Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Peter J. Kovac

2020 WI 47SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2016AP2522-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Peter J. Kovac, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant-Respondent,
v.
Peter J. Kovac,
Respondent-Appellant.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KOVAC
OPINION FILED: May 27, 2020
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
Per Curiam
NOT PARTICIPATING:
REBECCA FRANK DALLET, J.
ATTORNEYS:
For the respondent-appellant, there was a brief filed by Peter
J. Kovac, Milwaukee, WI.
For the complainant-respondent, there was a brief filed by
John T. Payette and The Office of Lawyer Regulation, Madison, WI.
2020 WI 47NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2016AP2522-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Peter J. Kovac, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant-Respondent, MAY 27, 2020
v. Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Supreme Court
Peter J. Kovac,
Respondent-Appellant.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Attorney Peter J. Kovac has appealed
Referee Richard M. Esenberg's recommendation that his license to
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for five months for seven
counts of professional misconduct. The referee also recommended
that Attorney Kovac pay the full costs of this proceeding, which
are $7,401.87 as of December 11, 2019.
¶2 Upon careful review of the matter, we agree with the
referee that Attorney Kovac's professional misconduct warrants a
five-month suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.
No. 2016AP2522-D
We also agree that Attorney Kovac should bear the full costs of
this proceeding. The OLR did not request restitution, and no
restitution is ordered.
¶3 Attorney Kovac was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin
in 1973 and practices in Milwaukee. He has been the subject of
professional discipline on three prior occasions. In 2008, he
agreed to a consensual public reprimand for failure to competently
represent a criminal appellate client; failure to diligently
represent three criminal clients; failure to communicate with
clients; failure to communicate with clients about their appeals'
status; continuing to represent a client after a conflict of
interest arose; and failing to cooperate with the Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) concerning three of the investigations. Public
Reprimand of Peter J. Kovac, No. 2008-05 (electronic copy available
at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002031.html).
¶4 In 2012, Attorney Kovac was publicly reprimanded for
failure to timely respond to a notice of formal investigation from
the OLR. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kovac, 2012
WI 117, 344 Wis. 2d 522, 823 N.W.2d 371.
¶5 In 2016, Attorney Kovac's law license was suspended for
90 days for failing to have a written fee agreement; failing upon
termination of representation to promptly turn over a client file
to successor counsel; failure to file a notice of intent to pursue
post-conviction relief; failure to respond to multiple orders from
the court of appeals; and failing to provide a timely initial
response to a grievance and failing to timely respond to the OLR's
request for a supplemental response to the grievance. See In re
2
No. 2016AP2522-D
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kovac, 2016 WI 62, 370
Wis. 2d 388, 881 N.W.2d 44.
¶6 On December 29, 2016, the OLR filed a complaint against
Attorney Kovac alleging seven counts of misconduct with respect to
three client matters. The complaint also alleged that Attorney
Kovac failed to cooperate with the OLR's investigation into one
grievance.
¶7 The first client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint
involved Attorney Kovac's representation of M.M., who hired
Attorney Kovac to represent him to pursue post-conviction relief.
M.M. was convicted of two felony counts and sentenced in June 2014.
On July 3, 2014, Attorney Kovac filed a notice of intent to pursue
post-conviction relief on M.M.'s behalf and represented him during
the late summer and early fall of 2014.
¶8 After September 2014, Attorney Kovac failed to pursue
post-conviction relief on M.M.'s behalf, failed to respond to his
inquiries as to the status of his appeal, and the time to appeal
expired.
¶9 M.M. requested an extension of time to pursue post-
conviction relief.
¶10 On April 24, 2015, the State Public Defender's office
appointed Attorney Angela Kachelski as M.M.'s appellate counsel.
Between July 31, 2015 and November 2015, Attorney Kachelski made
numerous telephone calls and written attempts to contact Attorney
Kovac to obtain M.M.'s file, but Attorney Kovac failed to respond.
M.M. personally sent letters to Attorney Kovac requesting that his
3
No. 2016AP2522-D
file be turned over to Attorney Kachelski, but Attorney Kovac
failed to respond.
