From July of 1997 until June of 2000, Mr. X was an associate attorney in the law firm of Eisenberg, Weigel, Carlson, Blau, Reitz & Clemens, S.C. Mr. X ceased practicing law in June of 2000 and on June 5, 2001, his license to practice law in Wisconsin was suspended for non-compliance with CLE requirements. His license to practice law remains suspended.

Until its breakup in early 2005, Attorney Alvin H. Eisenberg practiced with Eisenberg, Weigel, Carlson, Blau, Reitz & Clemens, S.C. Following the breakup, Eisenberg formed the law firm of Eisenberg & Riley, S.C.

In October of 2005, Eisenberg hired Mr. X to work at Eisenberg & Riley, S.C. Mr. X worked at the firm until March of 2006. He again worked at the firm in late July of 2006 and early August of 2006.

In the course of a deposition in another matter, Mr. X was asked if he had performed the work of an attorney while he was employed at Eisenberg & Riley, S.C., Mr. X responded, “I believe I did.” Mr. X went on to testify that he consulted with potential clients, advised clients with respect to their personal injury matters. Mr. X further testified that he signed retainer letters and letters to insurance companies “Attorney at Law.”

Mr. X further testified that, while employed at Eisenberg & Riley, S.C. he signed documents using a name other than his own. Mr. X testified that he worked for Eisenberg & Riley, S.C., using the assumed name, in late July 2006 and early August 2006. The assumed name under which Mr. X worked was that of a contemporary and long-time friend of Eisenberg’s. He is a photographer and who occasionally did work for the firm.

Documents produced during the investigation of this matter revealed that on at least two occasions, Mr. X sent letters on Eisenberg & Riley, S.C. firm letterhead notifying the addressees that the firm been retained to represent clients. Mr. X signed his name to the letters and under his name was typed “[Mr. X], Attorney At Law.”

In a May 10, 2008 response to this matter, Eisenberg stated that, in March of 2006, he discovered Mr. X’s license to practice law was suspended, causing Eisenberg to terminate Mr. X and tell him he could not return until his license was reinstated. Eisenberg further stated that, “[Mr. X] has not returned to this date.”

This matter was referred to a district committee for investigation. Eisenberg denied to committee investigators that Mr. X had returned to work at the firm after being terminated in March of 2006 and denied that Mr. X used an assumed name. Eisenberg could give no explanation for letters that were produced that had been signed using the assumed name, and he denied authorizing or having knowledge of anyone in the firm using that name.

In response to the committee report Eisenberg stated that, after reviewing records, he found that Mr. X worked for the firm for six days in July and August 2006. Eisenberg admitted that the firm’s receptionist “keeps a detailed daily record of the employees’ attendance as employees come and go from the office.” Eisenberg should have consulted these records before responding negatively to previous questions about whether Mr. X returned to work at the firm after he was terminated in March 2006.

SCR 20:5.3(b), states, “With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer: a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer.”

SCR 20:8.4(f) states, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of lawyers.”

SCR 22.03(6) states, “In the course of the investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted in the grievance.”

SCR 22.26(2) states, “An attorney whose license to practice law is suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the practice of law may not engage in this state in the practice of law or in any law work activity customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may engage in law related work in this state for a commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice of law.”

SCR 22.27(2) states, “An attorney may not authorize or knowingly permit an attorney whose license is suspended or revoked to do any of the following: (a) Interview clients or witnesses, except that in the course of employment by a commercial employer, the attorney may interview witnesses and participate in the investigation of claims. (b) Prepare cases for trial. (c) Do any legal research or other law work activity in a law office. (d) Write briefs or trial memoranda. (e) Perform any law related services for a member of the Wisconsin bar, either on a salary or a percentage or a fee- splitting basis, except that an attorney may share attorney fees on a quantum meruit basis only for services performed prior to suspension or revocation.”