2022 WI 10
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2021AP1297-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: February 22, 2022
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
Per Curiam.
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2022 WI 10
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2021AP1297-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against B.C. Fischer, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant, FEB 22, 2022
v. Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Supreme Court
B.C. Fischer,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. In this reciprocal discipline matter,
governed by Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22,1 Attorney B.C. Fischer
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
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
No. 2021AP1297-D
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.
(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
2
No. 2021AP1297-D
has entered into a stipulation with the Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR). In the stipulation, the parties agree that it would be
appropriate for this court to impose the level of discipline sought
by the OLR as being reciprocal to the discipline imposed on
Attorney Fischer by the Minnesota Supreme Court; namely, a 120-
day suspension of Attorney Fischer's license to practice law in
Wisconsin.
¶2 After reviewing the matter, we approve the stipulation
and impose the stipulated reciprocal discipline. Additionally,
although the stipulation does not expressly request that we require
Attorney Fischer to comply with the conditions imposed by the
Minnesota Supreme Court's disciplinary order, we impose those
conditions here, consistent with the requirement in SCR 22.22(3)
that this court impose "the identical discipline" as imposed by
the other jurisdiction. Given the fact that Attorney Fischer
entered into a comprehensive stipulation before the appointment of
a referee, we do not require him to pay the costs of this
proceeding.
¶3 Attorney Fischer was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 2002. He was admitted to practice law in Minnesota
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. 2021AP1297-D
in 2003 under the name Brian Campbell Fischer. The address he has
on file with the State Bar of Wisconsin is in Duluth, Minnesota.
¶4 Attorney Fischer's Wisconsin law license is under
administrative suspension. Specifically, effective October 31,
2016, Attorney Fischer's Wisconsin law license was
administratively suspended for failure to pay bar dues and to
provide a required trust account certification. Effective May 31,
2017, Attorney Fischer's Wisconsin law license was
administratively suspended for failure to comply with continuing
legal education reporting requirements.
¶5 Attorney Fischer's professional disciplinary history in
Wisconsin includes 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. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Fischer, 2014 WI 107, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 852 N.W.2d 487. In
addition, in 2019, this court imposed a 90-day suspension
reciprocal to that imposed in Minnesota for misconduct that
involved neglecting six client matters, failing to communicate
4
No. 2021AP1297-D
with those clients, making false statements to a client, failing
to return a client's file, and failing to cooperate with
disciplinary investigations. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Fischer, 2019 WI 36, 386 Wis. 2d 202, 925 N.W.2d 536.
¶6 On October 20, 2020, the Minnesota Supreme Court
indefinitely suspended Attorney Fischer's right to practice law in
that state with a right to petition for reinstatement after 120
days. The Minnesota Supreme Court also imposed certain conditions
upon Attorney Fischer's reinstatement, discussed below. The
Minnesota Supreme Court's disciplinary order resulted from
professional misconduct that involved failing to adequately
communicate with a client, failing to diligently pursue a client's
case, failing to inform the client of his suspension, engaging in
the unauthorized practice of law, failing to comply with the terms
of probation, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary
investigation.
¶7 On July 27, 2021, the OLR filed a complaint and motion
pursuant to SCR 22.22, alleging that Attorney Fischer is subject
to reciprocal discipline and that, by failing to notify the OLR of
his October 20, 2020 suspension in Minnesota for professional
misconduct within 20 days of the effective date of its imposition,
Attorney Fischer violated SCR 22.22(1). The OLR asked this court
to suspend Attorney Fischer's license to practice law in Wisconsin
for a period of 120 days as discipline reciprocal to that imposed
by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
¶8 In a stipulation filed December 14, 2021, Attorney
Fischer admitted that the Minnesota Supreme Court had indefinitely
5
No. 2021AP1297-D
suspended his right to practice law in that state with a right to
petition for reinstatement after 120 days.
¶9 Under SCR 22.22(3), this court shall impose the
identical discipline or license suspension imposed in another
jurisdiction, unless one or more of three exceptions apply. In
the stipulation, Attorney Fischer states that he does not claim
that any such exception applies to his case.