¶11 In August 2015 and October 2015, Attorney Kachelski
filed motions to extend time to file notice of appeal or post-
conviction motions with the court of appeals. That court extended
the deadline for M.M. to file a post-conviction motion or a notice
of appeal to December 11, 2015.
¶12 On November 24, 2015, Attorney Kachelski received a
message from Attorney Kovac saying he would get the file materials
to her "this week." Attorney Kovac failed to turn over the file.
¶13 On November 30, 2015, Attorney Kachelski left Attorney
Kovac a voicemail message saying she could pick up the file from
him any time or any place. Attorney Kovac failed to respond.
¶14 On December 2, 2015, Attorney Kachelski called Attorney
Kovac, but his voicemail box was full and no longer accepting
messages.
¶15 Attorney Kachelski filed four more notices of motion to
extend time to file a notice of appeal or post-conviction motion
with the court of appeals between December 2015 and June 2016.
During that time period, Attorney Kachelski made numerous attempts
to obtain the file from Attorney Kovac, but Attorney Kovac failed
to turn over the file.
¶16 Attorney Kachelski filed a grievance with the OLR
against Attorney Kovac. On November 20, 2015 and January 6, 2016,
the OLR provided Attorney Kovac with notice of the grievance and
requested a response. Attorney Kovac failed to respond.
4
No. 2016AP2522-D
¶17 On March 9, 2016, the OLR filed a notice of motion and
motion requesting an order to show cause as to why Attorney Kovac's
license should not be suspended for willful failure to cooperate
with the OLR's investigation of the grievance. This court issued
an order to show cause on March 10, 2016 requiring Attorney Kovac
to show in writing within 20 days why the OLR's motion should not
be granted. On April 25, 2016, Attorney Kovac provided the OLR
with an initial response to the grievance so the OLR withdrew its
motion. In that response, Attorney Kovac said he would get the
file to Attorney Kachelski, but he failed to do so.
¶18 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of
misconduct with respect to Attorney Kovac's representation of
M.M.:
Count 1: Upon termination of representation, in failing
to deliver his file to successor counsel, despite
repeated requests that he do so, Attorney Kovac violated
SCR 20:1.16(d).1
Count 2: By failing to provide the OLR with a timely
written response to the grievance in the M.M. matter,
1 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall
take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to
protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable
notice to the client, allowing time for employment of
other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which
the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment
of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred.
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to
the extent permitted by other law.
5
No. 2016AP2522-D
Attorney Kovac violated 22.03(2)2 and SCR 22.03(6),3
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).4
¶19 The second client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint
arose out of Attorney Kovac's representation of E.B., who hired
Attorney Kovac to represent him on sexual assault charges. In
January 2010, E.B. was sentenced to 20 years in prison. He paid
Attorney Kovac $5,000 to represent him in an appeal.
¶20 On February 12, 2012, Attorney Kovac filed a notice of
intent to pursue post-conviction relief for sentence reduction.
Attorney Kovac failed to file a motion in circuit court or an
appeal relating to post-conviction relief for sentence reduction.
2 SCR 22.03(2) provides:
Upon commencing an investigation, the director
shall notify the respondent of the matter being
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the
investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts and
circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a
request for a written response. The director may allow
additional time to respond. Following receipt of the
response, the director may conduct further investigation
and may compel the respondent to answer questions,
furnish documents, and present any information deemed
relevant to the investigation.
3 SCR 22.03(6) provides: "In the course of the investigation,
the respondent's wilful failure to provide relevant information,
to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents and the
respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure are misconduct,
regardless of the merits of the matters asserted in the grievance."
4 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides: "It is professional misconduct for
a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a grievance
filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required by SCR
21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or SCR
22.04(1)."
6
No. 2016AP2522-D
¶21 E.B. filed a grievance against Attorney Kovac. In
letters of September 1, 2015 and October 14, 2015, the OLR provided
Attorney Kovac with a notice of the grievance and requested a
response. Attorney Kovac failed to respond.
