|
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.
Reinstatement granted.
|
|
¶1 PER CURIAM. This court has pending
before it Attorney Jean M. Robinson's petition
for reinstatement of her license to practice
law in Wisconsin. Upon consideration of the
reinstatement petition; the Office of Lawyer
Regulation's (OLR) response pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule (SCR) 22.30(4); the parties' SCR
22.30(5)(a) stipulation; and the OLR's
memorandum in support of the stipulation, we
conclude that Attorney Robinson's petition for
reinstatement should be granted.
|
|
¶2 Attorney Robinson was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin in 1985. She was
admitted to practice law in the District of
Columbia in 2004. In 1987, this court
suspended her Wisconsin law license for one
year. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings
Against Robinson, 140 Wis. 2d 538, 411
N.W.2d
137 (1987). In 2020, this court suspended
Attorney Robinson's Wisconsin law license for
a period of 18 months, effective June 30,
2019. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings
Against Robinson, 2020 WI 76, 394 Wis. 2d
1,
948 N.W.2d 898. The Wisconsin suspension was
reciprocal to that imposed upon Attorney
Robinson in the District of Columbia, and the
effective date of the Wisconsin suspension
was coterminous with the imposed date of the
District of Columbia suspension. Attorney
Robinson's misconduct in the District of
Columbia involved allegations of
improprieties surrounding her former client.
Her misconduct was found to be intentionally
prejudicing her client in the course of their
attorney-client relationship; revealing
client confidences or secrets; and acting
with dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation.
|
|
¶3 Attorney Robinson filed a petition
for reinstatement of her Wisconsin law
license on March 24, 2021. The OLR
investigated Attorney Robinson's petition and
found she had demonstrated that she has
satisfied all of the criteria for
reinstatement. The OLR noted that Attorney
Robinson has displayed exemplary conduct
since her suspension, and she appears to be
genuinely remorseful for her misconduct. It
also noted that Attorney Robinson's
references spoke very highly of her honesty,
integrity, and fitness to practice law. The
OLR concluded that Attorney Robinson
demonstrated that she has a great
appreciation for the gravity of her
situation, and it commented that she said, "I
am profoundly repentant of the misconduct
upon which my suspension was based and I
realize the necessity for irreproachable
conduct within the profession and the
sacredness of an Attorney's duties."
¶4 On August 10, 2021, the parties filed
a stipulation in which the OLR stated that
Attorney Robinson has met her SCR 22.305
burden to prove by clear, satisfactory, and
convincing evidence:
(1) That he or she has the moral
character to
practice law in Wisconsin.
(2) That his or her resumption of the
practice of law will not be detrimental to
the administration of justice or subversive
of the public interest.
(3) That his or her representations in
the
petition, including the representations
required by SCR 22.29(4)(a) to (m) and
22.29(5), are substantiated.
(4) That he or she has complied fully
with
the terms of the order of suspension or
revocation and with the requirements of SCR
22.26.
The OLR also filed a memorandum in support of
the stipulation in which it states that
Attorney Robinson has resolved all civil
litigation surrounding the incident that led
to her suspension in the District of
Columbia. The OLR also reiterates that
Attorney Robinson has expressed remorse and
an understanding of an attorney's role and
duties.
|
|
¶5 The parties' joint stipulation for
Attorney Robinson's reinstatement is now
before us. Effective January 1, 2021, new
reinstatement provisions permit this court to
consider a reinstatement petition by
stipulation where, as here, the OLR
concludes, upon investigation, that the
petitioner has demonstrated, to the OLR's
director's satisfaction, that all of the
reinstatement criteria have been meet.
See SCR 22.305 and SCR 22.29(4). The
court considers the petition and stipulation
without the appointment of a referee and may
approve the stipulation and reinstate the
petitioner's law license; the court may
reject the stipulation and refer the petition
to a referee for a hearing; or the court may
direct the parties to consider modifications
to the stipulation. SCR 22.30(5)(b).
¶6 Based on the stipulation, and noting
that the record contains no evidence to the
contrary, we conclude that Attorney Robinson
has established by clear, satisfactory, and
convincing evidence that she has satisfied
all of the criteria necessary for
reinstatement. Accordingly, we accept the
parties' stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.30(5)
(b), and we reinstate Attorney Robinson's
license to practice law in Wisconsin,
effective the date of this order.
¶7 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for
reinstatement of Jean M. Robinson to practice
law in Wisconsin is granted, effective the
date of this order.
¶8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs
will be imposed in connection with this
reinstatement proceeding.
|