¶10 Given the nature of the Minnesota suspension, the OLR
and Attorney Fischer agree that it would be appropriate for this
court to impose a 120-day suspension of Attorney Fischer's license
to practice law in Wisconsin. The stipulation further contains a
number of statements and representations by the parties. The
parties state that the stipulation was not the result of plea
bargaining, that Attorney Fischer does not contest the facts and
misconduct alleged by the OLR, and that Attorney Fischer does not
contest the level of reciprocal discipline sought by the director
of the OLR in this matter. Attorney Fischer further represents
that he fully understands the misconduct allegations against him,
that he fully understands the ramifications of the stipulated level
of discipline, that he fully understands his right to consult with
counsel and to contest this matter, that he is entering into the
stipulation knowingly and voluntarily, and that his entry into the
stipulation represents his decision not to contest the misconduct
alleged or the discipline sought by the OLR.
¶11 After carefully reviewing this matter, we accept the
stipulation and impose the stipulated level of discipline. We
agree that the closest manner in which to replicate the suspension
6
No. 2021AP1297-D
imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court is to suspend the license
of Attorney Fischer to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of
120 days.
¶12 There is another matter beyond the imposition of a 120-
day suspension that must be addressed. The Minnesota Supreme
Court's disciplinary order provided that, in order to be
reinstated, Attorney Fischer must successfully complete the
professional responsibility portion of the written examination
required for admission to practice law in Minnesota and to satisfy
the relevant continuing legal education requirements for practice
in Minnesota. The parties' stipulation says nothing about this
requirement.
¶13 However, the stipulation does state that, by virtue of
the Minnesota suspension, Attorney Fischer is subject to
reciprocal discipline pursuant to SCR 22.22. Subsection (3) of
that rule requires this court to impose "the identical discipline."
Imposing only a suspension when the other jurisdiction has imposed
additional forms of discipline would fail to constitute the
imposition of "the identical discipline." See generally In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stoltman, 2018 WI 91, ¶11, 383
Wis. 2d 484, 915 N.W.2d 176 (noting that, where the other
jurisdiction has imposed a form of discipline that this court does
not impose, this court has ordered the respondent attorney to
comply with the terms and conditions of the disciplinary order in
the other jurisdiction in order to make the discipline identical
under SCR 22.22). By stipulating that he is subject to reciprocal
discipline under SCR 22.22, Attorney Fischer is acknowledging that
7
No. 2021AP1297-D
this court may order him to comply with the conditions imposed by
the Minnesota Supreme Court's disciplinary order. Thus, in order
for Attorney Fischer to have his Wisconsin law license reinstated,
even after the completion of the 120-day suspension, he will need
to submit proof to this court that he has complied with the
conditions imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court's disciplinary
order. Once he has provided proof of compliance, the disciplinary
suspension will be lifted, although his administrative suspensions
will remain in effect until each reason for the administrative
suspension has been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). See In
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 2019 WI 91,
¶¶12, 16, 388 Wis. 2d 478, 933 N.W.2d 106 (imposing, as discipline
reciprocal to that imposed in Minnesota, a 120-day suspension with
reinstatement conditioned on successful completion of the
professional responsibility portion of the Minnesota bar
examination and satisfaction of Minnesota's continuing legal
education requirements).
¶14 Because this matter was resolved by a stipulation
without the need for litigation, we will not require Attorney
Fischer to pay the costs of this proceeding.
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of B.C. Fischer to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 120 days,
effective the date of this order, as discipline reciprocal to that
imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that B.C. Fischer shall comply
with the terms of the October 20, 2020 order of the Minnesota
Supreme Court. Accordingly, before the 120-day disciplinary
8
No. 2021AP1297-D
suspension imposed above is lifted, in addition to complying with
the requirements of SCR 22.28(2), B.C. Fischer shall also have
complied with the conditions imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court
in its October 20, 2020 order that must be fulfilled in order to
have his license to practice law in Minnesota reinstated.
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative
suspensions of B.C. Fischer'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 CLE reporting requirements, will remain in effect until each
reason for the administrative suspension has been rectified,
pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).
¶18 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.
9
No. 2021AP1297-D
1