¶22 In January 2016, the OLR filed a notice of motion and
motion requesting an order to show cause as to why Attorney Kovac's
license should not be suspended for willful failure to cooperate
with the OLR's investigation of the grievance. This court issued
an order to show cause and subsequently granted Attorney Kovac an
extension of time to file his response. In February 2016, Attorney
Kovac provided the OLR with an initial response to the E.B.
grievance so the OLR withdrew its motion. In July 2016, the OLR
requested additional information from Attorney Kovac in the E.B.
matter, but Attorney Kovac failed to respond.
¶23 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of
misconduct with respect to Attorney Kovac's handling of the E.B.
matter:
Count 3: After filing a notice of intent to pursue post-
conviction relief, by thereafter failing to pursue post-
conviction relief in circuit court or an appeal,
Attorney Kovac violated SCR 20:1.3.5
Count 4: By failing to provide the OLR with timely
written responses to the grievance, Attorney Kovac
violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via
SCR 20:8.4(h).
¶24 The third client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint
arose out of Attorney Kovac's representation of R.M. From April
5 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client."
7
No. 2016AP2522-D
2010 until January 2012, Attorney Kovac represented R.M. in a
criminal matter. In December 2011, R.M. was convicted of felony
murder and sentenced to life in prison.
¶25 Attorney Steven Zaleski represented R.M. in the appeal
of the conviction. In September 2013, the court of appeals
reversed and remanded the case to the circuit court. R.M. hired
Attorney Kovac to represent him at the new trial. Attorney Kovac
came into possession of transcripts obtained by Attorney Zaleski
during the first appeal.
¶26 On remand, R.M. entered a plea and was sentenced to 25
years in prison in September of 2014. Attorney Zaleski represented
R.M. during his second appeal. R.M. and his mother contacted
Attorney Kovac in writing and by telephone to request the
transcripts from the first appeal, but Attorney Kovac failed to
respond.
¶27 R.M. filed a grievance against Attorney Kovac. In
February 17, 2016 and April 12, 2016, the OLR sent letters to
Attorney Kovac with notice of the grievance and requested a
response. In an April 22, 2016 response, Attorney Kovac told the
OLR he would forward the transcripts to R.M., but he failed to do
so.
¶28 In letters to the OLR dated May 3, May 9, June 6, and
June 30, 2016, R.M. informed the OLR he had not received the
transcripts.
¶29 In a July 1, 2016 letter, the OLR requested that Attorney
Kovac inform the OLR whether he had sent the transcripts to R.M.
and the date on which he sent them. Attorney Kovac failed to
8
No. 2016AP2522-D
respond. To date, Attorney Kovac has failed to provide the
transcripts to R.M.
¶30 The OLR's complaint alleged the following count of
misconduct with respect to Attorney Kovac's handling of the R.M.
matter:
Count 5: Upon termination of representation, in failing
to deliver the trial transcripts to R.M., Attorney Kovac
violated SCR 20:1.16(d).
¶31 The final two counts detailed in the OLR's complaint
involved Attorney Kovac's failure to cooperate in the
investigation of a grievance filed by V.Y. V.Y. had signed a fee
agreement in December 2014 whereby Attorney Kovac was to represent
him in three criminal matters.
¶32 V.Y. filed a grievance against Attorney Kovac in
February of 2015. In May 20 and July 1, 2015 letters, the OLR
provided Attorney Kovac with notice of the investigation and
requested a response. Attorney Kovac failed to respond.
¶33 On July 30, 2015, the OLR filed a notice of motion and
motion requesting an order to show cause as to why Attorney Kovac's
license should be not suspended for willful failure to cooperate
with the OLR's investigation of the V.Y. grievance. This court
issued an order to show cause. In August 2015, Attorney Kovac
submitted an initial response, and the OLR withdrew its motion.
¶34 In a February 3, 2016 letter, the OLR requested Attorney
Kovac to advise when he had turned over V.Y.'s files to successor
counsel. Attorney Kovac failed to respond.
