Donald S. Eisenberg v.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN Case No.: 82-1914-D and 89-0596-D Complete Title of Case: In the matter of the Reinstatement of the license of Donald S. Eisenberg to practice law. REINSTATEMENT OF EISENBERG Opinion Filed: Submitted on Briefs: Oral Argument: May 8, 1998 Source of APPEAL COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: Concurred: Dissented: Not Participating: ATTORNEYS: Abrahamson, C.J., did not participate No. 82-1914-D and 89-0596-D NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 82-1914-D and 89-0596-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of the Reinstatement of the FILED License of DONALD S. EISENBERG to Practice MAY 8, 1998 Law in Wisconsin. Marilyn L. Graves Clerk of Supreme Court Madison, WI ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding; ¶1 PER CURIAM Professional reinstatement denied. On March 27, 1998, the Board of Attorneys Responsibility (Board) filed its report recommending that the petition filed October 6, 1997 by Donald S. Eisenberg for reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin be denied. The district professional responsibility committee, to which the reinstatement petition had been referred for investigation and the holding of a public hearing, had recommended to the Board that the petition be denied. The basis of the Board s and district committee s adverse recommendations are Mr. Eisenberg s failure to satisfy several of the conditions for reinstatement established by court rule by not making restitution for or settling all claims of persons injured or harmed 1 by his professional misconduct,1 by his expressed SCR 22.28(4)(e) and (k) provides: (4) The petition for reinstatement shall show that: . . . 1 No. 82-1914-D and 89-0596-D willingness to comply with the continuing legal education requirements for reinstatement only if he were assured that, having met those requirements, his license would be reinstated,2 and by his stated intention to practice law in Wisconsin only occasionally but maintain a trust account on his own, rather than in association with another lawyer or law firm in the state.3 (e) The petitioner s conduct since the revocation has been exemplary and above reproach. suspension or . . . (k) The petitioner has made restitution or settled all claims from persons injured or harmed by petitioner s misconduct or, if the restitution is not complete, petitioner s explanation of the failure or inability to do so. 2 SCR 22.28(4)(f) provides: . (4) The petition for reinstatement shall show that: . . . (f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with the standards. 3 SCR 22.28(4)(g) provides: (4) The petition for reinstatement shall show that: . . . (g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of the courts. 2 No. 82-1914-D and 89-0596-D ¶2 We determine that Mr. Eisenberg has failed to show that he has satisfied all of the conditions set forth in SCR 22.28 so as to be entitled to the reinstatement of his license to practice law. Accordingly, we deny the petition. ¶3 Mr. Eisenberg s license to practice law was suspended in 1984 for six months as discipline for having represented two criminal defendants whose interests were adverse and for failing to protect the interests of one of those clients in a case in which that client s liberty was at stake.4 Mr Eisenberg twice petitioned for reinstatement following that suspension, each time unsuccessfully: first, he had engaged in the practice of law during the license suspension;5 second, he continued to practice law while his license was suspended and failed to fully describe all of his business activities during the suspension.6 ¶4 Thereafter, Mr. Eisenberg withdrew a third reinstatement petition he had filed, and his fourth petition was remanded to the Board for further consideration because of a pending investigation into his handling of trust account funds. That fourth petition investigation culminated in resulted license became in moot a when the disciplinary revocation.7 Mr. trust account proceeding Eisenberg s that fifth 4 Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 117 Wis. 2d 332, 344 N.W.2d 169 (1984). 5 122 Wis. 2d 627, 363 N.W.2d 430 (1985). 6 126 Wis. 2d 435, 377 N.W.2d 160 (1985). 7 Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 152 Wis. 2d 91, 447 N.W.2d 54 (1989). 3 No. 82-1914-D and 89-0596-D reinstatement petition -- his first following license revocation -- was denied on the ground that he had not made restitution to the client whose criminal case he handled while simultaneously representing another criminal defendant with conflicting interests and for his having made statements on a television show concerning his belief in the guilt of a criminal defendant he had represented.8 ¶5 In attorney, district the made instant objection committee. The proceeding, to the Mr. Board district Eisenberg, his the to by of the committee report and the Board s investigator, in correspondence to the Board s investigator and to Mr. Eisenberg s counsel, respectively, clarified or corrected some of the objections. After the Board filed its report, Attorney Eisenberg s counsel wrote the court on April 6, 1998: Since the District 9 Committee and Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility recommended that Donald denied, Eisenberg s at this Petition time we are for Reinstatement requesting that be the Supreme Court deny the Petition forthwith. Thus, Mr. Eisenberg has elected not to reassert in response to the Board s report and adverse recommendation the objections he previously had made. ¶6 of the IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the reinstatement license of Donald S. Eisenberg to Wisconsin is denied. 8 206 Wis. 2d 264, 556 N.W.2d 749 (1996). 4 practice law in No. 82-1914-D and 89-0596-D ¶7 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, participate. 5 CHIEF JUSTICE, did not 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
