|
¶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 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 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. See SCR 22.22(3).
¶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.
|
|