“Reinstatement Is Not a Silo”: Wisconsin Supreme Court mandates disclosure of intervening discipline and reaffirms the far‑ranging scope of reinstatement inquiries under SCR 22.305, SCR 22.29(4), and SCR 22.40

Introduction

In Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Steven D. Johnson, 2025 WI 45, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reinstated Attorney Steven D. Johnson’s law license following a six‑month suspension imposed in 2023. The decision breaks important ground on the obligations of candor and disclosure in reinstatement proceedings. While reinstatement was ultimately granted—subject to conditions—the Court issued a pointed admonition: petitioners and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) must affirmatively disclose newly issued or intervening discipline that bears on the reinstatement criteria. The Court clarified that the reinstatement inquiry is “comprehensive,” reaching beyond post‑suspension conduct, and that SCR 22.40’s confidentiality provisions do not excuse nondisclosure once a public reprimand issues; even before then, parties may seek permission from the Court to disclose confidential information.

The case arises from Johnson’s disciplinary history, including a private reprimand in 2008, a public reprimand in 2010, and a six‑month suspension in November 2023 for “blatant” misconduct involving offensive personality, inadequate supervision of nonlawyer staff, candor violations, and deficient client communication (Johnson, 2023 WI 73). While his reinstatement petition was pending before Referee L. Michael Tobin, Johnson and OLR negotiated, obtained, and failed to disclose a consensual public reprimand issued November 4, 2024, for separate 2021 misconduct—overbilling paralegal work at attorney rates and breaching client confidentiality in post‑conviction proceedings. The Supreme Court discovered the reprimand on its own review, remanded for a supplemental report, and, after addressing the nondisclosure and applying the reinstatement standards, ordered reinstatement with conditions.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court (per curiam) accepted Referee Tobin’s recommendation (as supplemented) to reinstate Attorney Johnson’s license but cautioned future litigants “not to follow the course charted by the parties here.” The Court held:

Reinstatement under SCR 22.305 and SCR 22.29(4) requires a comprehensive, far‑reaching evaluation of the petitioner’s moral character and fitness, encompassing behavior both before and after suspension, including any intervening or newly issued discipline.
Neither Johnson nor OLR had a valid excuse for failing to disclose the November 2024 consensual public reprimand; SCR 22.40 confidentiality did not bar disclosure once the reprimand became public, and at minimum the parties could have sought the Court’s authorization to disclose (SCR 22.40(2)).
Despite the seriousness of Johnson’s prior misconduct and the added weight of the 2024 reprimand, the record—particularly evidence of remedial measures and ongoing counseling—established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Johnson presently possesses the requisite moral character and fitness. The Court reinstated—but imposed conditions tied to repayment of costs.
Conditions: within 30 days, Johnson must enter a written agreement with OLR to repay outstanding costs from the 2023 suspension (approximately $30,000 remaining of roughly $33,000) and the costs of the reinstatement proceeding ($6,393.05 as of September 11, 2025), commensurate with ability to pay, and provide financial information upon OLR request. OLR must notify the Court upon any failure to pay.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Johnson, 2023 WI 73 (six‑month suspension; “blatant” misconduct). The 2025 decision repeatedly frames Johnson’s reinstatement burden against the gravity of the 2023 findings, underscoring that a six‑month suspension’s reinstatement requirement is a “plus” because it permits full vetting (citing SCR 22.28(3)). This context amplifies the Court’s insistence on robust disclosure and scrutiny in reinstatement.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 2018 WI 56, ¶25. Quoted for the proposition that reinstatement criteria require a “comprehensive assessment” of the lawyer. The Court uses Mandelman to emphasize that the inquiry is neither narrow nor temporally restricted to post‑suspension conduct.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Penn, 2002 WI 5, ¶8. Cited to confirm that reinstatement hearings may be “far‑ranging” and are not confined to the enumerated items in SCR 22.29(4). Penn reinforces that conduct predating suspension and other “relevant information” are squarely within the reinstatement scope.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Compton, 2008 WI 3. Invoked to show that misbilling paralegal time as attorney time has warranted suspension (60 days) in prior cases. By analogizing Johnson’s 2021 billing practices to Compton, the Court signals the seriousness of the reprimand conduct.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Thompson, 2014 WI 25, ¶33. Cited for the “critical” importance of obtaining court permission before disclosing client confidences in responding to an ineffective assistance claim. This frames Johnson’s unauthorized disclosure as a significant ethical breach and situates the reprimand behavior in established doctrine.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three steps: (1) scope and content of the reinstatement inquiry; (2) evaluation of the parties’ nondisclosure; and (3) application of the criteria to Johnson’s record, including remedial efforts and conditions.

