2010 WI 115
|
Supreme Court of |
|
|
|
|
Case No.: |
2008AP1847-D |
|
Complete Title: |
|
|
|
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against John H. Peiss, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. John H. Peiss, Respondent. |
|
|
|
|
|
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PEISS |
|
|
|
|
Opinion Filed: |
September 17, 2010 |
|
Submitted on Briefs: |
|
|
Oral Argument: |
|
|
|
|
|
Source of Appeal: |
|
|
|
Court: |
|
|
County: |
|
|
Judge: |
|
|
|
|
Justices: |
|
|
|
Concurred: |
|
|
Dissented: |
|
|
Not Participating: |
|
|
|
|
Attorneys: |
|
2010
WI 115
notice
This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. In this reciprocal discipline matter,
we review the report of the referee, John R. Decker, recommending the license
of Attorney John H. Peiss to practice law in
¶2 Attorney Peiss was admitted to practice law in
¶3 On July 29, 2008, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a
complaint against Attorney Peiss seeking a one-year suspension of his license
to practice law in
¶4 Attorney Peiss's misconduct in
¶5 As a result of his misconduct, Attorney Peiss was found to have engaged in conversion of funds, commingling of funds, failure to act with reasonable diligence, failure to keep a client reasonably informed, and practicing law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction. Attorney Peiss was also found to have made a statement of material fact in connection with the lawyer disciplinary matter which he knew to be false, and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Attorney Peiss's conduct was found to be prejudicial to the administration of justice, and tended to defeat the administration of justice and bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute, all in violation of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.
¶6 Attorney Peiss failed to notify the OLR of the Illinois Supreme Court's
May 16, 2006, disciplinary order within 20 days of its effective date. The OLR first learned of Attorney Peiss's
¶7 In addition, the OLR states that by failing to notify the OLR of the suspension of his Illinois law license within 20 days of the effective date of that jurisdiction's imposition of public discipline for professional misconduct, Attorney Peiss violated SCR 22.22(1).
¶8 Attorney Peiss does not dispute that his
¶9 On December 15, 2009, the referee conducted a hearing to consider
the OLR's motion for summary judgment.
The OLR filed an affidavit transmitting the entire
¶10 The referee
determined that Attorney Peiss presented no specific facts showing a genuine
issue for trial. The referee further
determined Attorney Peiss offered no reasons why he did not present facts by
affidavit essential to justify his opposition to the summary judgment
motion. The referee concluded that as
the party opposing summary judgment, Attorney Peiss may not rest upon mere
allegations or denials in his pleadings, but instead through affidavits or
otherwise must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. See
¶11 The
referee concluded the pleadings and papers on file demonstrated that Attorney
Peiss had full notice of the charges against him in
¶12 Referee
Decker observed that the record revealed Attorney Peiss willingly and
voluntarily consented to the imposition of professional discipline in
¶13 Referee
Decker concluded Attorney Peiss failed to meet his burden of proof under SCR
22.22(5) that the imposition of reciprocal discipline is unwarranted in any
respect enumerated under SCR 22.22(3).
Referee Decker noted Attorney Peiss had not claimed nor shown that the
defense of these proceedings is made impossible in part due to any medical
condition. Referee Decker was satisfied
that Attorney Peiss failed to show any disputed issue of fact, or reasonable
conflicting inferences from uncontested facts, which would warrant the denial
of the OLR's summary judgment motion. In
addition, Referee Decker concluded Attorney Peiss made no showing that
discipline under Wisconsin precedent for the misconduct established in the
¶14 No
appeal of the referee's report and recommendation has been filed. Consequently, this court reviews the matter
pursuant to SCR 22.17(2) ("If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or modify the referee's
findings and conclusions or remand the matter to the referee for additional
findings; and determine and impose appropriate discipline.").
¶15 After
fully reviewing the matter, we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of
law set forth in the referee's report.
We approve the referee's recommendation and impose the discipline
identical to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois. SCR 22.22(3). We assess full costs against Attorney Peiss in
this disciplinary proceeding.[2]
¶16 IT
IS ORDERED that the license of John H. Peiss to practice law in Wisconsin is
suspended for one year, effective as of the date of this order.
¶17 IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not already done so, John H. Peiss
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.
¶18 IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, John H. Peiss
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. Peiss to practice law in
[1] SCR 22.22 states, in pertinent part: Reciprocal discipline.
(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for medical incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction shall promptly notify the director of the matter. Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the effective date of the order or judgment of the other jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in this state, the director may file a complaint in the supreme court containing all of the following:
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order from the other jurisdiction.
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of the identical discipline or license suspension by the supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual basis for the claim.
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical discipline or license suspension unless one or more of the following is present:
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process.
(b) There was such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that the supreme court could not accept as final the conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical incapacity.
(c) The misconduct justifies substantially different discipline in this state.
(4) Except as provided in sub. (3), a final adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity shall be conclusive evidence of the attorney's misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a proceeding under this rule.
(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint filed under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16. At the hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the imposition of discipline or license suspension different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction to demonstrate that the imposition of identical discipline or license suspension by the supreme court is unwarranted.
[2] The OLR filed a statement of costs on July 13, 2010, seeking $3,062.54 in costs. Attorney Peiss has filed no objection to the costs.