Reinstatement by Joint Stipulation Under SCR 22.30(5)(b): Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Rosin

Introduction

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin, decided May 27, 2025 by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin (2025 WI 18), addresses the framework for reinstating a suspended attorney’s license through a joint stipulation under Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.30(5)(b). Kevin R. Rosin, admitted in 2004, had previously been suspended twice for professional misconduct involving conflict of interest, misrepresentation, and dishonesty toward his employers. This case arises from Rosin’s petition for reinstatement following a one-year suspension (Rosin I, 2023 WI 32) and a consecutive six‐month suspension (Rosin II, 2024 WI 29). The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) investigated Rosin’s petition, concluded that he met all reinstatement criteria under SCR 22.305 and SCR 22.29, and joined in a stipulation recommending reinstatement of his law license without appointment of a referee.

Summary of the Judgment

The court reviewed the joint stipulation and supporting materials under SCR 22.30(5)(b) and concluded that Rosin had established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence:

He possesses the moral character required to practice law in Wisconsin;
Reinstatement would not be detrimental to the administration of justice or the public interest;
His petition representations (per SCR 22.29) are substantiated;
He fully complied with the terms of his suspensions and the requirements of SCR 22.26.

Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the stipulation, reinstated Rosin’s license effective immediately, and ordered that no costs be imposed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Rosin I (2023 WI 32): Established the one‐year suspension for forming a competing entity and misappropriating client fees in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) and the fiduciary duty standard of In re Shea.
Rosin II (2024 WI 29): Imposed a consecutive six‐month suspension for misleading dual‐employment arrangements with two firms.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shea, 190 Wis. 2d 560 (1995): Confirmed an attorney’s fiduciary duty and duty of honesty to the law firm.
SCR 22.305: Sets the burden and criteria for reinstatement (moral character, public interest, substantiated representations, compliance with suspension terms).
SCR 22.29: Specifies the content and requirements of a reinstatement petition, including proof of competence, restitution, and exemplary conduct during suspension.
SCR 22.30(5)(b): Authorizes the court to reinstate by stipulation, bypassing a referee when OLR concurs that criteria are met.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning rests on the unambiguous language of SCR 22.30(5)(b), which streamlines reinstatement when the OLR director confirms that all statutory and rule‐based criteria are satisfied. After OLR’s investigation and response (SCR 22.30(4)), the parties submitted a joint stipulation (SCR 22.30(5)(a)) and OLR’s supporting memorandum. The court determined that:

Rosin bore the burden of proof by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence (SCR 22.305).
The record contained no contradictory evidence or adverse material issues.
Public protection and the integrity of the profession justified reinstatement without a hearing.

By accepting the stipulation, the court adhered strictly to the rule’s text, affirming the OLR’s investigative role and maintaining judicial efficiency.

Impact

This decision clarifies and reinforces the availability of reinstatement by stipulation as an efficient alternative to a full hearing. Key impacts include:

Encouraging disciplined attorneys to pursue remediation and satisfy rule‐based criteria, knowing that cooperative stipulations may expedite reinstatement.
Affirming OLR’s central role in vetting reinstatement petitions, thus conserving judicial resources.
Providing a roadmap for future reinstatement petitions: thorough documentation under SCR 22.29 and SCR 22.305, transparent OLR engagement, and clear stipulation drafting.
Reinforcing public confidence in the disciplinary system by demonstrating that misconduct is addressed rigorously and that restoration of privilege is conditioned on demonstrable rehabilitation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Stipulation: A joint agreement of the parties presented to the court, avoiding the need for a contested hearing.
Referee: An independent hearing officer appointed by the court to take evidence and make findings when reinstatement cannot be resolved by stipulation.
Clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence: A standard of proof higher than a preponderance of the evidence, requiring firm belief or conviction in the truth of the allegations.
SCR: Supreme Court Rules governing attorney discipline, reinstatement, and professional conduct in Wisconsin.
Public interest: The welfare of the community and the legal system, which must not be compromised by reinstating an attorney unfit to practice.

Conclusion

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Rosin establishes a clear application of SCR 22.30(5)(b) for reinstatement by joint stipulation, emphasizing the efficiency and fairness of the disciplinary system when disciplined attorneys meet rigorous reintegration criteria. The court’s decision underscores the importance of OLR’s investigative role, the weight of a clear and comprehensive stipulation, and the strict standards governing moral character and public protection. This precedent will guide future reinstatement proceedings and bolster confidence that the profession’s gatekeeping is both exacting and rehabilitative.