License Revocation by Consent under SCR 22.19 for Criminal Acts Reflecting on Lawyer Fitness

Introduction

In Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Leslie M. Smith, 2025 WI 19, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin considered a petition by Attorney Leslie M. Smith to revoke her license to practice law by consent, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 22.19, after she was convicted in federal court of multiple counts of health care fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion. The key issues were whether Attorney Smith’s criminal convictions—none directly connected to her client representation—nonetheless violated the professional conduct rules prohibiting criminal acts that reflect adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness (SCR 20:8.4(b)), and dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation (SCR 20:8.4(c)), and whether revocation by consent was the appropriate and only sanction.

The parties are the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), which investigates and prosecutes attorney misconduct in Wisconsin, and Attorney Leslie M. Smith, who sought revocation rather than defend against pending disciplinary allegations.

Summary of the Judgment

By a per curiam order dated May 28, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted Attorney Smith’s petition for consensual revocation of her law license under SCR 22.19. The court concluded that her federal convictions—eight counts of health care fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion—provided a sufficient basis to find violations of SCR 20:8.4(b) and (c). After reviewing the petition, the OLR’s recommendation, and the applicable precedents, the court revoked Smith’s license effective immediately and ordered compliance with post-revocation procedures under SCR 22.26.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126: Held that any criminal act reflecting adversely on a lawyer’s honesty or fitness—whether or not connected to legal services—violates SCR 20:8.4(b).
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gedlen, 2007 WI 121: Found conversion of client or third-party funds and falsification of financial documents to violate SCR 20:8.4(c).
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Felli, 2007 WI 49: Confirmed that misappropriation of trust funds for personal business purposes breaches SCR 20:8.4(c).
Historical examples of license revocation by consent for financial crimes, including:
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Miller (1990): Attempted tax evasion and false return.
- Schierland (2004), Paulus (2004), Hurtgen (2009), Semancik (2015), Lein (2024): Convictions for wire fraud, tax fraud, bribery, theft by embezzlement.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning rested on two pillars:

Violation of Professional Conduct Rules:
- SCR 20:8.4(b) prohibits “any criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness.” The court held that Attorney Smith’s health care fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion inherently reflected on her honesty and fitness.
- SCR 20:8.4(c) prohibits conduct involving “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” Smith’s misappropriation of Medicaid funds, forging signatures and documents, and false tax filings plainly fell within this proscription.
Appropriateness of Consensual Revocation:
- SCR 22.19 allows an attorney under investigation to petition for revocation by consent. The court found Smith “cannot successfully defend” against the allegations and freely, knowingly, and voluntarily waived her rights to contest them.
- Given the seriousness of multiple financial crimes and the large sums involved—over $2.3 million in restitution and forfeiture—the court reaffirmed that revocation is the only fitting sanction for such misconduct.

Impact

This decision reinforces several important points for future disciplinary proceedings in Wisconsin:

Any serious financial crime by a lawyer—regardless of connection to legal services—will trigger professional discipline under SCR 20:8.4(b) and (c).
Consensual revocation under SCR 22.19 remains an efficient resolution when the attorney admits facts and chooses not to contest allegations.
The ruling deters lawyers from engaging in off-duty criminal conduct that undermines public confidence in the profession’s integrity.
The court’s reference to established precedent provides clear guidance that revocation, not suspension, is the presumptive outcome for egregious fraud and tax-related crimes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

SCR 22.19 (Consensual Revocation): A rule permitting an attorney under investigation or discipline to request immediate revocation of their license without a full hearing, provided they admit the misconduct.
SCR 20:8.4(b) & (c): Key ethics rules stating it is professional misconduct to commit criminal acts reflecting on a lawyer’s honesty or to engage in fraud or deceit.
Summary Suspension (SCR 22.20): Automatic suspension of a lawyer’s license following certain criminal convictions, pending discipline proceedings.
Restitution & Forfeiture: Court-ordered repayment to victims and surrender of assets tied to criminal proceeds.

Conclusion

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Leslie M. Smith confirms that attorneys convicted of serious financial crimes—health care fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion—cannot escape discipline by arguing the misconduct was unrelated to their legal practice. Under SCR 20:8.4(b) and (c), such crimes inevitably reflect on a lawyer’s fitness, and consent revocation under SCR 22.19 is the proper remedy when the attorney admits the facts and declines to contest the allegations. This decision strengthens the ethical framework governing lawyer conduct in Wisconsin and underscores the profession’s commitment to honesty and public trust.