Reinforcing Stipulation-Based Reinstatement Under SCR 22.30(5)(b): Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin

Introduction

In Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin, 2025 WI 18 (Wis. May 27, 2025), the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed the procedure for reinstating an attorney’s license via stipulation under Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.30(5)(b). Attorney Rosin, originally admitted in 2004, faced two disciplinary suspensions (one-year in Rosin I and six months in Rosin II) for professional misconduct in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) and (f). After serving the suspensions, Rosin petitioned for reinstatement. The key issues included whether the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) had adequately investigated and concluded that Rosin met the statutory criteria, whether a referee hearing was required, and whether the Supreme Court should accept the parties’ joint stipulation and reinstate the license without imposing costs.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court, per curiam, considered:

Rosin’s petition and OLR’s response under SCR 22.30(4).
The parties’ stipulation and OLR’s supporting memorandum under SCR 22.30(5)(a).
The reinstatement criteria in SCR 22.305 and SCR 22.29.

Finding no adverse evidence and concluding that Rosin had demonstrated, by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, (1) moral character; (2) public-interest friendliness; (3) substantiated representations; and (4) full compliance with prior orders, the Court accepted the stipulation under SCR 22.30(5)(b) and reinstated his law license effective the date of the order. No costs were imposed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Rosin I, 2023 WI 32, 407 Wis. 2d 1, 988 N.W.2d 681 – Established that Rosin violated SCR 20:8.4(c) (dishonesty) and the firm-fiduciary standard under Shea.
Rosin II, 2024 WI 29, 412 Wis. 2d 448, 8 N.W.3d 452 – Found additional violations arising from simultaneous, undisclosed employment by two firms.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shea, 190 Wis. 2d 560, 527 N.W.2d 314 (1995) – Articulated a lawyer’s fiduciary duty and honesty toward the law firm employer.
SCR 20:8.4(c)/(f) – Prohibit dishonesty and violation of court rules.
SCR 22.26–22.30 – Govern suspension, revocation, and reinstatement procedures.

These authorities shaped the Court’s focus on whether Rosin had remedied past misconduct, demonstrated exemplary post-suspension conduct, and complied with all procedural requirements for reinstatement.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning followed the two-step framework in SCR 22.30:

OLR Investigation and Stipulation: Under SCR 22.30(4), the OLR must investigate the petitioner’s compliance and, if satisfied, file a response indicating readiness to stipulate. Here, the OLR concluded on January 9, 2025, that Rosin met all criteria and filed a supporting memo on February 24.
Court Consideration Under SCR 22.30(5)(b): The Court may accept the stipulation without appointing a referee if the OLR director is satisfied. The stipulation asserted, and the record confirmed, that Rosin (a) bears clear, convincing proof of moral character; (b) poses no threat to justice administration; (c) made accurate representations in his petition; and (d) fully complied with the suspension orders and SCR 22.26 obligations.

Finding no contradictory evidence, the Court held that the stipulation satisfied the high burden in SCR 22.305 and granted reinstatement, waiving all costs as permitted by SCR 22.30(5).

Impact

This decision clarifies and reinforces several points:

It confirms the efficacy of stipulation-based reinstatement under SCR 22.30(5)(b) when the OLR is satisfied that petitioners meet all criteria.
It underscores the stringent “clear, satisfactory, and convincing” standard in SCR 22.305 for evaluating moral character and public-interest fitness.
It signals to disciplined attorneys that full compliance with suspension orders, honest post-suspension conduct, and proactive professional development will facilitate reinstatement.
It streamlines the process by reducing the need for costly, time-consuming referee hearings where the OLR and petitioner jointly agree.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Stipulation: A formal agreement between the OLR and the petitioner stating that the petitioner has met all reinstatement criteria.
Referee: An independent officer appointed by the Court to hold a hearing on reinstatement if the stipulation route is not used or approved.
Clear, Satisfactory, and Convincing Evidence: A burden of proof requiring a high level of certainty that the petitioner's claims are true—higher than “preponderance” but lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Moral Character: An evaluation of the petitioner’s honesty, integrity, and respect for legal norms since suspension.
SCR 22.26 Compliance: Obligation to meet any specific conditions (e.g., restitution, continuing education) imposed by the suspension or revocation order.

Conclusion

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Rosin serves as a landmark reaffirmation of the stipulation-based reinstatement mechanism under SCR 22.30(5)(b). By illustrating the procedural steps and high evidentiary standards required, the decision provides a clear roadmap for attorneys seeking to regain their licenses after suspension. It balances the disciplinary system’s need to protect the public and maintain the profession’s integrity against the rehabilitative goal of allowing reformed attorneys to resume practice. Ultimately, the ruling enhances predictability and efficiency in reinstatement proceedings while upholding rigorous standards of professional conduct.