|
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.
Reinstatement granted.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report
filed by Referee Robert E. Kinney
recommending that the court reinstate the
license of Daniel W. Morse to practice law
in Wisconsin. No appeal has been filed from
the referee's report and recommendation.
Accordingly, our review proceeds pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.33(3). Upon
careful review of the matter, we adopt the
referee's findings of fact and conclusions
of law and agree that Attorney Morse's
petition for reinstatement should be
granted. As is our normal custom, we also
direct that the costs of the reinstatement
proceeding, which are $5,448.81 as of
December 15, 2020, be paid by Attorney
Morse.
|
|
¶2 Attorney Morse was admitted to
practice law in Wisconsin in 1979. Attorney
Morse was also licensed to practice law in
Florida and Pennsylvania. He was disbarred
in Florida in 2019, and his Pennsylvania law
license is administratively suspended. In
2019, Attorney Morse's Wisconsin law license
was suspended for one year. See In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Morse,
2019
WI 53, 386 Wis. 2d 654, 927 N.W.2d 543. The
misconduct in that case related to an estate
matter. Attorney Morse failed to take steps
to advance the interests of the estate;
failed to promptly deliver documents in his
possession; failed to abide by a probate
court order; and failed to keep in trust
funds totaling over $25,000 belonging to the
estate, instead paying those funds to his
law firm and himself and using the funds to
pay personal obligations.
¶3 Attorney Morse filed a petition for
the reinstatement of his Wisconsin law
license on April 6, 2020. A hearing was
held before the referee on October 13, 2020.
The referee issued his report and
recommendation on November 24, 2020. The
referee found that Attorney Morse: desires
to have his license reinstated; has not
practiced law during the period of
suspension; has not given members of the
public misleading information about his
suspension or reinstatement; has fully
complied with the terms of the order of
suspension; has maintained competence and
learning in the law by attending educational
sessions; understands the gravity of his
misconduct; and has promptly made
restitution. The referee also found that
Attorney Morse's conduct since the
suspension has been exemplary and above
reproach and that he has a proper
understanding of and attitude toward the
standards that are imposed on members of the
bar and will act in conformity with those
standards. The referee found that Attorney
Morse can be safely recommended to the legal
profession, the courts, and the public as a
person fit to be consulted by others and to
represent them and otherwise act in matters
of trust and confidence and in general to
aid in the administration of justice as a
member of the bar and an officer of the
courts.
|
|
¶4 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) provides
the standards to be met for reinstatement.
Specifically, the petitioner must show by
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence
that he or she has the moral character to
practice law, that his or her resumption of
the practice of law will not be detrimental
to the administration of justice or
subversive to the public interest, and that
he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and
the terms of the order of suspension. In
addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c) incorporates the
statements that a petition for reinstatement
must contain pursuant to SCR 22.29(4)(a) –
(m). Thus, the petitioning attorney must
demonstrate that the required
representations in the reinstatement
petition are substantiated.
|
|
¶5 When reviewing referee reports in
reinstatement proceedings, we utilize
standards of review similar to those used
for reviewing referee reports in
disciplinary proceedings. We do not
overturn a referee's findings of fact unless
they are clearly erroneous. On the other
hand, we review a referee's legal
conclusions, including whether the attorney
has in fact satisfied the criteria for
reinstatement, on a de novo basis. In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jennings,
2011 WI 45, ¶39, 334 Wis. 2d 335, 801 N.W.2d
304; In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Gral, 2010 WI 14, ¶22, 323 Wis. 2d 280,
779
N.W.2d 168. In making his recommendation,
the referee noted that Attorney Morse has
acknowledged his ethical violations. The
referee said Attorney Morse is very
knowledgeable about his specific area of
practice, and if, in the future, an issue at
the periphery of his knowledge arises, he
has vowed that he will consult with other
experienced professionals. The referee said
making use of the expertise of these
attorneys would be an invaluable resource
for Attorney Morse.
¶6 Upon review of the record, we agree
that Attorney Morse has established by
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence
that he has satisfied all of the criteria
necessary for reinstatement. Accordingly,
we adopt the referee's findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and we accept the
referee's recommendation that Attorney
Morse's license to practice law in Wisconsin
should be reinstated. As is our standard
policy, we also find it appropriate to
impose the full costs of this proceeding on
Attorney Morse.
¶7 IT IS ORDERED that the license of
Daniel W. Morse to practice law in Wisconsin
is reinstated, effective the date of this
order.
¶8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60
days of the date of this order, Daniel W.
Morse shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation costs of this proceeding, which
are $5,448.81 as of December 15, 2020.
|