Introduction

Board of Bar Examiners, et al., v. Jason S. Jankowski (2024 WI 41) is a pivotal case adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin on December 3, 2024. The case centers around the reinstatement of Attorney Jason S. Jankowski's license to practice law in Wisconsin following its revocation in 2018. The key issues involve compliance with conditional admission terms, the role of therapeutic interventions, and the oversight mechanisms necessary to ensure the attorney's fitness to practice law. The parties involved include the Board of Bar Examiners, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), and Attorney Jankowski.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed a referee’s report recommending the reinstatement of Attorney Jankowski’s law license, subject to specific conditions. Initially conditionally admitted in 2014 with requirements extending to four years, Jankowski’s license was revoked in 2018 due to non-compliance. In 2023, he petitioned for reinstatement, which was initially opposed by OLR. However, a stipulation was later agreed upon, mandating therapeutic treatment, participation in monitoring programs, and financial obligations. The court adopted the referee’s findings, approving the reinstatement contingent upon these conditions and ordered Jankowski to cover the proceeding’s costs.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references In re DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST EISENBERG, 2004 WI14,15, 269 Wis.2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747, which outlines the standards for reviewing referee reports. This precedent emphasizes that factual findings by referees are to be upheld unless clearly erroneous, while conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Additionally, the court cited Supreme Court Rules (SCR) 22.305 and SCR 40.075(4), which set forth the requirements for attorney reinstatement and conditional admissions, respectively.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning hinged on verifying that Attorney Jankowski met the statutory criteria for reinstatement under SCR 22.305(1)-(3). These include demonstrating moral character, ensuring that reinstatement is not detrimental to justice administration, and compliance with prior suspension or revocation terms. The referee's report provided clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence of Jankowski's compliance, supported by independent medical evaluations affirming his fitness to practice with imposed conditions. The court found no error in the referee's factual determinations and concurred with the legal conclusions, thereby upholding the conditions as necessary safeguards.

Impact

This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to balancing the reinstatement of legal professionals with the protection of public interest and the integrity of the legal system. By mandating conditions such as ongoing therapy and monitoring, the court sets a precedent for future reinstatement cases, indicating that rehabilitative measures are not only appropriate but required under certain circumstances. It also reinforces the procedural standards for conditional reinstatement, providing a clear framework for both regulatory bodies and attorneys seeking reinstatement.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conditional Admission: A provisional authorization granted to an attorney to practice law under specific conditions, such as completing certain educational or therapeutic programs.

Reinstatement Proceeding: A legal process through which a previously disbarred or suspended attorney seeks to regain their license to practice law.

SCR 22.305: A section of the Supreme Court Rules that outlines the criteria and procedures for reinstating an attorney's license.

Per Curiam: A ruling issued collectively by the court, without identifying individual justices.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin's decision in Board of Bar Examiners v. Jason S. Jankowski establishes a significant precedent for the conditional reinstatement of attorneys. It highlights the importance of thorough evaluation and the imposition of safeguards to ensure that reinstated attorneys meet the moral and professional standards required to practice law. The case serves as a model for balancing rehabilitation with accountability, ensuring that the legal profession maintains its integrity while providing avenues for qualified individuals to return to practice under appropriate conditions.