Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Tim Osicka
353 Wis. 2d 675
Wis.2014Background
- Tim Osicka, admitted 1986, had multiple prior disciplines (public reprimands 2002, 2009, 2010) and his license was administratively suspended June 6, 2011 for CLE noncompliance.
- In May–June 2011 Osicka filed a letter brief in a pending divorce after his license was suspended and did not notify clients, courts, or opposing counsel, nor file the SCR 22.26 affidavit.
- OLR sent repeated requests for information (July, Sept., Nov. 2011); Osicka failed to respond, prompting a temporary suspension Feb 23, 2012 for noncooperation; suspension remained in effect.
- OLR filed a disciplinary complaint in Feb 2013 alleging three counts: practicing while suspended; failing required notice/affidavit; and failing to cooperate with OLR. Osicka eventually entered a stipulation and pled no contest to the facts.
- A separate earlier disciplinary proceeding (Case No. 2012AP60-D) based on related misconduct resulted in a 60-day suspension; the referee and court considered whether this 60-day suspension should run concurrently or consecutively with the present action.
- The referee recommended a 60-day suspension concurrent with the other case and full costs; the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted that recommendation and ordered suspension effective June 6, 2014 and payment of costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Osicka practice law while suspended? | OLR: filing the June 2011 letter brief constituted practicing while suspended in violation of SCR 31.10 enforced by SCR 20:8.4(f). | Osicka: filing was necessary to protect client interests and permitted by SCR 22.26(1)(d); at most a technical violation. | Held: Violation proven; filing while suspended was not justified and violated rules. |
| Did Osicka fail to provide required notices and affidavit after suspension? | OLR: he failed to notify clients/courts/opposing counsel and failed to file the SCR 22.26 affidavit. | Osicka: closed his practice and there was minimal harm; duties were less burdensome. | Held: Violation proven; failure to comply with SCR 22.26(1)–(2) sustained. |
| Did Osicka willfully fail to cooperate with OLR investigation? | OLR: he ignored multiple requests and thus violated SCR 22.03(2) & (6) enforced by SCR 20:8.4(h). | Osicka: eventually responded in Sept. 2012 and had closed his practice; asserted mitigating circumstances. | Held: Violation proven; failure to cooperate warranted discipline and temporary suspension. |
| Appropriate discipline and costs; concurrent vs consecutive suspensions? | OLR: sought discipline for each complaint (including progressive discipline) and costs of this proceeding. | Osicka/referee: allegations could have been in one complaint; consecutive suspensions would be unfair; modest costs should be imposed. | Held: 60-day suspension appropriate and ordered concurrent with Case No. 2012AP60-D; Osicka must pay full costs of this proceeding. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Engelbrecht, 239 Wis. 2d 236, 618 N.W.2d 743 (2000) (60-day suspension for practicing while administratively suspended and related misconduct)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Osicka, 353 Wis. 2d 656, 847 N.W.2d 343 (2014) (companion decision imposing discipline for related misconduct)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125 (2007) (standard of review for referee findings and legal conclusions)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686 (2003) (court determines appropriate discipline independently of referee)
- OLR v. Johns, 353 Wis. 2d 746, 847 N.W.2d 179 (2014) (discussion of OLR practice and systemic review concerns)