Preview:

2011 WI 47
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.:                                        2011AP909-D
COMPLETE TITLE:
In  the  Matter  of  Disciplinary  Proceedings
Against
Kristine  A.  Peshek,  Attorney  at  Law:
Office  of  Lawyer  Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Kristine  A.  Peshek,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY  PROCEEDINGS  AGAINST  PESHEK
OPINION FILED:                                   June  24,  2011
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:




2011  WI  47
NOTICE
This  opinion  is  subject  to  further
editing  and  modification.    The  final
version   will   appear   in   the   bound
volume of the official reports.
No.                                                                        2011AP909-D
STATE  OF  WISCONSIN                                                       :                                                                           IN  SUPREME  COURT
In  the  Matter  of  Disciplinary  Proceedings
Against  Kristine  A.  Peshek,  Attorney  at  Law:
FILED
Office  of  Lawyer  Regulation,
Complainant,                                                               JUN  24,  2011
v.                                                                         A. John Voelker
Acting Clerk of
Supreme Court
Kristine  A.  Peshek,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY   disciplinary   proceeding.                                      Attorney's   license
suspended.
¶1    PER  CURIAM.      This  is  a  reciprocal  discipline  matter.
The  Office  of  Lawyer  Regulation  (OLR)  filed  a  complaint  against
Attorney  Kristine  A.  Peshek  seeking  the  imposition  of  discipline
reciprocal  to  that  imposed  by  the  Illinois  Supreme  Court.     On
May  18,                                                                   2010,   the   Illinois   Supreme   Court   suspended   Attorney
Peshek's  Illinois  law  license  for                                      60  days,  effective  June                                                  8,
                                                                           2010,  based  on  two  counts  of  misconduct.     Upon  our  review,  we
impose   the   same                                                        60-day   suspension   imposed   by   the   Illinois




                                                                                                                                                             No.                                                  2011AP909-D
                                                                                Supreme  Court.     The  OLR  does  not  seek  costs.     Accordingly,  no
                                                                                costs  will  be  imposed.
                                                                                ¶2    Attorney   Peshek   was   admitted   to   practice   law   in
Illinois   in                                                                   1989.                                                                        She   was   admitted   to   the   State   Bar   of
Wisconsin  in                                                                   2008.                                                                        Attorney  Peshek  has  not  been  subject  to
previous  discipline.
¶3    The   following   facts   are   taken   from   the   documents
attached   to   the   OLR's   complaint   relating   to   the   Illinois
disciplinary   proceedings.                                                     Attorney   Peshek's   misconduct   in
Illinois  consisted  of  publishing  a  blog  with  information  related
to  her  legal  work  from  June  of                                            2007  to  April  of                                                          2008.                                                The
public  blog  contained  confidential  information  about  her  clients
and  derogatory  comments  about  judges.    The  blog  had  information
sufficient  to  identify  those  clients  and  judges  using  public
sources.
¶4    In   addition,   Attorney   Peshek's   misconduct   involved
failing  to  inform  the  court  of  a  client's  misstatement  of  fact.
One  of  her  clients  told  a  judge,  on  the  record,  that  she  was  not
using  drugs.     Later,  the  client  informed  Attorney  Peshek  that
the  client  was  using  methadone  at  the  time  of  her  statement  in
court.    Attorney  Peshek  did  not  inform  the  judge  of  this  fact  or
correct  the  client's  misstatement.
¶5    On  August  24,  2009,  the  Illinois  Attorney  Registration
and  Disciplinary  Commission                                                   (the  Illinois  Commission)  filed  a
complaint   against   Attorney   Peshek   alleging   two   counts   of
misconduct:
2




                                                                               No.                                                            2011AP909-D
                                                                              Count   I:      Using   or   revealing   a   confidence   or
secret  of  the  client  known  to  the  lawyer,  in  violation  of
Rule                                                                           1.6(a)  of  the  Illinois  Rules  of  Professional  Conduct
(IRPC);    and    conduct    which    tends    to    defeat    the
administration  of  justice  or  bring  the  courts  or  the  legal
profession  into  disrepute,  in  violation  of  Illinois  Supreme
Court  Rule  770;  and
                                                                              Count   II:                                                    failing   to   call   upon   a   client   to
rectify  a  fraud  that  the  client  perpetrated  on  the  court,
in   violation   of   IRPC                                                     1.2(g);   failing   to   disclose   to   a
tribunal   a   material   fact   known   to   the   lawyer   when
disclosure  is  necessary  to  avoid  assisting  a  criminal  or
fraudulent    act    by    the    client,    in    violation    of
IRPC  3.3(a)(2);  conduct  involving  dishonesty,  fraud,  deceit
or   misrepresentation,   in   violation   of   IRPC                           8.4(a)(4);
conduct   that   is   prejudicial   to   the   administration   of
justice,  in  violation  of  IRPC  8.4(a)(5);  and  conduct  which
tends  to  defeat  the  administration  of  justice  or  to  bring
the   courts   or   the   legal   profession   into   disrepute,   in
violation  of  Illinois  Supreme  Court  Rule  770.
¶6    Attorney  Peshek  filed  in  the  Illinois  Supreme  Court  a
petition  to  impose  discipline  on  consent  and  affidavit  admitting
the  facts  of  the  misconduct.    On  February  26,  2010,  at  a  hearing
before  the  Illinois  Commission,  Attorney  Peshek  requested  the
panel  approve  the  petition  to  impose  discipline  on  consent.    On
Attorney  Peshek's  behalf,  her  counsel  informed  the  panel  that
Attorney  Peshek  had  been  practicing  law  for  more  than                  20  years
3




