Consent-Based License Revocation Under SCR 22.19 for Criminal Acts Reflecting on Attorney Fitness

Introduction

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Leslie M. Smith, 2025 WI 19, represents a watershed in Wisconsin attorney‐disciplinary practice: it confirms that an attorney’s license may be revoked by consent under Supreme Court Rule 22.19 based solely on serious criminal convictions—even where no client was directly harmed. The parties are the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), charged with policing attorney misconduct, and respondent Leslie M. Smith, admitted in 2018, who pled guilty in federal court to health‐care fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion. The key issue is whether Smith’s petition for consensual revocation of her Wisconsin law license should be granted in light of her criminal convictions and inability to defend against professional misconduct charges under SCR 20:8.4(b) and (c).

Summary of the Judgment

By per curiam order dated May 28, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted Smith’s petition for consensual license revocation under SCR 22.19. The court concluded that Smith’s admitted criminal conduct—fraudulent Medicaid claims, diversion of funds by forged documents, identity fraud in homeowner assistance applications, and failure to file tax returns—established violations of SCR 20:8.4(b) (criminal acts reflecting adversely on honesty or fitness) and (c) (dishonesty, fraud or deceit). Following multiple precedents, the court held that license revocation is the only appropriate sanction. The order revoked Smith’s license effective immediately and required her to comply with post-revocation obligations under SCR 22.26.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court relied heavily on prior Wisconsin disciplinary cases addressing financial crimes:

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126: Held that any criminal act involving serious financial wrongdoing—even if unrelated to legal services—violates SCR 20:8.4(b) because it bears on an attorney’s honesty and trustworthiness.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gedlen, 2007 WI 121: Found that conversion of client trust funds and falsification of financial documents violate SCR 20:8.4(c).
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Felli, 2007 WI 49: Confirmed that dishonesty in diverting funds from a client trust account breaches SCR 20:8.4(c).
A string of cases involving tax fraud and wire fraud convictions (Miller, Schierland, Paulus, Hurtgen, Semancik, Lein) where the court consistently granted petitions for consensual revocation under SCR 22.19.

These precedents established that criminal misconduct reflecting upon an attorney’s fitness, regardless of whether it involved a confidential client relationship, mandates severe discipline—typically license revocation.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolds in three steps:

Violation of SCR 20:8.4(b) and (c): Smith’s eight‐count criminal conviction (health care fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion) exemplifies dishonesty, deception, and criminality adverse to her fitness as a lawyer. Following Inglimo, the court found no requirement that the victim be a legal client.
Appropriateness of Consensual Revocation: Under SCR 22.19(1), an attorney may petition for revocation by consent when unable to defend a disciplinary investigation or unwilling to contest the charges. Smith expressly acknowledged her inability to defend, her lack of intention to practice law again, and her voluntary forfeiture of contest rights.
Sanction Proportionality: The court surveyed analogous cases involving serious financial crimes and concluded that revocation is the only fitting sanction. Lesser penalties (suspension or reprimand) would undermine public trust and the integrity of the profession given the magnitude of monetary harm (over $2.3 million) and criminality.

Impact

This decision has several significant implications:

Broad Application of SCR 20:8.4: It reinforces that professional misconduct rules apply to all criminal conduct reflecting adversely on lawyer honesty or fitness, not just misconduct in client matters.
Clarity on Consent Revocation: By approving a petition under SCR 22.19, the court affirms the efficiency and finality of consensual revocation for attorneys unwilling or unable to litigate disciplinary charges.
Guidance for OLR and Respondents: The court’s reasoning provides a roadmap for both regulators and attorneys: serious financial crimes almost invariably warrant revocation, and consent petitions offer a streamlined path when defense is impracticable.
Public Confidence: The decision underscores the profession’s commitment to integrity: attorneys who commit large-scale fraud and evade taxes surrender their right to practice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

SCR 22.19 (Consensual Revocation): Allows an attorney under investigation to ask the Supreme Court to revoke their law license by agreement, rather than fighting allegations.
SCR 22.20 (Summary Suspension): Permits immediate suspension of a license when an attorney is convicted of a serious crime, pending formal discipline.
SCR 20:8.4(b): Prohibits criminal acts that reflect negatively on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or overall fitness to practice.
SCR 20:8.4(c): Prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Restitution and Forfeiture: In Smith’s federal case, she was ordered to reimburse over $2.3 million and forfeit property—factors courts view as aggravating in discipline.

Conclusion

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Leslie M. Smith confirms that Wisconsin will not tolerate criminal misconduct by attorneys, even when victims are non-clients. By granting consensual revocation under SCR 22.19, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to public trust and ethical rigor: serious financial crimes by lawyers warrant nothing less than removal from the roll. This decision will guide future disciplinary matters, emphasizing that consent revocation is both a practical and principled resolution when an attorney admits profound misconduct and seeks to forgo contested proceedings.