|
ATTORNEY disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the
stipulation filed by Attorney Peter James
Nickitas and the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) pursuant to SCR 22.12
concerning Attorney Nickitas' admissions of
professional misconduct. The parties
stipulate that the appropriate discipline
to impose for that professional misconduct
is the suspension of Attorney Nickitas'
license to practice law in Wisconsin for a
period of 90 days.
¶2 We approve the stipulation and
adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions
of law. We agree that the seriousness of
Attorney Nickitas' misconduct warrants the
suspension of his license to practice law.
We also accept the parties' stipulation
that a 90-day suspension is appropriate
discipline.
|
|
¶3 Attorney Nickitas was admitted to
the State Bar of Wisconsin on September 19,
1991. He was previously admitted to
practice law in Minnesota in October 1990.
In August 2005 the Minnesota Supreme Court
ordered that Attorney Nickitas' Minnesota
license be suspended for a period of 90
days, effective August 25, 2005. The
suspension arose out of Attorney Nickitas'
violation of Minnesota Rules of
Professional Conduct involving a consensual
sexual relationship with a client; entering
into multiple business transactions with a
client without written disclosure of the
potential conflicts and without providing
for fair and reasonable terms for his
client, including the receipt of at least
$9900 in undocumented, interest-free,
business and personal loans; failing to
file a timely appeal of a final judgment in
a paternity matter and subsequently filing
motions previously decided by the
unappealed judgment in violation of
Minnesota rules.
|
|
¶4 Attorney Nickitas stipulated that
he failed to notify the OLR directly of the
Minnesota Supreme Court's imposition of
public discipline within 20 days of the
effective date of the Minnesota
discipline. The OLR first learned of
Attorney Nickitas' Minnesota suspension
from a source other than Attorney
Nickitas. Attorney Nickitas, however, had
notified the Brown County and Douglas
County circuit courts, as well as the
United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin, and notified
Minnesota's regulatory agency that he was
admitted to practice law in Wisconsin.
Attorney Nickitas admitted that by virtue
of having received public discipline
imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court, he
is subject to reciprocal discipline in
Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22. He
further admitted that by failing to notify
the OLR of the Minnesota license suspension
within 20 days of the effective date, he
violated SCR 22.22(1). Attorney Nickitas
does not claim any of the extenuating
circumstances articulated in SCR 22.22(3)
(a)-(c). In absence of any of those
circumstances, SCR 22.22 provides that this
court shall impose the identical discipline
or license suspension as imposed in the
other jurisdiction.
¶5 The parties jointly request this
court to order a 90-day suspension of
Attorney Nickitas' license to practice law
in Wisconsin and order Attorney Nickitas to
establish that he has fully paid
restitution to his client in the sum of
$9900, plus interest, or that he has
entered into a repayment agreement for the
remaining amount due.
|
|
¶6 The OLR does not seek an order that
Attorney Nickitas be required to complete
the professional responsibility portion of
the bar exam, nor a costs assessment
against Attorney Nickitas in these
proceedings. The parties request that this
court accept the stipulation without the
appointment of a referee and issue a final
disciplinary opinion consistent with their
stipulation. Attorney Nickitas requests
the effective date of his Wisconsin license
suspension be set for August 25, 2005, the
same date his Minnesota license was
suspended, based on the assertion by
affidavit that he did not practice law in
any jurisdiction including Wisconsin during
his Minnesota suspension.
¶7 This court adopts the findings of
fact and conclusions of law to which the
parties have stipulated concerning Attorney
Nickitas' misconduct. We determine the
seriousness of the misconduct warrants the
suspension of Attorney Nickitas' license to
practice law for 90 days. We conclude the
circumstances of this case do not warrant a
retroactive suspension effective date.
¶8 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Attorney Peter James Nickitas to practice
law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period
of 90 days effective the date of this
order.
¶9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within
90 days Attorney Nickitas shall provide
evidence to the Office of Lawyer Regulation
that he has fully paid restitution to his
client in the sum of $9900, plus interest,
or that he has entered into a repayment
agreement for the remaining amount due. If
the evidence is not provided within that
time, the license of Attorney Nickitas
shall remain suspended until further order
of the court.
¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney
Nickitas comply with the provisions of SCR
22.26 concerning the duties of a person
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin
has been suspended if he has not already
done so.
|