Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael J. Hicks, 877 N.W.2d 848

Michael J. Hicks, admitted 1984, was the subject of an OLR complaint alleging 19 counts of professional misconduct (failures to communicate, lack of diligence, failure to notify of suspensions, practicing while suspended, and failure to timely respond to OLR investigations).
Hicks initially denied most allegations, later pled no contest to all 19 counts and agreed the referee could rely on the complaint’s facts.
Many violations overlapped chronologically with a prior disciplinary matter (Hicks II), in which the court previously imposed a two‑year suspension for similar misconduct; some misconduct in the present case continued into March 2014 after the Hicks II complaint was filed.
Referee found repeated patterns: ignoring appointed clients, failing to keep clients informed, appearing while suspended, failing to notify clients/courts/opposing counsel of suspensions, and failing to timely cooperate with OLR investigations.
Referee recommended a one‑year suspension consecutive to Hicks II’s two‑year suspension and imposition of costs ($2,717.14); no restitution was sought.
The Supreme Court adopted the referee’s findings and recommendation, suspending Hicks’s license one year consecutive to Hicks II and ordering payment of costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint’s allegations (accepted by no contest plea) establish professional misconduct	OLR: facts in complaint support 19 counts (violations of SCR 20:1.3, 20:1.4, 22.26, 22.03, 20:8.4(h))	Hicks: initially denied; later claimed health problems and heavy caseload as defenses	Court accepted no contest plea and found facts support all 19 counts
Appropriate sanction for the 19 counts	OLR: discipline appropriate and costs should be imposed; argued overall misconduct increases discipline beyond Hicks II	Hicks: mitigation based on health and workload; no contest plea but argued for lesser/ concurrent discipline	Court imposed one‑year suspension consecutive to Hicks II and ordered payment of full costs
Whether new suspension should run concurrent with or consecutive to Hicks II	OLR implied extra discipline appropriate given additional counts and continued misconduct into 2014	Hicks argued overlap with Hicks II might support concurrent discipline	Court held some misconduct continued after Hicks II complaint and additional counts were substantial; imposed consecutive one‑year suspension
Whether restitution or other remedies required	OLR did not seek restitution; costs requested	Hicks did not contest costs amount; sought mitigation instead of restitution	Court declined restitution and ordered Hicks to pay full costs of this proceeding

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hicks, 366 Wis. 2d 512 (Wis. 2016) (prior disciplinary opinion imposing two‑year suspension)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Osicka, 353 Wis. 2d 675 (Wis. 2014) (treatment of concurrent vs. consecutive suspensions where misconduct periods overlap)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lucius, 307 Wis. 2d 255 (Wis. 2008) (precedent on suspension length for multiple counts of client neglect)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cooper, 300 Wis. 2d 61 (Wis. 2007) (example of lengthy suspension for numerous misconduct counts)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cooper, 348 Wis. 2d 266 (Wis. 2013) (follow‑up suspension for additional misconduct)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 305 Wis. 2d 71 (Wis. 2007) (standard of review for referee findings and conclusions)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 261 Wis. 2d 45 (Wis. 2003) (court’s independent determination of discipline while considering referee’s recommendation)