|
ATTORNEY reinstatement
proceeding. Reinstatement granted.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report
filed by referee Christine Harris Taylor,
recommending that the court reinstate the
license of Jeffrey A. Reitz to practice law
in Wisconsin. After careful review of the
matter, we agree that Attorney Reitz's
license should be reinstated, with
conditions. We also agree with the referee
that Attorney Reitz should be required to
pay the full costs of this proceeding, which
are $2,701.40 as of November 21, 2014.
¶2 Attorney Reitz was licensed to
practice law in Wisconsin in 1981 and
practiced in Milwaukee. His license was
suspended for a period of ten months,
commencing on May 3, 2013, for multiple
counts of misconduct, primarily related to
his mishandling of his trust accounts and
client funds. He had previously been
disciplined on two prior occasions.
¶3 On February 11, 2014, Attorney Reitz
filed a petition for the reinstatement of
his license to practice law in Wisconsin.
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed
a response on July 31, 2014. The OLR did
not oppose the petition for reinstatement
but recommended that conditions be imposed
upon Attorney Reitz's resumption of the
practice of law.
¶4 A public hearing was held in the
matter on September 24, 2014. The referee
filed her report and recommendation on
October 29, 2014.
|
|
¶5 Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.31(1)
provides the standards to be met for
reinstatement. Specifically, the petitioner
must show by clear, satisfactory, and
convincing evidence that he or she has the
moral character to practice law, that his or
her resumption of the practice of law will
not be detrimental to the administration of
justice or subversive to the public
interest, and that he or she has complied
with SCR 22.26 and the terms of the order of
suspension. In addition to these
requirements, SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m) provides
additional requirements that a petition for
reinstatement must show. All of these
additional requirements are effectively
incorporated into SCR 22.31(1).
|
|
¶6 When we review a referee's report
and recommendation, we will adopt the
referee's findings of fact unless they are
clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are
reviewed de novo. See In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43,
675 N.W.2d 747.
¶7 We conclude that the referee's
findings support a determination that
Attorney Reitz has met his burden to
establish by clear, satisfactory, and
convincing evidence that he has met all of
the standards required for reinstatement.
The referee found that Attorney Reitz has
not practiced law during the period of his
suspension; that he has fully complied with
the terms of the order of suspension; that
he has maintained competence and learning in
the law; that his conduct since the
suspension has been exemplary and above
reproach; and that he has a proper
understanding of and attitude towards the
standards that are imposed upon members of
the bar and will act in conformity with
those standards. The referee found that
Attorney Reitz can safely be recommended to
the legal profession, the courts, and the
public as a person fit to be consulted by
others and to represent them and otherwise
act in matters of trust and confidence and
in general to aid in the administration of
justice as a member of the bar and as an
officer of the courts. The referee also
found that Attorney Reitz has fully complied
with the requirements as set forth in SCR
22.26.
¶8 The referee noted that the OLR's
investigation revealed no information that
Attorney Reitz failed to meet his burden to
show that he has met all of the requirements
required for the reinstatement of his
license. The referee also noted that this
court's suspension order provides that, upon
his resumption of the practice of law,
Attorney Reitz's trust account shall be
subject to monitoring by the OLR for a
period of two years. The referee found this
condition of reinstatement to be well-
founded. The OLR had also recommended that,
as an additional condition of reinstatement,
Attorney Reitz be required to work under the
supervision of an attorney under SCR 20:5.1
or, at a minimum, that he be monitored by an
attorney who works in the area of
bankruptcy. The referee said this condition
of reinstatement was unfounded and
unsubstantiated by the testimony presented
at the reinstatement hearing.
¶9 From our review of the matter, we
agree with the referee that having the OLR
monitor Attorney Reitz's trust account for a
period of two years after he resumes the
practice of law is a sufficient condition of
reinstatement and that the additional
condition suggested by the OLR is
unnecessary.
¶10 It is this court's general practice
to assess the full costs of a proceeding
against a respondent. See SCR 22.24(1m).
In order to award something less than full
costs, the court must find extraordinary
circumstances. We find no extraordinary
circumstances here, and we find it
appropriate to assess the full costs of the
proceeding against Attorney Reitz.
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Jeffrey A. Reitz to practice law in
Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date
of this order, subject to the condition that
upon his resumption of the practice of law,
his trust account shall be subject to
monitoring by the Office of Lawyer
Regulation for a period of two years.
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order, Jeffrey A.
Reitz shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding,
which are $2,701.40.
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
compliance with all of the terms of this
order remain a condition of Jeffrey A.
Reitz's license to practice law in Wisconsin.
|