Thursday, March 1, 2012

No Excuse

The Wisconsin Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline based on sanctions ordered in Minnesota. The sanctions consist of a public censure and a one-year suspension.

The Minnesota suspension was imposed in 2000.

The court here declined to make the suspension nunc pro tunc to 2000:

We reject Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' argument.  First, whether or not he voluntarily chose not to practice law in Wisconsin during the period of his Minnesota suspension, Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks was not precluded from practicing law in this state due to any disciplinary suspension.  Thus, if we were now to make his Wisconsin suspension retroactive to 2000, he would effectively have avoided any discipline in Wisconsin for his professional misconduct.  Second, the fact that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' Wisconsin license was not suspended simultaneously with his Minnesota license results solely from Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' own failure to notify this state's regulatory authorities of his suspension. (citations omitted) Although Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks asserts that he was unaware of his obligation to do so, his failure to ascertain his legal and ethical obligations to this state is no excuse.

(Mike Frisch)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2012/03/the-wisconsin-supreme-court-imposed-reciprocal-discipline-based-on-sanctions-ordered-in-minnesota-the-sanctions-consist-of-a.html

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0168e839b380970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No Excuse:

Comments

Post a comment