Office of Lawyer Regulation v. B. C. Fischer
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2022 WI 10 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2021AP1297-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against B. C. Fischer, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. B. C. Fischer, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST FISCHER OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: Per Curiam. NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: February 22, 2022 2022 WI 10 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2021AP1297-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against B.C. Fischer, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, FEB 22, 2022 v. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court B.C. Fischer, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended. ¶1 PER CURIAM. In this reciprocal discipline matter, governed by Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22,1 Attorney B.C. Fischer 1 SCR 22.22 provides: (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 No. 2021AP1297-D 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 establishing the misconduct the supreme court could conclusion in respect to incapacity. an infirmity of proof or medical incapacity that not accept as final the the misconduct or medical (c) The misconduct justifies different discipline in this state. substantially (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 2 No. 2021AP1297-D 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 on Attorney Fischer by the Minnesota Supreme Court; namely, a 120day suspension of Attorney Fischer's license to practice law in Wisconsin. ¶2 After reviewing the matter, we approve the stipulation and impose the stipulated reciprocal discipline. Additionally, although the stipulation does not expressly request that we require Attorney Fischer to comply with the conditions imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court's disciplinary order, we impose those conditions here, consistent with the requirement in SCR 22.22(3) that this court impose "the identical discipline" as imposed by the other jurisdiction. Given the fact that Attorney Fischer entered into a comprehensive stipulation before the appointment of a referee, we do not require him to pay the costs of this proceeding. ¶3 Attorney Wisconsin in 2002. Fischer was admitted to practice law in He was admitted to practice law in Minnesota demonstrate that the imposition of identical discipline or license suspension by the supreme court is unwarranted. (6) If the discipline or license suspension imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the stay expires. 3 No. in 2003 under the name Brian Campbell Fischer. 2021AP1297-D The address he has on file with the State Bar of Wisconsin is in Duluth, Minnesota. ¶4 Attorney Fischer's administrative suspension. 2016, Attorney Wisconsin law license is under Specifically, effective October 31, Fischer's Wisconsin law license was administratively suspended for failure to pay bar dues and to provide a required trust account certification. 2017, Attorney Fischer's Wisconsin Effective May 31, law license was administratively suspended for failure to comply with continuing legal education reporting requirements. ¶5 Attorney Fischer's professional disciplinary history in Wisconsin includes a 2014 public reprimand imposed as discipline reciprocal to misconduct. that imposed in Minnesota for professional That misconduct involved failing to supervise a suspended attorney and assisting a suspended attorney in the unauthorized practice of law; failing to provide the Minnesota Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility with timely notice misleading of employment advertising and of law a suspended firm signage attorney; and using letterhead; neglecting and failing to communicate with two clients; failing to comply with a court order; failing to return client files; failing to expedite litigation; investigations. Fischer, 2014 addition, reciprocal in to See WI In 107, 2019, that and re ___ this noncooperation Disciplinary Wis. 2d ___, court imposed in imposed Minnesota in disciplinary Proceedings 852 a Against N.W.2d 487. 90-day for In suspension misconduct that involved neglecting six client matters, failing to communicate 4 No. 2021AP1297-D with those clients, making false statements to a client, failing to return a client's file, disciplinary investigations. and failing to cooperate with See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fischer, 2019 WI 36, 386 Wis. 2d 202, 925 N.W.2d 536. ¶6 On October 20, 2020, the Minnesota Supreme Court indefinitely suspended Attorney Fischer's right to practice law in that state with a right to petition for reinstatement after 120 days. upon The Minnesota Supreme Court also imposed certain conditions Attorney Minnesota Fischer's Supreme professional reinstatement, Court's misconduct discussed disciplinary that involved order failing below. The resulted from to adequately communicate with a client, failing to diligently pursue a client's case, failing to inform the client of his suspension, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, failing to comply with the terms of probation, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. ¶7 On July 27, 2021, the OLR filed a complaint and motion pursuant to SCR 22.22, alleging that Attorney Fischer is subject to reciprocal discipline and that, by failing to notify the OLR of his October 20, 2020 suspension in Minnesota for professional misconduct within 20 days of the effective date of its imposition, Attorney Fischer violated SCR 22.22(1). The OLR asked this court to suspend Attorney Fischer's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 120 days as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court. ¶8 In a stipulation filed December 14, 2021, Attorney Fischer admitted that the Minnesota Supreme Court had indefinitely 5 No. 2021AP1297-D suspended his right to practice law in that state with a right to petition for reinstatement after 120 days. ¶9 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 Fischer states that he does not claim that any such exception applies to his case. ¶10 Given the nature of the Minnesota suspension, the OLR and Attorney Fischer agree that it would be appropriate for this court to impose a 120-day suspension of Attorney Fischer's license to practice law in Wisconsin. 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 Fischer does not contest the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR, and that Attorney Fischer does not contest the level of reciprocal discipline sought by the director of the OLR in this matter. Attorney Fischer 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 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. ¶11 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 6 No. 2021AP1297-D imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court is to suspend the license of Attorney Fischer to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 120 days. ¶12 There is another matter beyond the imposition of a 120- day suspension that must be addressed. Court's disciplinary reinstated, Attorney order provided Fischer must The Minnesota Supreme that, in order successfully to complete be 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. The parties' stipulation says nothing about this requirement. ¶13 the However, the stipulation does state that, by virtue of Minnesota suspension, Attorney Fischer reciprocal discipline pursuant to SCR 22.22. is subject to Subsection (3) of that rule requires this court to impose "the identical discipline." Imposing only a suspension when the other jurisdiction has imposed additional forms of discipline would fail imposition of "the identical discipline." to constitute the See generally In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stoltman, 2018 WI 91, ¶11, 383 Wis. 2d 484, 915 N.W.2d 176 (noting that, where the other jurisdiction has imposed a form of discipline that this court does not impose, this court has ordered the respondent attorney to comply with the terms and conditions of the disciplinary order in the other jurisdiction in order to make the discipline identical under SCR 22.22). By stipulating that he is subject to reciprocal discipline under SCR 22.22, Attorney Fischer is acknowledging that 7 No. 2021AP1297-D this court may order him to comply with the conditions imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court's disciplinary order. Thus, in order for Attorney Fischer to have his Wisconsin law license reinstated, even after the completion of the 120-day suspension, he will need to submit proof to this court that he has complied with the conditions imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court's disciplinary order. Once he has provided proof of compliance, the disciplinary suspension will be lifted, although his administrative suspensions will remain in effect until each reason for the administrative suspension has been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 2019 WI 91, ¶¶12, 16, 388 Wis. 2d 478, 933 N.W.2d 106 (imposing, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed in Minnesota, a 120-day suspension with reinstatement professional examination conditioned on responsibility and satisfaction successful portion of of completion the Minnesota's of the Minnesota bar continuing legal education requirements). ¶14 Because this matter was resolved by a stipulation without the need for litigation, we will not require Attorney Fischer to pay the costs of this proceeding. ¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of B.C. Fischer 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 Minnesota Supreme Court. ¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that B.C. Fischer shall comply with the terms of the October 20, 2020 order of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Accordingly, before 8 the 120-day disciplinary No. 2021AP1297-D suspension imposed above is lifted, in addition to complying with the requirements of SCR 22.28(2), B.C. Fischer shall also have complied with the conditions imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in its October 20, 2020 order that must be fulfilled in order to have his license to practice law in Minnesota reinstated. ¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative suspensions of B.C. Fischer's 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, B.C. Fischer 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. 9 No. 1 2021AP1297-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.
