Reaffirming Reinstatement Standards Under SCR 22.305: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Rosin

Introduction

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin, 2025 WI 18, is a Supreme Court of Wisconsin decision addressing the criteria and procedure for restoring a suspended attorney’s license under Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.30 et seq. Attorney Kevin R. Rosin, admitted in 2004 and suspended in two successive disciplinary orders (Rosin I, 2023 WI 32, and Rosin II, 2024 WI 29), petitioned for reinstatement in August 2024. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) investigated, concluded he satisfied all mandatory criteria, and joined in a stipulation. The sole issue before the Court was whether the stipulation demonstrated, by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, that Rosin met the reinstatement standards.

Summary of the Judgment

In a per curiam order, the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the parties’ stipulation under SCR 22.30(5)(b) and reinstated Rosin’s license, effective May 27, 2025. The Court found no adverse evidence and concluded that Rosin had:

Demonstrated his moral character to practice law;
Shown that resumption of practice would not undermine justice or the public interest;
Substantiated all representations in his petition;
Fully complied with prior suspension and revocation orders;
Met the educational and restitution requirements of SCR 22.29 and 22.26.

No costs were imposed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court’s reinstatement analysis rests on two principal rule‐based precedents:

SCR 22.305 – Establishes that a petitioner bears the burden of proving, by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, four elements: moral character, non‐detriment to the administration of justice, substantiation of petition representations, and full compliance with prior discipline and SCR 22.26.
SCR 22.29 – Specifies the details a petition must contain, including demonstration of competence, exemplary conduct since suspension, restitution of client losses, attendance at legal education, and proposed use of reinstated license.

The Court also referenced Rosin I and Rosin II to outline Rosin’s disciplinary history and the misconduct findings under SCR 20:8.4(c) (dishonesty, deceit) and (f) (violation of court rules), incorporating the fiduciary‐duty principles from In re Shea, 190 Wis. 2d 560, 527 N.W.2d 314 (1995).

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied a two‐step framework: first, review the OLR’s investigative conclusion that Rosin satisfied the rule‐mandated criteria; second, decide whether to accept the stipulation. By SCR 22.30(5)(b), acceptance is appropriate when no material adverse evidence exists and the stipulation demonstrates compliance with SCR 22.305 and 22.29. The Court found:

The OLR’s January 9, 2025 response and February 24 memorandum confirmed Rosin’s fulfillment of educational, restitution, and conduct requirements.
Rosin maintained competence through identified continuing legal education.
No issues arose from the OLR’s independent investigation to contradict Rosin’s representations.

Consequently, reinstatement without a referee hearing was justified. The Court emphasized deference to the OLR’s expert evaluation and the stipulation’s evidentiary sufficiency.

Impact

This decision:

Reinforces the high evidentiary standard—clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence—for reinstatement petitions.
Confirms that a joint stipulation, when supported by thorough OLR investigation, can expedite reinstatement without plenary referee hearings.
Signals to suspended attorneys the importance of: diligent compliance with suspension orders, full restitution, continuous legal education, and transparent dealings with disciplinary authorities.
Guides lower tribunals to lean on SCR 22.30(5)(b) to streamline reinstatement proceedings when criteria are demonstrably met.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Clear, Satisfactory, and Convincing Evidence: A standard above “preponderance of the evidence” but below “beyond a reasonable doubt,” requiring a high degree of probability that the petitioner has met each reinstatement criterion.

Stipulation Under SCR 22.30(5)(b): An agreement between the petitioner and the OLR stating that all reinstatement requirements are met, allowing the Supreme Court to decide reinstatement without appointing a referee or holding a full hearing.

Referee Appointment: A neutral fact‐finder assigned when the Court rejects the parties’ stipulation or identifies genuine disputes of material fact in the reinstatement petition.

Conclusion

The Rosin decision crystallizes the procedure and proof required for attorney reinstatement in Wisconsin. By affirming the efficacy of a fully supported stipulation under SCR 22.30(5)(b) and underscoring the clear, satisfactory, and convincing standard of SCR 22.305, the Court provides a roadmap for disciplined attorneys seeking to return to practice. This ruling preserves the integrity of the bar by demanding rigorous proof of rehabilitation, deterrence of misconduct, and protection of the public interest.