2019 WI 91
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2018AP2347-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST EICHHORN-HICKS
OPINION FILED: September 24, 2019 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE:
JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS: 2019 WI 91 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2018AP2347-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED Complainant, SEP 24, 2019
v. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks,
Respondent.
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 No. 2018AP2347-D
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 2 No. 2018AP2347-D
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 3 No. 2018AP2347-D
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.1 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-
1Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks further stipulated that he had failed to notify the OLR of the suspension of his Minnesota law license within 20 days of its effective date, as required by SCR 22.22(1).
4 No. 2018AP2347-D
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2019 WI 91
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2018AP2347-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST EICHHORN-HICKS
OPINION FILED: September 24, 2019 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE:
JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS: 2019 WI 91 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2018AP2347-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED Complainant, SEP 24, 2019
v. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks,
Respondent.
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 No. 2018AP2347-D
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 2 No. 2018AP2347-D
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 3 No. 2018AP2347-D
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.1 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-
1Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks further stipulated that he had failed to notify the OLR of the suspension of his Minnesota law license within 20 days of its effective date, as required by SCR 22.22(1).
4 No. 2018AP2347-D
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
5 No. 2018AP2347-D
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
6 No. 2018AP2347-D
has complied with those conditions. Once he has provided proof
of compliance, the disciplinary suspension will be lifted.2
¶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.
2As noted above, however, Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' license to practice law in Wisconsin is also currently administratively suspended due to his failure to pay state bar dues, to certify his client trust account information, and to comply with CLE reporting requirements. In addition to satisfying the requirements imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota to have the Wisconsin disciplinary suspension lifted, Attorney Eichhorn- Hicks will also have to satisfy all of the applicable requirements to have the administrative suspension lifted before he will be eligible to practice law in this state.
7 No. 2018AP2347-D
¶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.
8 No. 2018AP2347-D