No.                                                                           2011AP909-D
and   worked   tirelessly   as   a   public   defender   for   her   entire
career.    Counsel  asked  the  panel  to  consider  the  traumatic  event
that  led  to  the  stress  Attorney  Peshek  attempted  to  resolve
through   writing   a   blog   about   her   experiences   as   a   public
defender.    The  stressful  incident  occurred  when  Attorney  Peshek
was  representing  a  criminal  defendant  at  his  trial  for  home
invasion  and  armed  robbery.    In  open  court  during  the  trial,  the
client   punched   Attorney   Peshek   in   the   face,   resulting   in
Attorney   Peshek   suffering   a   concussion   and   other   physical
injuries.
¶7    The   client   was   charged   with   aggravated   battery   in
relation  to  his  assault  on  Attorney  Peshek.    Attorney  Peshek  was
ultimately   diagnosed   with   acute   stress   disorder.      The   trial
judge  denied  Attorney  Peshek's  motion  to  withdraw  and  Attorney
Peshek  was  required  to  represent  the  client  at  his  re-trial.
Attorney  Peshek  was  also  suffering  from  a  serious  medical  issue
that  at  the  time  was  undiagnosed.
¶8    Counsel  advised  the  panel  that  Attorney  Peshek  began
the  blog  about  her  thoughts  and  experiences  to  help  her  deal
with  her  stressful  situation.     At  no  time  did  she  discern  any
risk  of  disclosing  client  confidences,  because  she  believed  she
adequately    concealed    her    clients'    identities    to    avoid
inappropriate  disclosure.
¶9    However,  at  the  time  of  the  disciplinary  proceeding,
Attorney  Peshek  realized  the  risk  in  that  regard  and  regretted
her  mistake.    After  the  issue  was  brought  to  her  attention,  she
removed  all  entries  related  to  client  matters.     As  far  as  her
4




No.                                                                          2011AP909-D
client's  misinforming  the  court,  counsel  advised  that  Attorney
Peshek  misunderstood  her  ethical  obligations  at  that  point  and
had  no  intention  of  assisting  her  client  in  a  fraud  on  the
court.
¶10   On  May                                                                18,                                          2010,  the  Illinois  Supreme  Court  accepted
the  petition  of  the  Illinois  Commission  to  impose  discipline  on
consent  and  suspended  Attorney  Peshek's  license  to  practice  law
in  Illinois  for                                                            60  days,  effective  June                   8,                                               2010.     The  Illinois
Supreme  Court  also  directed  Attorney  Peshek  to  reimburse  the
Client  Protection  Program  Trust  Fund  for  any  client  protection
payments  arising  from  her  conduct.
¶11   After  reviewing  the  matter,  we  impose  the  identical
60-day  suspension  imposed  by  the  Illinois  Supreme  Court.     See
SCR  22.22.1    On  April  25,  2011,  Attorney  Peshek  admitted  service
1  SCR                                                                       22.22   provides,   in   pertinent   part:   Reciprocal
discipline.
(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    an    infirmity    of    proof
establishing  the  misconduct  or  medical  incapacity  that
the   supreme   court   could   not   accept   as   final   the
conclusion  in  respect  to  the  misconduct  or  medical
incapacity.
(c)  The                                                                     misconduct                                   justifies                                        substantially
different  discipline  in  this  state.
(4)  Except   as   provided   in   sub.                                      (3),   a   final
adjudication  in  another  jurisdiction  that  an  attorney
5




No.                                                                           2011AP909-D
of  the  authenticated  copy  of  the  OLR  complaint  and  the  order  to
answer.     On  April  28,                                                    2011,  this  court  ordered  Attorney  Peshek
to  inform  the  court,  in  writing,  of  any  claim,  predicated  upon
the  grounds  set  forth  in  SCR                                             22.22(3),  that  the  imposition  of
discipline   identical   to   that   imposed   in   Illinois   would   be
unwarranted  and  of  the  factual  basis  for  any  such  claim.     The
order   stated   that   if   Attorney   Peshek   failed   to   respond   by
May  18,  2011,  the  court  would  proceed  under  SCR  22.22.    Attorney
Peshek  filed  no  answer  to  the  complaint  and  did  not  respond  to
this  court's  April  28,  2011,  order.
¶12   On  June                                                                2,                                              2011,   the  OLR  filed  with  this  court  a
stipulation  signed  by  Attorney  Peshek  in  which  she  agrees  with
the  facts  alleged  in  the  complaint  and  the  documents  attached  to
the  complaint,  and  that  she  is  subject  to  reciprocal  discipline
pursuant  to  SCR  22.22.    Through  the  stipulation,  Attorney  Peshek
does  not  claim  defenses  to  the  proposed  imposition  of  reciprocal
discipline,  nor  does  she  contest  the  imposition  of  discipline  in
Wisconsin.
¶13   IT  IS  ORDERED  that  the  license  of  Kristine  A.  Peshek
to  practice  law  in  Wisconsin  is  suspended  for  a  period  of           60
days,  effective  July  25,  2011.
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.
6




No.                                                                            2011AP909-D
¶14   IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  Kristine  A.  Peshek  shall
comply  with  the  terms  and  conditions  set  forth  in  the  Illinois
Supreme  Court's  order  and  judgment  of  May  18,  2010.
¶15   IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  Kristine  A.  Peshek  comply
with  the  provisions  of  SCR                                                 22.26  concerning  the  duties  of  a
person   whose   license   to   practice   law   in   Wisconsin   has   been
suspended.
7




No.   2011AP909-D
1

Download 66464.pdf

Wisconsin Law