|
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.
Attorney's license suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. This is a reciprocal
discipline matter. On January 14, 2019, the
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a
complaint and motion pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule (SCR) 22.22, requesting this
court suspend Attorney B.C. Fischer's
license to practice law in Wisconsin for a
period of 90 days, and direct him to comply
with the terms of a Minnesota court order,
as reciprocal discipline identical to that
imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
¶2 Attorney Fischer and the OLR
executed a stipulation, in which Attorney
Fischer agrees that he should be suspended
for a period of 90 days as discipline
reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme
Court of Minnesota, and directed to comply
with the conditions imposed by the Minnesota
court. Upon our review, we accept the
stipulation and we suspend Attorney
Fischer's license to practice law in
Wisconsin for a period of 90 days and order
him to abide by the terms imposed by the
Supreme Court of Minnesota. The OLR does
not seek costs. Because the parties were
able to resolve this matter without
appointment of a referee, no costs will be
imposed.
|
|
¶3 Attorney Fischer was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin in 2002. His
Wisconsin law license is currently suspended
for failure to comply with continuing legal
education reporting requirements, for failure
to pay annual bar dues, and for failure to
provide a required trust account
certification.
¶4 Attorney Fischer is also admitted to
practice law in Minnesota under the name Brian
Campbell Fischer. He presently resides in
Duluth, Minnesota.
|
|
¶5 Attorney Fischer's professional
disciplinary history in Wisconsin consists
of a 2014 public reprimand imposed as
discipline reciprocal to that imposed in
Minnesota for professional misconduct. That
misconduct involved failing to supervise a
suspended attorney and assisting a suspended
attorney in the unauthorized practice of
law; failing to provide the Minnesota
Director of the Office of Lawyers
Professional Responsibility with timely
notice of employment of a suspended
attorney; using misleading advertising and
law firm signage and letterhead; neglecting
and failing to communicate with two clients;
failing to comply with a court order;
failing to return client files; failing to
expedite litigation; and noncooperation in
disciplinary investigations. In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fischer,
2014 WI 107, _ Wis. 2d _, 852 N.W.2d
487; In re Disciplinary Action Against
Fischer, 836 N.W.2d 525 (Minn. 2013).
|
|
¶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.
|