|
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.
|