Commentary: This funeral would be long overdue

Listen to this article

On Sept. 11, Milwaukee attorney Alan D. Eisenberg defended himself before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which is considering whether to sanction him for his conduct in filing a frivolous lawsuit. He said that he feared the hearing would be the funeral for his law practice.

Hopefully, it will be just that.

First, I’d like to acknowledge that Eisenberg has had, in some ways, an admirable career. Many of the clients he has seen acquitted of criminal offenses would have been sent to prison if represented by less able or less diligent counsel. I agree that he has, as he said at the hearing, “helped thousands of people who were oppressed, suppressed, depressed and just plain pressed.”

And if his license were revoked or even suspended, it would be unprecedented, given the violation at issue in this case.

The finding of facts are that, the day after obtaining an acquittal in a domestic violence case, Eisenberg filed a hasty, poorly drafted complaint against the complainant, alleging defamation. A court found that this was done with intent to harass and maliciously injure her, and imposed sanctions.

I know very well that many domestic violence allegations are false, and should never get to the judicial system. Meritless domestic violence cases clog the courts, and an occasional prosecution for obstructing an officer, or a civil case for abuse of process, would probably be a welcome development.

But, based on the findings of fact by the court in the civil case, and the referee for the OLR, this particular domestic violence case was not an appropriate one for taking such action.

I acknowledge that Eisenberg has paid a six-figure sanction for his conduct in filing and pursuing the case, and if he were any other attorney, that would probably be the end of the matter. He would not be facing any disciplinary action, or at most, a public reprimand.

So on the face of it there is some merit to his complaints that he has a target on his back, and is being singled out. But there’s a reason he’s being singled out. For you younger attorneys out there, here’s a little history lesson, quoted from the Supreme Court’s first suspension of his license in 1970:

“After a careful review of the record and transcript made in these proceedings, we find: (1) That Alan Eisenberg publicly charged Judge Krueger with conduct (unspecified) for which a criminal warrant could issue; (2) That Alan Eisenberg predicted the Judge would resign for ‘personal reasons’ within a short period rather than face prosecution; (3) That Alan Eisenberg arranged for and [another attorney] signed checks in payment of newspaper advertisements soliciting complaints against Judge Krueger; (4) That in concert the defendants pressured the Judge unwillingly to appoint them to an advisory committee concerning the administration of his court; (5) That in concert the defendants forced the Judge to publicly read a press release announcing their appointment for the purpose of aggrandizing themselves and demonstrating their subjugation of and their dominance over the Judge; and (6) We find that the above acts of the defendants constitute unprofessional conduct tending to bring the courts into disrepute and contempt.” State v. Eisenberg, 48 Wis.2d 364, 180 N.W.2d 529 (1970).

According to the opinion, the apparent reason for the judge’s humiliation was that Eisenberg knew about an affair the judge had with a female attorney. The judge ultimately committed suicide.

Eisenberg had his license suspended again in 1988, was publicly reprimanded in 1996, and was suspended again in 2004. OLR v. Eisenberg, 2007 WI 7.

I invite the reader to share the above three paragraphs with a layperson as an experiment. I can tell you verbatim what the response will be: “How is it possible that he was only suspended, rather than revoked and never permitted to practice again, back in 1970?”

Revocation may be overkill, considering only the most recent offense. But it is something that is long overdue, nonetheless.

At the hearing before the court, Eisenberg said he wants to be able to meet his maker “with my boots on, as a lawyer.” But, then he should have used those boots for walking, rather than stomping on people.