9
No. 2016AP2522-D
¶35 In March 2016, the OLR filed a second notice of motion
and motion requesting an order to show cause as to why Attorney
Kovac's license should not be suspended for his willful failure to
cooperate with investigation of the grievance. This court issued
an order to show cause. In April 2016, Attorney Kovac submitted
a supplemental written response and the OLR withdrew its motion.
¶36 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of
misconduct with respect to Attorney Kovac's failure to respond to
V.Y.'s grievance:
Count 6: By failing to provide the OLR with a timely
written response to the grievance, Attorney Kovac
violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via
SCR 20:8.4(h).
Count 7: By failing to provide a timely written response
to the OLR's February 3, 2016 request for additional
information relating to the investigation, Attorney
Kovac violated SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR
20:8.4(h).
¶37 A referee was appointed on February 1, 2017. The OLR
filed a timely motion for substitution of the referee, which was
granted. Referee Esenberg was appointed on April 3, 2017. By the
time Referee Esenberg was appointed, the OLR had filed a motion
for default judgment because Attorney Kovac had failed to file an
answer to the complaint. Referee Esenberg issued an order giving
Attorney Kovac until May 26, 2017 to file an answer. Attorney
Kovac did file an answer on May 24, 2017. The answer admitted
most of the allegations in the complaint and offered various
mitigating circumstances.
10
No. 2016AP2522-D
¶38 In August 2017, the OLR moved for judgment on the
pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Referee
Esenberg established a briefing schedule which required Attorney
Kovac to file a response by September 18, 2017. He failed to do
so.
¶39 On November 14, 2017, Referee Esenberg issued an interim
report finding that the OLR had met its burden of proof with
respect to all of the counts in the complaint with the exception
of Count 3.
¶40 In June 2018, the referee entered an order setting a
scheduling conference. The referee advised Attorney Kovac that if
his health precluded his participating in the proceeding, a proper
avenue for relief might be SCR 22.16(4).6 At a July 5, 2018
scheduling conference, Attorney Kovac agreed he would provide a
statement by July 16, 2018 on whether he continued to dispute the
allegations of Count 3. He also agreed to provide written
statements from any witnesses he intended to call with respect to
mitigation or sanctions by September 4, 2018. Attorney Kovac
failed to comply with that order.
6 SCR 22.16(4) provides:
(a) If in the course of the proceeding the
respondent claims to have a medical incapacity that
makes the defense of the proceeding impossible, the
referee shall conduct a hearing and make findings
concerning whether a medical incapacity makes defense of
the proceeding impossible. The referee may order the
examination of the respondent by qualified medical or
psychological experts.
11
No. 2016AP2522-D
¶41 In October 2018, the OLR filed a notice of motion and
motion for default judgment as to Count 3. The referee directed
Attorney Kovac to respond no later than October 22, 2018 and again
asked if he intended to contest Count 3 on the merits.
¶42 On October 23, 2018, Attorney Kovac hand delivered a
letter to the referee apologizing for failing to comply with the
scheduling order and admitting that his failure to do so had been
disrespectful and frustrated the process. Attorney Kovac stated
he did not wish to bear the expense of an evidentiary hearing and
hoped that the referee's consideration of Count 3 would be limited
to the complaint and statements of "V.Y.'s successor counsel."
Attorney Kovac apparently was confused with respect to which client
was the subject of Count 3.
¶43 On November 7, 2018, Referee Esenberg issued a second
interim report. In the report the referee said that Attorney Kovac
failed to clearly indicate whether he intended to contest Count 3,
so Count 3 would be addressed at an evidentiary hearing. The
hearing was held on November 12, 2018. The referee issued his
final report on July 23, 2019. In that report the referee found
that Attorney Kovac did commit the misconduct alleged in Count 3
of the OLR's complaint.
