provided to respondent's probation supervisor, and
respondent shall authorize his probation supervisor
and the Director to discuss the joint representation
with co-counsel. Respondent shall inform co-counsel of
the terms of his probation. Respondent shall further
limit his practice to ensure that the only litigated
matters he undertakes are either through a joint
representation agreement as specified above or as
contract counsel working under the direct supervision
of counsel responsible for the client representation.
Respondent will limit any non-litigation
representation to estate or business planning work
that is completed within a month
In addition, the court ordered that by May 3,
2018, respondent shall comply with Rule 18(e)(3),
Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR),
by filing with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and
serving upon the Director proof of respondent's
successful completion of the written examination
required for admission to the practice of law by the
State Board of Law Examiners on the subject of
professional responsibility. Failure to do so shall
result in automatic re-suspension pending proof of
(continued)
8
No. 2019AP118-D
¶12 Because this matter was resolved by stipulation
without the appointment of a referee, no costs are imposed.
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the license of B.C. Fischer to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 90 days,
effective the date of this order.
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that B.C. Fischer is directed to
comply with the terms of the Supreme Court of Minnesota's
September 12, 2017 reinstatement order.
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative
suspension of B.C. Fischer's license to practice law in
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues, failure
to comply with continuing legal education requirements, and
failure to complete trust account certification, will remain in
effect until each reason for the administrative suspension has
been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not
already done so, B.C. Fischer 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 no costs are imposed on
B.C. Fischer.
successful completion of the examination, under Rule
18(e)(3), RLPR. In re Disciplinary Action Against
Fischer, 901 N.W.2d 155, 156 (Minn. 2017).
9
No. 2019AP118-D
1