Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Tracy R. Eichhorn-Hicks
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2019 WI 91 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2018AP2347-D 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: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: September 24, 2019 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: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, SEP 24, 2019 Complainant, 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, Hicks' namely license to a 120-day practice suspension law in of Attorney Wisconsin and Eichhornan 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 Wisconsin consists Eichhorn-Hicks' disciplinary of suspension a one-year history and a in public reprimand, which were also imposed as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in two separate disciplinary Against proceedings. Eichhorn-Hicks, N.W.2d 379. reciprocal In 2012 Specifically, to a one-year re WI Disciplinary 18, the 338 Wis. 2d 753, 809 suspension was one-year suspension imposed Proceedings 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. The public imposed by reprimand the was Supreme reciprocal Court of to a public Minnesota in Id., ¶6. reprimand 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 proceeding. forms of reciprocal Id., ¶¶1-2. discipline in the same 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 requirements. continuing legal education (CLE) reporting 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 certain petition for conditions on reinstatement his Minnesota after law 120 days license, and of 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. OLR of the professional discipline imposed in 2018AP2347-D 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 practice Minnesota law reinstatement in had that after indefinitely state 120 with days and a suspended right had to imposed his right petition a number to for 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 EichhornHicks 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- Attorney 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). 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. note in the stipulation that in situations They also 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 statements state stipulation and that further representations the stipulation by was contains the a parties. not the number The result of parties of plea bargaining, that Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks does not contest the facts and misconduct Eichhorn-Hicks does alleged not by contest the OLR, the and level that of Attorney reciprocal discipline sought by the director of the OLR in this matter. Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks understands the further misconduct represents allegations that against him, he fully 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. agree that suspension the closest imposed by manner the in Supreme which Court to of replicate Minnesota is We the 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. to be satisfied lifted, while before another Some of those conditions will need the disciplinary condition may suspension continue can after be 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 requirements for practice in Minnesota. legal education 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. has complied with those conditions. 2018AP2347-D 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. whether The record of this proceeding does not indicate Attorney reinstated. Eichhorn-Hicks' Minnesota license has been If Attorney Eichhorn-Hicks' Wisconsin license is reinstated before completed, we the will period require of probation Attorney in Minnesota Eichhorn-Hicks to is 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. As 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 EichhornHicks 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. 2 7 No. ¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Tracy R. 2018AP2347-D 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 Attorney to practice law Eichorn-Hicks in Minnesota shall also reinstated. comply with the Moreover, 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. 1 2018AP2347-D
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.
