OLR revokes license of criminal defense attorney whose conduct led to two clients receiving new trials
OLR v. Peter J. Kovac, 2024AP1511-D, 8/15/25, per curiam decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court (in its disciplinary capacity).
In a decision overlapping with our focus on criminal appeals, SCOW revokes the license of a criminal defense attorney whose misconduct covers both trial and postconviction representation of two clients.
Relevant to this blog, Kovac faces discipline arising from two criminal cases.
In the first case, Kovac represented a client charged with kidnapping and multiple counts of sexual assault. (¶11). His client, M.M., told Kovac “that certain witnesses, the victim’s cellphone records, GPS location data, and surveillance footage would contradict the victim’s allegations and support his version of events.” (Id.).
M.M. was convicted of some, but not all, of the counts. (¶12). After the trial, one of the jurors told Kovac they had been provided extraneous information before deliberations and that “she would not have voted to convict [M.M.] on any of the counts if she had known that it was possible for the jury not to reach a unanimous verdict on those counts.” (Id.).
Kovac continued his representation of the client during postconviction proceedings, although he hindered the postconviction investigation by not communicating with the retained investigator or providing her the documentation she needed to meet with his client. (¶13). He also blew multiple deadlines. (Id.). After M.M. obtained new counsel, he was granted a new trial and the State ultimately dismissed the charges against him. (Id.). OLR identifies numerous ethical violations, including a failure to diligently pursue M.M.’s interests and failing to timely turn over the file to successor counsel.
In the second case, Kovac represented R.G., who was facing prosecution for a homicide committed in 2013 based on information provided by a jailhouse snitch…who Kovac had previously represented. (¶22). That snitch was seeking, in exchange for his testimony, sentence modification in the case where he had been represented by Kovac. (Id.). Although R.G. provided potential alibi witnesses to Kovac, he failed to file a notice of alibi. (¶23). He never disclosed that omission to his client, who went to trial apparently believing those witnesses could still be called. (¶25). Kovac then talked R.G. out of testifying, as he told the client the State had failed to prove its case. (¶26). It was only after R.G. was convicted that he learned Kovac never retained an investigator and never interviewed some of his witnesses. (Id.). Attorney Kovac then failed to follow through on a promise to file a motion for a new trial, failed to prepare his client for sentencing, and failed to inform his client about a restitution hearing. (¶¶27-29). Ultimately, successor counsel conducted the missing investigation and filed a motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance. (¶30). The circuit court granted counsel’s motion. (¶32). OLR therefore alleges Kovac failed to competently and diligently represent his client, and also consult with and inform the client.
Although Kovac tries to use the State’s brief filed during postconviction proceedings in one of the cases to assist him, SCOW is unpersuaded and relies on the postconviction court’s credibility assessments that led to a new trial for R.G. (¶58). SCOW criticizes Kovac for repeated acts of “professional incompetence” that harmed not only his clients, but also other actors in the criminal justice system. (¶66). Accordingly, it revokes his license for what it terms a “pattern of ineptitude.” (¶71).