OLR Compendium > Reinstatement of Fisher

Reinstatement of Fisher

2011 WI 16 (2011)

On August 17, 2009, petitioner, Attorney John H. Fisher, II, filed a petition for the reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin following an administrative suspension for failing to comply with his continuing legal education (CLE) reporting requirements. Because Attorney Fisher’s suspension was for a period of three or more consecutive years, the petition for reinstatement is governed by SCR 22.28(1)(d) and SCR 31.11(1m). The Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) filed a memorandum dated May 21, 2010 noting that Attorney Fisher had satisfied CLE attendance requirements and recommending his reinstatement. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed memoranda recommending against Attorney Fisher's reinstatement because of concerns regarding several matters that had occurred during Attorney Fisher’s administrative suspension including arrests for failure to pay child support, mental health issues, concerns regarding certain representations made to the OLR, certain “blog” postings and his ownership of Digilaw Publishing, a business by which he sold legal forms over the Internet. By order dated May 14, 2010, the court granted the OLR’s motion to seal one memorandum filed in this matter because it contained references to confidential medical information. Attorney Fisher responded to the OLR’s memoranda, objecting to some of the OLR’s conclusions. He moved to seal his response and the court held that motion in abeyance pending its review of this entire matter.

Because of the disputed issues of fact, the court appointed Reserve Judge Robert J. Kinney as referee. Referee Kinney conducted an evidentiary hearing in October 2010 and ordered submission of post-hearing briefs. On December 15, 2010, he filed, under seal, a report recommending Attorney Fisher’s reinstatement subject to certain conditions. The report noted that Attorney Fisher was exonerated of the charges for failure to pay child support, concluded that he had not engaged in the practice of law while suspended and that his disclosures to the OLR and in blogs did not evince lack of candor and did not warrant denial of the reinstatement petition. The referee found that Attorney Fisher had met the requirements for reinstatement imposed by supreme court rule. The referee report noted further that Attorney Fisher’s treating physicians have stated that Attorney Fisher is fit to resume the practice of law. Attorney Fisher subsequently objected to the imposition of the costs of this matter which total $9,362.03 as of January 19, 2011. The OLR requests imposition of the full costs associated with this proceeding. No appeal was filed so the court considers this matter pursuant to SCR 22.19(2).

After considering the petition for reinstatement, the submissions of the parties, the report of the BBE, transcripts of proceedings and the report filed by the referee, the court concludes that Attorney Fisher's petition for reinstatement should be granted, but that certain conditions should be imposed on his practice of law in Wisconsin for a period of two years in order to ensure that Attorney Fisher remains capable of meeting his obligations as a practicing attorney. The court denies Attorney Fisher’s objection to the costs of this proceeding and confirms that documents in the court record containing medical information shall be confidential as ordered herein.

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement is granted, and the license of John H. Fisher, II, to practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date of this order, subject to his compliance with the current CLE requirements as outlined herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for a period of two years from the date of this order, the following conditions shall be imposed on John H. Fisher, II’s practice of law:

A. John H. Fisher, II shall continue treatment with a psychiatrist on a regular, periodic basis as required by the psychiatrist;

B. Attorney Fisher shall submit to the Office of Lawyer Regulation, on a quarterly basis, status reports from his treating psychiatrist discussing his current condition and ongoing treatment. Such reports should state whether, in the professional opinion of the writer, Attorney Fisher remains fit to carry out the obligations of a practicing lawyer to his clients and the courts. Unless the Office of Lawyer Regulation grants for good cause an extension of time, which may be no more than 30 days, the first such report shall be filed no later than the first day of the second month following the date of this order;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney John H. Fisher, II’s objection to the costs of this proceeding is denied. Within 60 days of the date of this order, Attorney Fisher shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. If the costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of John H. Fisher, II to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of the court;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Attorney John H. Fisher, II, shall contact the State Bar of Wisconsin to make arrangements to pay any applicable bar dues and assessments;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that John H. Fisher, II’s motion to seal his response to the OLR’s memorandum filed on May 24, 2010 is denied, however, the following documents from the record are deemed confidential and will be sealed until further order of the court: Item 24 (OLR’s Response to Petition for Reinstatement), Item 26 (Respondent’s Response to OLR’s Reinstatement Response), Item 28 (OLR Post-Hearing Brief), Item 29 (Respondent’s Post-Hearing Brief), Item 31 (Referee Report and Recommendation), Item 33 (duplicate copy of OLR filing), Item 34 (duplicate copy of respondent’s filing), Item 39 (OLR’s Post-Hearing Brief), Item 40 (Fisher’s Post Hearing Brief), Item 45 (October 26, 2010 Transcript), and Item 46 (October 27, 2010 Transcript).

Bradley, J., did not participate.