1) The reinstatement inquiry is comprehensive and far‑ranging

The Court reads SCR 22.305 together with SCR 22.29(4), consistent with Mandelman and Penn, to require examination of:

moral character (SCR 22.305(1)),
whether practice resumption would be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest (SCR 22.305(2)), and
the petitioner’s understanding and conformity to professional standards and overall fitness (SCR 22.29(4)(f), (g)).

While certain enumerated factors emphasize post‑suspension conduct (for example, non‑practice during suspension, compliance with suspension terms, maintaining competence), the Court holds that moral character and public‑interest assessments necessarily encompass conduct before and after suspension. Thus, intervening discipline—even for pre‑suspension conduct—must be disclosed and considered.

2) Nondisclosure of the 2024 reprimand was unjustified

The Court rejects three explanations:

Focus on post‑suspension conduct: The Court finds this incomplete and incorrect as applied to the moral character and public‑interest criteria, which are broader (Penn’s “far‑ranging” inquiry). Moreover, the OLR questionnaire itself invites “any other information you believe to be pertinent,” which plainly encompassed two grievances culminating in a public reprimand.
Timing (hearing predated reprimand): Even if the reprimand post‑dated the evidentiary hearing, it pre‑dated post‑hearing briefs and the referee’s initial report; both parties could and should have alerted the referee and the Court.
SCR 22.40 confidentiality: Confidentiality does not attach after a public reprimand issues. Even beforehand, SCR 22.40(2) authorizes the Supreme Court to permit disclosure; the parties could have sought leave to disclose the reprimand negotiations and underlying conduct to the referee.

The Court labels the bifurcation of proceedings (treating the reprimand and reinstatement as unrelated tracks) a “mutual mistake,” and while it declines to assign dispositive weight to the nondisclosure in this case, it expressly warns future litigants not to repeat this error.

3) Application of the criteria: heavy burden met, but only with conditions

Acknowledging Johnson’s “blatant” misconduct that led to the 2023 suspension and the gravity of the 2024 reprimand, the Court places a “heavy burden” on Johnson to prove present moral character and fitness by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence. The Court credits uncontested findings by Referee Tobin that Johnson:

has implemented structural remedial measures (updated office training manuals; protocols for personal review of court documents; a commitment to consult ethics counsel on fees),
continues counseling to manage stress and responses to adverse situations, and
demonstrates insight and remorse.

Satisfied that Johnson’s present understanding and respect for professional standards have improved sufficiently, the Court reinstates, while underscoring that “if not, our progressive discipline system will await.” To ensure compliance with prior orders and SCR 22.26, reinstatement is conditioned on Johnson entering a written, ability‑to‑pay repayment plan with OLR for outstanding costs from 2023 and the costs of the reinstatement proceeding, coupled with a duty to provide financial information and an OLR reporting obligation upon any payment default.

