Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael J. Hicks
875 N.W.2d 117
Wis.2016Background
- Michael J. Hicks, admitted 1984, primarily represented indigent criminal defendants by appointment; he had a 2012 public reprimand for prior misconduct.
- OLR investigated multiple client matters (12 clients) and filed motions for temporary suspension after Hicks repeatedly failed to respond to grievance inquiries; the court twice temporarily suspended his license in 2012–2013.
- The referee found Hicks committed 35 counts of professional misconduct spanning lack of diligence, poor communication, failure to cooperate with OLR investigations, practicing during suspension, failure to notify clients/courts, and filing a false affidavit about compliance.
- Hicks filed a short notice of appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court but never filed an opening brief or statement on transcript and did not respond to court notices or OLR motions to dismiss.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the referee’s report on the merits without briefs, adopted the referee’s factual findings as not clearly erroneous, found the misconduct proved, suspended Hicks’s law license for two years, and imposed costs of $10,572.49.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OLR) | Defendant's Argument (Hicks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hicks abandoned his appeal / effect of failure to file brief | OLR moved to dismiss; argued Hicks failed to prosecute his appeal and ignored court orders | Hicks did not file briefs or respond (no argument presented) | Court declined formal dismissal but treated case summary for lack of brief and proceeded on referee record; characterized Hicks’ conduct as abandonment/forfeiture of briefing rights |
| Standard of review for referee report | OLR urged adoption of referee findings and recommended discipline | Hicks offered no appellate briefing to challenge findings | Court will affirm referee’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous and review legal conclusions de novo; proceeded to impose discipline independently |
| Whether Hicks committed professional misconduct (diligence, communication, cooperation, practice during suspension, false affidavit) | OLR alleged multiple SCR violations across 12 matters (SCRs 20:1.3, 20:1.4, 20:3.4(c), 22.03, 22.26, 20:8.4, 20:8.4(c)) | Hicks generally failed to respond to OLR; provided excuses about trial schedule but offered no successful defenses in court | Court adopted referee’s findings: 35 counts proven (client neglect, failures to notify, failure to cooperate, practicing while suspended, false notarization/statements), with some alleged counts not proved or partially proved |
| Appropriate discipline and costs | OLR recommended significant suspension and full costs | Hicks did not contest recommended discipline in briefing | Court imposed a two‑year suspension effective March 18, 2016, required compliance with SCR 22.26 for reinstatement, and ordered payment of costs ($10,572.49) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 332 Wis. 2d 698 (2011) (discussing sanctions available for failure to comply with appellate procedure in disciplinary appeals)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 305 Wis. 2d 71 (2007) (standard of review: referee findings of fact affirmed unless clearly erroneous; conclusions of law reviewed de novo)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 261 Wis. 2d 45 (2003) (court determines appropriate discipline independently of referee recommendation)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lucius, 307 Wis. 2d 255 (2008) (two‑year suspension imposed for multiple client neglect and communication failures)