¶44 As to the appropriate discipline for the seven counts of
misconduct, the referee concluded that the five-month suspension
requested by the OLR was appropriate. The referee said that
Attorney Kovac's conduct showed either a disregard for, or an
inability to comply with, his obligations to his clients. The
referee said Attorney Kovac was "astonishingly cavalier" about his
12
No. 2016AP2522-D
obligations to cooperate with the OLR; he was dilatory in pursing
post-conviction relief on behalf of M.M. and E.B.; and he did not
cooperate with successor counsel in the R.M. case.
¶45 The referee noted that this is Attorney Kovac's fourth
disciplinary matter; all have come in the last ten years; and the
prior matters involved allegations of inattention, neglect, and
failure to cooperate with the OLR.
¶46 The referee said Attorney Kovac concedes that he has a
problem with organization and procrastination but believes that he
should not be sanctioned but rather should be helped. Attorney
Kovac says someone should be "provided" to help him out. The
referee said:
I have no doubt that there are many brilliant and capable
attorneys who need someone to keep them on track. But
it is not the obligation of this Court, OLR or the public
to provide that assistance. If Attorney Kovac needed
help with organization, it was his obligation to get it.
¶47 The referee also noted that Attorney Kovac pointed to
various health issues, most notably a serious problem with diabetes
that has significantly improved. The referee said again that an
attorney whose health is impaired has an obligation to seek
whatever assistance is required or to limit his or her activities
so as to protect the public.
¶48 In recommending a five-month suspension, the referee
said he was mindful that Attorney Kovac will not need a
reinstatement hearing to regain his license and this will give him
a chance to return to practice without undue delay while still
retaining a measure of progressive discipline.
13
No. 2016AP2522-D
¶49 Attorney Kovac has appealed. Although his brief does
not identify any specific issues, he asserts that a five-month
suspension is an unduly harsh sanction. He points out that he has
never been accused of misappropriating funds, dishonesty, trust
account violations, or criminal or immoral conduct. He says most
of the complaints against him have been for being dilatory in post-
conviction matters and not timely cooperating with the OLR. He
argues that while his clients may have had their appeals delayed,
their appellate rights "were eventually honored."
¶50 Attorney Kovac says that his multiple health issues
contributed to his dilatory conduct. He says he has now made
substantial changes in his lifestyle and has overcome many of his
health problems. He says he does not dispute that he has
rightfully been found to have violated Supreme Court Rules, nor
does he claim the rules he did violate are inconsequential. He
says he recognizes that he has a serious procrastination problem,
and he hopes that this court will require that, in order for him
to keep his law license, he be required to have the assistance of
a lawyer monitor to ensure that he keeps current on all time
deadlines for his legal work.
¶51 Attorney Kovac says the OLR uncompromisingly takes the
position that sanctions must be increased with each new complaint
it files against a lawyer. He says that rationale should not apply
in cases such as this one where the alleged misconduct occurred
before the previous sanction was imposed because in such situations
the lawyer will not have had the necessary prior notice. He says
in this case the misconduct involving clients occurred before his
14
No. 2016AP2522-D
90-day suspension was imposed in 2016. He does say, "this argument
is admittedly weakened by the fact that some of the dilatory
conduct during the investigation by the Office of Lawyer Regulation
did occur after the effective date of the previous sanction."
Attorney Kovac does not suggest the sanction he believes would be
appropriate.
¶52 The OLR asserts that the referee's recommended five-
month suspension is the appropriate sanction for Attorney Kovac's
seven counts of misconduct. It notes that Attorney Kovac does not
dispute that he committed the misconduct alleged in the OLR's
complaint. The OLR says alleged health concerns do not mitigate
the misconduct or weigh in favor of a lesser sanction. The OLR
points out that, as the referee observed, despite claiming that
his health concerns had resolved, Attorney Kovac continued his
pattern of dilatory behavior in his defense of this disciplinary
proceeding and that continued conduct undermined any argument that
improved health had put him on the straight and narrow path.
