|
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.
Attorney's license suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. In this reciprocal
discipline matter, Attorney Tracy R.
Eichhorn-Hicks has entered into a
stipulation with the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR). In the stipulation the
parties agree that it would be appropriate
for this court to impose the level of
discipline sought by the OLR as being
reciprocal to the discipline imposed by the
Supreme Court of Minnesota, namely a 120-day
suspension of Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks'
license to practice law in Wisconsin and an
order directing Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks to
comply with the conditions imposed upon him
by the Supreme Court of Minnesota. Having
carefully reviewed the matter, we accept the
stipulation and impose the requested
sanction. Given the fact that Attorney
Eichhorn-Hicks entered into a comprehensive
stipulation before the appointment of a
referee, we do not require him to pay the
costs of this proceeding.
¶2 Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks was admitted
to the practice of law in Minnesota in 1975.
He was subsequently admitted to the practice
of law in this state in 1984. He has
maintained a law practice in Minneapolis.
|
|
¶3 Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks'
disciplinary history in Wisconsin consists
of a one-year suspension and a public
reprimand, which were also imposed as
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the
Supreme Court of Minnesota in two separate
disciplinary proceedings. In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eichhorn-
Hicks, 2012 WI 18, 338 Wis. 2d 753, 809
N.W.2d 379. Specifically, the one-year
suspension was reciprocal to a one-year
suspension imposed in Minnesota in 2000,
which resulted from Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks'
misuse of his client trust account, his
failure to maintain proper trust account
records, his temporary misappropriation of
funds, his false certification on attorney
registration statements, and his false
statements to Minnesota regulatory
authorities. Id., ¶6. The public reprimand
was reciprocal to a public reprimand imposed
by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in 2009
for professional misconduct involving (1)
his receipt of advance fee payments without
a written fee agreement and without placing
those advance fees into his client trust
account and (2) his failure to disclose
during a disciplinary investigation the full
amounts of payments he had received for the
representation of a client. Id., ¶7.
Because the OLR learned of these two
instances of Minnesota discipline at the
same time, this court imposed both forms of
reciprocal discipline in the same
proceeding. Id., ¶¶1-2. Attorney
Eichhorn-
Hicks' license to practice law in Wisconsin
was reinstated in May 2014. In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eichhorn-
Hicks, 2014 WI 26, 353 Wis. 2d 590, 846
N.W.2d 806.
|
|
¶4 Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' license to
practice law in Wisconsin has been
administratively suspended since October 31,
2018, due to his failure to pay state bar
dues and to certify his client trust account
information. Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks was
also administratively suspended on June 5,
2019, for failure to comply with continuing
legal education (CLE) reporting
requirements. His license remains
administratively suspended as of the date of
this opinion.
¶5 In the present action, the OLR's
complaint alleged two counts. First, the
complaint alleged that due to the imposition
of an indefinite suspension of his Minnesota
law license with a right to petition for
reinstatement after 120 days and of certain
conditions on his Minnesota law license,
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks is subject to
reciprocal discipline in this state under
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22. Second, the
complaint alleged that Attorney Eichhorn-
Hicks had failed to notify the OLR of the
professional discipline imposed in
Minnesota, in violation of SCR 22.22(1).
¶6 After Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks was
served with the complaint and before he was
ordered to show cause why reciprocal
discipline should not be imposed, Attorney
Eichhorn-Hicks entered into a comprehensive
stipulation with the OLR. In the
stipulation, Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks
admitted that the Supreme Court of Minnesota
had indefinitely suspended his right to
practice law in that state with a right to
petition for reinstatement after 120 days
and had imposed a number of conditions upon
his reinstatement and his practice of law if
reinstated. That discipline resulted from
the following professional misconduct in
three client matters:
|
|
1. By not stating in a written
fee agreement with a client that an advanced
flat fee could be subject to a refund under
certain conditions, Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks
violated Minnesota Rule of Professional
Conduct (Minn. R. Prof. Conduct) 1.5(b);
|
|
2. By failing to communicate a
plea agreement offer to a client in a criminal
case, Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks violated Minn.
R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, and 1.4(a)
(1)-(3); and
|
|
3. By forging his client's
signature on a medical records release form,
falsely signing his own name as a witness to
the client's signature, and then presenting
the falsely signed form to a third-party,
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks violated Minn. R.
