Mandatory Full Disclosure of All Disciplinary Actions in Lawyer Reinstatement Proceedings

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s decision in Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Steven D. Johnson establishes a new procedural requirement for reinstatement petitions: all prior and concurrent disciplinary matters must be disclosed and considered. Attorney Johnson, licensed since 2005, faced a six-month suspension in November 2023 for misconduct spanning late 2018 to late 2020. After serving that suspension, he petitioned for reinstatement in March 2024. Although the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) did not oppose reinstatement and a referee recommended approval, the court discovered that neither party disclosed a contemporaneous public reprimand issued in November 2024 for separate 2021 misconduct. Concerned that this omission undermines the court’s duty to assess moral character comprehensively, the Supreme Court ordered supplemental filings addressing how the later reprimand affects the reinstatement decision.

Summary of the Judgment

By order dated April 10, 2025, the court reviewed the referee’s recommendation to reinstate Attorney Johnson’s license. During review under SCR 22.33(3), the court learned of a public reprimand issued against Johnson in November 2024 for billing and confidentiality violations arising from his 2021 representations. Neither that reprimand nor related proceedings had been disclosed in the reinstatement petition, stipulation, or referee hearings. Recognizing that reinstatement inquiries require a “full and unrestricted evaluation” of the lawyer’s moral character and fitness (SCR 22.305; Penn, 2002 WI 5, ¶8), the court ordered the OLR to file all materials from the November 2024 public-reprimand proceeding and directed both parties to submit briefs on the reprimand’s impact on the pending reinstatement petition.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court relied on a series of Supreme Court Rules and prior decisions to frame its order:

SCR 22.33(3): Authorizes the court, absent an appeal, to accept or reject a referee’s reinstatement recommendation or order further briefing.
SCR 22.30(5)(b): Allows the court to reject a stipulation for reinstatement and refer the matter to a referee.
SCR 22.305: Sets the standard for proving moral character and fitness to resume practice.
SCR 22.29(4): Enumerates the matters a reinstatement petition “shall show,” effectively requiring comprehensive disclosure.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Johnson, 2023 WI 73: Detailed the misconduct warranting Attorney Johnson’s six-month suspension and emphasized the value of a formal reinstatement process.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 2018 WI 56: Confirmed that reinstatement hearings must evaluate past, present, and likely future conduct.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Penn, 2002 WI 5: Interpreted SCR 22.29 and SCR 22.30 to require a broad, unrestricted inquiry in reinstatement proceedings.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Dade, 2017 WI 51: Discussed progressive discipline and extenuating circumstances relevant to sanction selection.

Together, these authorities establish that a reinstatement petitioner and the OLR cannot partition disciplinary events into “separate” proceedings when assessing moral character.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning centered on two pillars:

Scope of Inquiry: Under SCR 22.305 and the case law interpreting it, reinstatement requires clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence of moral character and fitness, which in turn demands examination of all relevant misconduct. The undisclosed public reprimand for 2021 misconduct—billing a paralegal’s time at attorney rates, failing to supervise staff, and breaching confidentiality—directly bears on fitness to practice.
Duty of Disclosure: SCR 22.29(4) and SCR 22.30(5)(a) obligate the petitioner and the OLR to identify any material issues potentially adverse to reinstatement. By omitting the 2024 public reprimand from the petition, stipulation, pre-hearing briefs, and referee report, both parties thwarted the court’s ability to conduct the comprehensive vetting required by precedent.

The court concluded that the “breadth of the required inquiry” (Penn, ¶8) makes it “unclear” why the parties treated the two disciplinary matters as “mutually exclusive.” To preserve the integrity of the reinstatement process, the court ordered supplemental materials and briefing.

Impact

This decision crystallizes a new procedural principle for lawyer reinstatement in Wisconsin:

Mandatory Full Disclosure: All disciplinary actions—whether prior, concurrent, or pending—must be disclosed in reinstatement petitions and related filings.
Expanded Vetting: Referees and the Supreme Court must consider every instance of professional misconduct when evaluating moral character, even if previously resolved by public or private reprimand.
Heightened Transparency: The OLR and petitioners will need to revise internal policies to ensure that disciplinary histories are fully integrated into reinstatement proceedings.

Future petitioners should anticipate rigorous scrutiny of their complete disciplinary record, which may lengthen proceedings but will bolster public confidence in the bar.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Referee: A court-appointed official who takes evidence and makes a recommendation on reinstatement.
SCR: Abbreviation for “Supreme Court Rule,” the set of procedural and ethical rules governing Wisconsin lawyers.
Progressive Discipline: The principle that sanctions should escalate with repeated or aggravated misconduct.
Consensual Public Reprimand: A disciplinary resolution in which a lawyer admits misconduct and accepts a public reprimand without contested litigation.
Moral Character Inquiry: Evaluation of a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness to practice law.
Machner Hearing: A post-conviction hearing to determine if a criminal defendant received effective assistance of counsel.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s order in Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Steven D. Johnson establishes that reinstatement proceedings must encompass all disciplinary matters affecting a petitioner’s moral character. By requiring full disclosure and supplementary briefing on the 2024 public reprimand, the court reaffirmed its commitment to rigorous enforcement of ethical standards. Going forward, this precedent will ensure that no significant disciplinary event is overlooked when determining whether a lawyer may reenter the profession, thereby strengthening public trust in the integrity of the legal system.