¶53 The OLR goes on to say that there is no evidence that
Attorney Kovac's purposed health concerns caused any of the
misconduct. It notes the only evidence regarding health concerns
comes from Attorney Kovac's own self-serving discussion of his
alleged condition. It notes this court has expressly held that a
party's own say-so is not enough to support mitigation of the
sanction in attorney disciplinary cases. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Alfredson, 2019 WI 17, ¶32, 385 Wis. 2d 565,
923 N.W.2d 869. The OLR says since Attorney Kovac presented no
reliable independent evidence to support a causal link between his
15
No. 2016AP2522-D
health concerns and his misconduct, his alleged medical condition
would not mitigate the sanction in this case even if his recent
conduct showed improved diligence and cooperation, which it does
not.
¶54 The OLR says the referee properly invoked this court's
longstanding practice of progressive discipline when recommending
a five-month suspension. The OLR notes that the referee
acknowledged Attorney Kovac's argument that his misconduct in this
case pre-dated the 2016 suspension, but the referee correctly
observed that Attorney Kovac's argument would have more force were
it not for the ongoing failure to cooperate with the OLR and his
lack of diligence in this case.
¶55 The OLR says the misconduct at issue here is serious and
extensive. It says because prior public reprimands and a shorter
license suspension have failed to impress upon Attorney Kovac the
seriousness of his misconduct, a longer suspension is necessary to
protect the public, the courts, and the legal system from his
continued repetition of that misconduct.
¶56 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless clearly
erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269
Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. The court may impose whatever sanction
it sees fit, regardless of the referee's recommendation. See In
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. Upon careful review of the matter, we
adopt the referee's findings of fact and agree with the referee's
16
No. 2016AP2522-D
conclusions of law that Attorney Kovac violated the Supreme Court
Rules referenced above.
¶57 We also agree with the referee that a five-month
suspension of Attorney Kovac's license to practice law in Wisconsin
is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct. Even though the
neglect of the various client matters occurred prior to Attorney
Kovac's 90-day suspension in 2016, as the referee and the OLR both
note, Attorney Kovac continued to display a lack of diligence and
lack of cooperation while the OLR was attempting to investigate
the various grievances that had been filed against him. In
imposing the 90-day suspension in 2016, we stated:
We share the referee's concern that, in spite of
receiving two prior public reprimands for, among other
things, failing to diligently represent and communicate
with criminal clients and failing to cooperate with the
OLR's investigation into pending grievances, Attorney
Kovac has continued to engage in the same type of
behavior that led to the public reprimands.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kovac, 370 Wis. 2d 388,
¶22. Just as the two public reprimands failed to change Attorney
Kovac's habit of procrastination and dilatory practices, the 90-
day suspension also apparently failed to have its intended effect.
We agree with the referee that a more severe sanction is warranted
this time around.
¶58 Although no two disciplinary proceedings are precisely
the same, we find that this fact situation is somewhat analogous
to In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Berlin, 2008 WI 4, 306
Wis. 2d 288, 743 N.W.2d 683. In that case the attorney was
suspended for six months for eight counts of misconduct relating
17
No. 2016AP2522-D
to two client matters. The misconduct included failure to
cooperate with the OLR, failure to act with reasonable diligence,
failure to adequately communicate with a client, and making
misrepresentations to the OLR. In addition, Attorney Berlin made
misrepresentations to a probate court. Attorney Berlin had a prior
public reprimand. In this case, Attorney Kovac's misconduct did
not include dishonesty. Thus, a slightly lesser sanction than
that imposed on Attorney Berlin is appropriate.
¶59 Finally, we agree with the referee that Attorney Kovac
should pay the full costs of this proceeding.
¶60 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Peter J. Kovac to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of five months,
effective July 8, 2020.
¶61 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of
this order, Peter J. Kovac shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $7,401.87 as of
December 11, 2019.
¶62 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Peter J. Kovac shall comply
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an
attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended.
¶63 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See
SCR 22.28(2).
18
No. 2016AP2522-D.rfd
¶64 REBECCA FRANK DALLET, J. (dissenting). While I
recognize that this court normally adheres to the concept of
progressive discipline, based upon the nature and timing of the
misconduct in this case, I would depart from that practice here
and impose a 90-day suspension.
¶65 Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
1
No. 2016AP2522-D.rfd
1