Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Peter James Nickitas
This text of 2023 WI 78 (Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Peter James Nickitas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
2023 WI 78
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2023AP1294-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Peter James Nickitas, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Peter James Nickitas, Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NICKITAS
OPINION FILED: December 15, 2023 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE:
JUSTICES: Per curiam.
ATTORNEYS: 2023 WI 78 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2023AP1294-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Peter James Nickitas, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED Complainant, DEC 15, 2023 v. Samuel A. Christensen Clerk of Supreme Court Peter James Nickitas,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. This is a reciprocal discipline matter.
On July 21, 2023, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a
complaint and motion, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR)
22.22, asking this court to suspend Attorney Peter James
Nickitas's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of
120 days, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the
Supreme Court of Minnesota. No. 2023AP1294-D
¶2 On September 19, 2023, in response to OLR's motion,
this court issued an order directing Attorney Nickitas to show
cause, in writing, within twenty days, why the imposition of
discipline reciprocal to that imposed in Minnesota would be
unwarranted. On October 3, 2023, Attorney Nickitas filed a
response to this court's motion. Attorney Nickitas does not
object to the imposition of reciprocal discipline, but he
requests that the 120-day suspension be applied retroactively so
as to run coterminous with the term of his Minnesota suspension.
On October 11, 2023, OLR filed a response opposing a retroactive
suspension. Upon review of the matter, we decline to make the
120-day suspension retroactive.
¶3 Attorney Nickitas was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1991. He is also admitted to practice law in
Minnesota. His most recent address on file with the State Bar
of Wisconsin is in Saint Paul, Minnesota.
¶4 Attorney Nickitas's professional disciplinary history
in Wisconsin consists of a 90-day suspension imposed in 2006, reciprocal to a suspension in Minnesota, see In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Nickitas, 2006 WI 20, 289 Wis. 2d 18, 710
N.W.2d 464, and a 30-day suspension imposed in 2014, also
reciprocal to a suspension in Minnesota. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Nickitas, 2014 WI 12, 352 Wis. 2d 641, 843
N.W.2d 438.
¶5 On January 11, 2023, the Supreme Court of Minnesota
suspended Attorney Nickitas's Minnesota law license for 120 days for using profane, abusive, and obscene language while 2 No. 2023AP1294-D
communicating with court staff, making false and disparaging
comments about a judge, and attempting to exert improper
influence on a judge. Attorney Nickitas timely notified OLR of
the Minnesota suspension.
¶6 Supreme Court Rule 22.22(3) provides that this court
"shall impose the identical discipline or license suspension
unless . . . [t]he procedure in the other jurisdiction was so
lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a
deprivation of due process"; "[t]here was such an infirmity of
proof establishing the misconduct . . . that the supreme court
could not accept as final the conclusion in respect to the
misconduct . . ."; or "[t]he misconduct justifies substantially
different discipline in this state."
¶7 Attorney Nickitas has not claimed that any of these
three exceptions exist and, as noted, he does not oppose the
imposition of reciprocal discipline. His only argument is that
the 120-day suspension in Wisconsin should be made retroactive
to the term of the Minnesota suspension because he says he was not practicing law in Wisconsin during that time.
¶8 In opposing the request for a retroactive suspension,
OLR notes that Attorney Nickitas made an identical request when
reciprocal discipline was last imposed in 2014. OLR says that
Attorney Nickitas's purported voluntary cessation of the
practice of law in Wisconsin during the term of his Minnesota
suspension does not warrant retroactive application of the
suspension imposed by this court. As in 2014, we agree with OLR's reasoning. Suspensions are generally not imposed 3 No. 2023AP1294-D
retroactively, and there are no special circumstances present in
this case that would warrant a retroactive suspension.
¶9 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Peter James Nickitas
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 120
days, effective January 19, 2024.
¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Peter James Nickitas shall
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See SCR
22.28(2).
4 No. 2023AP1294-D
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2023 WI 78, 409 Wis. 2d 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-lawyer-regulation-v-peter-james-nickitas-wis-2023.