Default, Progressive Discipline, and Revocation:
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Peter J. Kovac and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s Latest Guidance on Attorney Misconduct

1. Introduction

In Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Peter J. Kovac, 2025 WI 41, the Wisconsin Supreme Court once again confronted a lawyer whose lengthy disciplinary record, pervasive neglect, and refusal to cooperate with regulatory authorities culminated in a petition for the ultimate sanction—revocation. The Court had to decide:

• whether a referee correctly entered default when Attorney Kovac repeatedly ignored deadlines;
• whether the admitted facts established 11 counts of professional misconduct; and
• what level of discipline and costs were appropriate in light of Kovac’s history and the harm caused to two criminal defendants whose convictions were later vacated because of his deficient representation.

The complainant was the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR); the respondent, Attorney Peter J. Kovac, a Milwaukee-area practitioner admitted in 1973. After Kovac failed to answer the 70-page complaint or substantively oppose default, the referee declared him in default and recommended revocation plus full costs. The Supreme Court adopted that recommendation in full.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court (per curiam) held:

1. Kovac was properly in default under SCR 22.14 and SCR 22.16 for failing to answer the complaint or respond to motions despite repeated extensions.
2. The uncontroverted allegations, now deemed admitted, constituted clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence of 11 violations, including incompetence, lack of diligence, failure to communicate, failure to protect client interests on termination, and multiple acts of non-cooperation with the OLR.
3. Given Kovac’s “astounding” pattern of misconduct—two public reprimands (2008, 2012) and four suspensions (2016, two in 2020, and an administrative suspension for non-cooperation in 2021)—revocation was “the only appropriate sanction.”
4. Kovac must pay the full costs of the proceeding ($6,816.88) within 60 days, comply with SCR 22.26, and remain ineligible to seek reinstatement for five years (SCR 22.29).

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gegner, 2017 WI 11 – Establishes revocation where an attorney’s widespread neglect, misrepresentations, and non-cooperation harm clients. The Court analogized Kovac’s conduct to Gegner’s as “widespread, serious, and harmful.”
• In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Blessinger, 2017 WI 107 – Recognizes revocation when an attorney demonstrates an inability to conform to professional standards. The Court drew parallels, observing Kovac’s repeated suspensions had not reformed his behavior.
• In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Goldmann, 2018 WI 89 – Confirms that a pattern of serious misconduct harming multiple clients warrants revocation, reinforcing the “progressive discipline” doctrine.
• Earlier Kovac cases: 2016 WI 62 (90-day suspension), 2020 WI 47 & 58 (five-month suspensions), plus two public reprimands. The Court relied on these to demonstrate escalating discipline had proven ineffective.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

a) Default Mechanics – Applying SCR 22.14-22.16 and Wisconsin’s civil default rule (Wis. Stat. § 806.02), the referee could enter default when a respondent fails to answer. Once in default, facts are deemed admitted (see Runyon, 2020 WI 74).

b) Evidentiary Standard – Even in default, the Court confirms that the complaint must state a claim and the admitted facts must amount to “clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence” of each rule violation. The 70-page complaint met this burden.

c) Sanction Analysis – Guided by:

• SCR 22.17(2): Court independently reviews referee’s report in uncontested matters.
• ABA Standards §§ 9.22 & 9.32: aggravating/mitigating factors.
• “Progressive discipline” doctrine: repeated similar misconduct ratchets up discipline until revocation (citing Nussberger, 2006 WI 111).

Key aggravators: prior discipline, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, harm to vulnerable criminal defendants, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, substantial experience (52 years), and obstruction of the disciplinary process. No meaningful mitigators existed.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

Short-term: Kovac’s removal from practice protects current and future clients and the justice system from further harm.
Long-term/systemic:

• Re-affirms that default judgments are a viable, expeditious tool when attorneys stonewall OLR proceedings, preserving regulatory resources.
• Strengthens the Court’s message that progressive discipline culminates in revocation when an attorney demonstrates persistent inability or unwillingness to comply with ethical duties.
• Provides guidance for future referees on balancing medical-disability claims against the public’s need for timely discipline: vague, unsubstantiated health excuses will not forestall default.
• Encourages vigorous policing of post-conviction ineffectiveness that results in vacated convictions—a concern not merely for client protection but for the integrity of criminal verdicts.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Revocation (Wisconsin): Contrary to lay usage, a “revoked” lawyer may apply for reinstatement after five years (SCR 22.29). Justice Ziegler’s concurrence highlights this semantic oddity and argues for a genuine “permanent revocation” option.
• Default Judgment in Discipline: Similar to civil cases—if a lawyer ignores the complaint, the referee may treat allegations as true and recommend discipline without a full evidentiary hearing.
• SCR References: Supreme Court Rules (SCR) govern lawyer conduct; violations range from SCR 20 (ethics rules) to SCR 22 (disciplinary procedure). For example, SCR 20:1.3 (diligence) means a lawyer must act promptly and thoroughly.
• Machner Hearing: A Wisconsin evidentiary hearing to test claims of ineffective assistance. Failure to prepare for trial, as Kovac did, often surfaces here.
• Progressive Discipline: The idea that discipline escalates—from private reprimand to public reprimand, suspension, and ultimately revocation—when lesser sanctions fail to correct misconduct.

5. Conclusion

The Kovac decision cements three important propositions:

1. An attorney’s failure to engage with the disciplinary process will swiftly lead to default, admission of misconduct, and severe sanctions.
2. Wisconsin’s commitment to progressive discipline is unwavering; repeated suspensions and reprimands will culminate in revocation when misconduct persists and client harm is grave.
3. Both the profession and the public are best served when the Court imposes unambiguous, decisive sanctions that deter similar negligence and reinforce confidence in the regulatory framework.

Attorney Kovac’s revocation therefore stands not just as an individual sanction but as a clarion warning: sustained incompetence, non-cooperation, and disregard for ethical obligations are incompatible with the privilege of practicing law in Wisconsin.