Prof. Conduct 8.4(c)-(d).
¶7 Under SCR 22.22(3), this court shall
impose the identical discipline or license
suspension imposed in another jurisdiction,
unless one or more of three exceptions
apply. In the stipulation, Attorney
Eichhorn-Hicks states that he does not claim
that any such exception applies to his case.
¶8 Given the nature of the Minnesota
suspension, the OLR and Attorney Eichhorn-
Hicks agree that it would be appropriate for
this court to impose a 120-day suspension of
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' license to practice
law in Wisconsin. They also note in the
stipulation that in situations where the
other jurisdiction has imposed a form of
discipline that this court does not impose,
we have ordered the respondent attorney to
comply with the terms and conditions of the
other jurisdiction's disciplinary order.
¶9 The stipulation further contains a
number of statements and representations by
the parties. The parties state that the
stipulation was not the result of plea
bargaining, that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks
does not contest the facts and misconduct
alleged by the OLR, and that Attorney
Eichhorn-Hicks does not contest the level of
reciprocal discipline sought by the director
of the OLR in this matter. Attorney
Eichhorn-Hicks further represents that he
fully understands the misconduct allegations
against him, that he fully understands the
ramifications of the stipulated level of
discipline, that he fully understands his
right to consult with counsel and to contest
this matter, that he is entering into the
stipulation knowingly and voluntarily, and
that his entry into the stipulation
represents his decision not to contest the
misconduct alleged or the discipline sought
by the OLR.
¶10 After carefully reviewing this
matter, we accept the stipulation and impose
the stipulated level of discipline. We
agree that the closest manner in which to
replicate the suspension imposed by the
Supreme Court of Minnesota is to suspend the
license of Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks to
practice law in Wisconsin for a period of
120 days.
¶11 We further require Attorney
Eichhorn-Hicks to comply with the conditions
imposed by the disciplinary order of the
Supreme Court of Minnesota. Some of those
conditions will need to be satisfied before
the disciplinary suspension can be lifted,
while another condition may continue after
his reinstatement.
¶12 Specifically, in order to be
reinstated, the Minnesota court required
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks to successfully
complete the professional responsibility
portion of the written examination required
for admission to practice law in Minnesota
and to satisfy the relevant continuing legal
education requirements for practice in
Minnesota. Thus, in order for Attorney
Eichhorn-Hicks to have his license to
practice law in Wisconsin reinstated, even
after the completion of the 120-day
suspension, he will need to submit proof to
this court that he has complied with those
conditions. Once he has provided proof of
compliance, the disciplinary suspension will
be lifted.
¶13 In addition, the Supreme Court of
Minnesota also placed Attorney Eichhorn-
Hicks on probation for a period of one year
following the reinstatement of his license
to practice law in that state. The record
of this proceeding does not indicate whether
Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' Minnesota license
has been reinstated. If Attorney Eichhorn-
Hicks' Wisconsin license is reinstated
before the period of probation in Minnesota
is completed, we will require Attorney
Eichhorn-Hicks to comply with the terms of
the Minnesota probation order.
¶14 Because this matter was resolved by
a stipulation without the need for
litigation, we will not require Attorney
Eichhorn-Hicks to pay the costs of this
proceeding.
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks to practice law in
Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 120
days, effective the date of this order, as
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Tracy R.
Eichhorn-Hicks shall comply with the terms
of the July 25, 2018 opinion and order of
the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Accordingly, before the 120-day disciplinary
suspension imposed above is lifted, in
addition to complying with the requirements
of SCR 22.28(2), Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks
shall also have complied with the conditions
imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in
its July 25, 2018 order that must be
fulfilled in order to have his license to
practice law in Minnesota reinstated.
Moreover, Attorney Eichorn-Hicks shall also
comply with the order for probation imposed
by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in its
July 25, 2018 order once his license to
practice law in that state is reinstated.
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the
administrative suspensions of Tracy R.
Eichhorn-Hicks' license to practice law in
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay
mandatory bar dues, his failure to complete
his trust account certification, and his
failure to comply with CLE reporting
requirements, will remain in effect until
each reason for the administrative
suspension has been rectified, pursuant to
SCR 22.28(1).
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the
extent he has not already done so, Tracy R.
Eichhorn-Hicks 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.
|