|
ATTORNEY disciplinary
proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. In this reciprocal
discipline matter, we review the report of
the referee, John R. Decker, recommending
the license of Attorney John H. Peiss to
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for
one year and that he pay the full costs of
this disciplinary proceeding. Upon review
of the matter, we accept the recommendation
and impose a one-year license suspension as
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the
Supreme Court of Illinois. We assess the
costs of this disciplinary proceeding
against Attorney Peiss.
¶2 Attorney Peiss was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin on September 13,
1982. Attorney Peiss was previously
admitted to practice law in Illinois on
March 6, 1982. Attorney Peiss's license to
practice law in Wisconsin was suspended on
June 8, 1999, for failure to comply with
continuing legal education requirements.
His license remains suspended.
|
|
¶3 On July 29, 2008, the Office of
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint
against Attorney Peiss seeking a one-year
suspension of his license to practice law in
Wisconsin as discipline reciprocal to that
imposed in Illinois. The complaint states
that on May 16, 2006, the Supreme Court of
Illinois ordered the suspension of Attorney
Peiss's law license for one year. According
to the OLR complaint, Attorney Peiss had not
been previously disciplined in Illinois, and
he had been diagnosed with opiate and
benzodiazepine (sedative) dependence.
¶4 Attorney Peiss's misconduct in
Illinois consisted of conversion and the
unauthorized practice of the law. Attorney
Peiss handled a Texas medical malpractice
claim without being admitted to practice law
in Texas, converted $2,094 in client funds
in the matter, and misrepresented to his
client that the funds were expended on
costs. In addition, Attorney Peiss
notarized a forged signature on a mortgage
for a client and misled the administrator of
the Illinois Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission about having
observed the named signatory execute the
documents.
|
|
¶5 As a result of his misconduct,
Attorney Peiss was found to have engaged in
conversion of funds, commingling of funds,
failure to act with reasonable diligence,
failure to keep a client reasonably
informed, and practicing law in a
jurisdiction where doing so violates the
regulation of the legal profession in that
jurisdiction. Attorney Peiss was also found
to have made a statement of material fact in
connection with the lawyer disciplinary
matter which he knew to be false, and
engaged in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Attorney Peiss's conduct was found to be
prejudicial to the administration of
justice, and tended to defeat the
administration of justice and bring the
courts or the legal profession into
disrepute, all in violation of the Illinois
Rules of Professional Conduct.
|
|
¶6 Attorney Peiss failed to notify the
OLR of the Illinois Supreme Court's May 16,
2006, disciplinary order within 20 days of
its effective date. The OLR first learned
of Attorney Peiss's Illinois disciplinary
ruling in February 2008 through the American
Bar Association Center for Professional
Responsibility. The OLR alleges that by
virtue of having been suspended by the
Supreme Court of Illinois for his violation
of the Illinois Rules of Professional
Conduct, Attorney Peiss is subject to
reciprocal discipline pursuant to SCR 22.22.
¶7 In addition, the OLR states that by
failing to notify the OLR of the suspension
of his Illinois law license within 20 days
of the effective date of that jurisdiction's
imposition of public discipline for
professional misconduct, Attorney Peiss
violated SCR 22.22(1).
|
|
¶8 Attorney Peiss does not dispute that
his Illinois license to practice law was
suspended. However, as an affirmative
defense, he asserted there was such an
infirmity of proof establishing misconduct
in Illinois that this court could not impose
the identical discipline imposed by
Illinois. See SCR 22.22(3)(b).
Pursuant to SCR 22.22(5), the court referred
the matter to a referee for a hearing.
|
|
¶9 On December 15, 2009, the referee
conducted a hearing to consider the OLR's
motion for summary judgment. The OLR filed
an affidavit transmitting the entire
Illinois disciplinary file. Attorney Peiss
moved for a continuance and to disqualify
the OLR's counsel. Attorney Peiss
identified no witnesses and offered no
testimony, affidavits or other documents to
oppose the OLR's motion.
¶10 The referee determined that Attorney
Peiss presented no specific facts showing a
genuine issue for trial. The referee
further determined Attorney Peiss offered no
reasons why he did not present facts by
affidavit essential to justify his
opposition to the summary judgment motion.
The referee concluded that as the party
opposing summary judgment, Attorney Peiss
may not rest upon mere allegations or
denials in his pleadings, but instead
through affidavits or otherwise must set
forth specific facts showing a genuine issue
for trial. See Wis. Stat. § 802.08(3);
SCR
22.16(1).
¶11 The referee concluded the pleadings
and papers on file demonstrated that
Attorney Peiss had full notice of the
charges against him in Illinois and had the
opportunity to be heard in a meaningful time
and manner. In addition, the referee found
that Attorney Peiss was represented by
counsel in the Illinois proceedings. The
referee found Attorney Peiss offered no
evidence to the contrary in this
disciplinary proceeding.
¶12 Referee Decker observed that the
record revealed Attorney Peiss willingly and
voluntarily consented to the imposition of
professional discipline in Illinois with the
full opportunity to consider the evidence
against him, as well as evidence in
mitigation. Referee Decker was satisfied
the evidence against Attorney Peiss in the
Illinois proceeding was well-developed and
freely admitted by Attorney Peiss. Referee
Decker also observed Attorney Peiss made no
evidentiary showing that he was incompetent
to make the representations made in his
affidavit to support the petition to impose
discipline by consent in the Illinois
proceedings, or that he was incompetent to
testify at the March 10, 2006, hearing on
the petition in the Illinois proceedings.
¶13 Referee Decker concluded Attorney
Peiss failed to meet his burden of proof
under SCR 22.22(5) that the imposition of
reciprocal discipline is unwarranted in any
respect enumerated under SCR 22.22(3).
Referee Decker noted Attorney Peiss had not
claimed nor shown that the defense of these
proceedings is made impossible in part due
to any medical condition. Referee Decker
was satisfied that Attorney Peiss failed to
show any disputed issue of fact, or
reasonable conflicting inferences from
uncontested facts, which would warrant the
denial of the OLR's summary judgment
motion. In addition, Referee Decker
concluded Attorney Peiss made no showing
that discipline under Wisconsin precedent
for the misconduct established in the
Illinois proceedings would vary in material
respect from the discipline actually imposed
against him in Illinois. The referee
concluded the OLR is entitled as a matter of
law to the entry of judgment imposing
reciprocal discipline.
¶14 No appeal of the referee's report
and recommendation has been filed.
Consequently, this court reviews the matter
pursuant to SCR 22.17(2) ("If no appeal is
filed timely, the supreme court shall review
the referee's report; adopt, reject or
modify the referee's findings and
conclusions or remand the matter to the
referee for additional findings; and
determine and impose appropriate
discipline.").
¶15 After fully reviewing the matter, we
adopt the findings of fact and conclusions
of law set forth in the referee's report.
We approve the referee's recommendation and
impose the discipline identical to that
imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois.
SCR 22.22(3). We assess full costs against
Attorney Peiss in this disciplinary
proceeding.
¶16 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
John H. Peiss to practice law in Wisconsin
is suspended for one year, effective as of
the date of this order.
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the
extent he has not already done so, John H.
Peiss 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.
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order, John H.
Peiss 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.
Peiss to practice law in Wisconsin shall
remain suspended until further order of this
court.
|