Impact

The decision articulates a clear rule of practice for Wisconsin reinstatement proceedings and has several practical consequences:

Affirmative disclosure duty: Petitioners (and OLR) must disclose intervening or newly issued discipline—even if it relates to pre‑suspension conduct—because moral character and public‑interest inquiries are comprehensive. The Court’s admonition signals that nondisclosure risks remand, delay, cost assessments, or, in a future case, denial or sanctions.
Confidentiality is not a shield once discipline is public: SCR 22.40 does not prevent disclosure after a public reprimand issues. Before public issuance, parties may (and should) seek Supreme Court authorization to disclose under SCR 22.40(2) to ensure a complete reinstatement record.
Referees’ mandate affirmed: Referees must perform a “full and unrestricted” evaluation (Penn), taking account of all relevant past behavior—including independent or parallel disciplinary resolutions—when assessing moral character and public interest.
Billing and confidentiality risks reiterated: The Court re‑highlights two recurring risk areas already grounded in precedent: (a) misbilling nonlawyer time at attorney rates may warrant suspension (Compton); and (b) responding to ineffectiveness claims requires court authorization before revealing protected information (Thompson).
Cost recovery conditions: The Court reaffirms its general practice of imposing full costs of reinstatement (SCR 22.24(1m)) and, notably, conditions reinstatement on a written, ability‑to‑pay cost‑repayment plan, with compliance monitoring. Expect more frequent use of repayment‑plan conditions in reinstatement orders.
Administrative practice adjustments: OLR and petitioners should revise checklists and questionnaires to prompt disclosure of all pending or newly resolved grievances, reprimands, or disciplinary negotiations, and to consider proactively seeking SCR 22.40(2) authorization to disclose when confidentiality issues arise mid‑proceeding.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Reinstatement standards (SCR 22.305; SCR 22.29(4)): To be reinstated, a suspended lawyer must prove, by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, that they have the moral character to practice, that their return will not harm the justice system or public interest, and that they understand and will comply with professional standards. The petition must also show compliance with suspension orders, non‑practice during suspension, continued legal education, and full disclosure of relevant information.
“Clear, satisfactory, and convincing” evidence: A higher civil standard requiring strong, credible proof that leaves the decision‑maker firmly persuaded; it is more demanding than a preponderance of the evidence.
Consensual public reprimand (SCR 22.09): A negotiated form of public discipline approved by a referee without Supreme Court merits review. It is public and therefore generally not confidential once issued.
SCR 22.40 confidentiality: OLR investigations are confidential before public resolution, but after a public reprimand issues, confidentiality concerns dissipate. Even pre‑issuance, parties can ask the Supreme Court to authorize disclosures relevant to reinstatement (SCR 22.40(2)).
Paralegal billing practices: Lawyers must not bill nonlawyer time at attorney rates or create invoices that obscure who performed the work; doing so may violate the unreasonable fee rule (SCR 20:1.5(a)) and has led to suspension (Compton).
Responding to ineffective assistance claims: A lawyer may not unilaterally reveal confidential client information to defend performance. Court authorization is typically required, and disclosures must be no broader than necessary (Thompson; SCR 20:1.6).
Progressive discipline: Repeated or escalating misconduct generally results in increasingly severe sanctions. The Court’s “if not, our progressive discipline system will await” signals close monitoring post‑reinstatement.

Conclusion

2025 WI 45 does more than decide a single lawyer’s reinstatement. It sets a clear procedural and substantive expectation for all Wisconsin reinstatement proceedings: they are not siloed from other disciplinary developments, and both petitioners and OLR must ensure the referee and the Court have a complete, current picture of the lawyer’s professional conduct. The Court’s reaffirmation that reinstatement inquiries are comprehensive, coupled with its guidance on SCR 22.40 and the availability of Supreme Court authorization to disclose confidential material, provides a concrete roadmap for future cases.

Although the Court ultimately credited Johnson’s remedial steps and reinstated him—with conditions designed to enforce ongoing compliance and cost repayment—the opinion is unmistakably cautionary. It cautions litigants against nondisclosure, underscores the enduring relevance of billing integrity and client confidentiality, and confirms that the moral character assessment demands full candor and transparency. As a practical matter, petitioners, counsel, and OLR should treat any intervening or parallel disciplinary matter as presumptively pertinent to reinstatement and err on the side of disclosure—seeking authorization where necessary—so that the Court can perform the “full and unrestricted” evaluation the rules and precedent require.