Stipulated Reinstatement under SCR 22.30(5)(b): Criteria and Application in Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin

Introduction

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin, 2025 WI 18 (Supreme Court of Wisconsin, May 27, 2025), addresses the reinstatement of an attorney’s license following disciplinary suspensions. Attorney Kevin R. Rosin, originally admitted in 2004, had been suspended twice for professional misconduct—first, a one-year suspension for dishonest dealings with his firm’s clients and internal misrepresentations (Rosin I, 2023 WI 32), and second, a six-month suspension for misleading two firms about simultaneous employment (Rosin II, 2024 WI 29). In May 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered a joint stipulation under Supreme Court Rule 22.30(5)(b) submitted by Rosin and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), concluding that Rosin had satisfied all criteria for reinstatement. This decision establishes a clear framework for reinstatement on stipulation when the regulatory body supports the petition.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court accepted the parties’ joint stipulation and reinstated Attorney Rosin’s license to practice law in Wisconsin, effective immediately, without imposing any costs. Under SCR 22.30(5)(b), when the OLR concludes after investigation that a petitioner has met all statutory and rule-based criteria for reinstatement, the Court may dispense with a referee hearing and approve reinstatement on stipulation. Having reviewed Rosin’s petition, the OLR’s response, the stipulation, and the supporting memorandum, the Court found by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Rosin demonstrated moral character, posed no threat to the administration of justice, fully complied with prior disciplinary orders, and met all procedural and substantive requirements of SCR 22.29 and 22.305.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Rosin I, 2023 WI 32, 407 Wis. 2d 1, 988 N.W.2d 681: Held that Rosin violated SCR 20:8.4(c) by forming a side LLC, soliciting firm clients, collecting fees improperly, and making misrepresentations to his employer, actionable under SCR 20:8.4(f) and the fiduciary standard of Shea.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Rosin II, 2024 WI 29, 412 Wis. 2d 448, 8 N.W.3d 452: Found overlapping employment with two firms, failure to disclose dual engagements, and misleading conduct.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shea, 190 Wis. 2d 560, 527 N.W.2d 314 (1995): Established an attorney’s fiduciary duty to their law firm and a duty of honesty in firm dealings.
SCR 22.29 and 22.305: Set forth the procedural and substantive criteria for reinstatement, including proof by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence of moral character, compliance with suspension orders, restitution of harmed parties, maintenance of legal competence, and exemplary conduct.
SCR 22.30(5)(b): Permits the Court to consider a reinstatement petition on stipulation when the OLR director is satisfied that all criteria have been met.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning rests on three pillars:

Rule-based authority: SCR 22.30(5)(b) authorizes summary reinstatement on stipulation, bypassing a referee, when the OLR supports a petition after investigation.
Compliance and rehabilitation: The OLR’s memorandum confirmed no outstanding issues—Rosin met conditions of his suspensions, completed required education, made any necessary restitution, and maintained moral character.
Absence of contrary evidence: The record contained no facts suggesting detrimental or subversive behavior post-suspension. Accordingly, the Court adopted the stipulation and reinstated Rosin’s license without hearing.

Impact

This decision clarifies and reinforces the streamlined pathway for attorney reinstatement by stipulation, subject to OLR endorsement:

Efficiency: Reduces time and resources by avoiding referee hearings in uncontested reinstatement cases.
Regulatory oversight: Emphasizes the OLR’s gatekeeping role—only petitions supported by a thorough OLR investigation come before the Court on stipulation.
Future guidance: Sets a precedent for practitioners seeking reinstatement to demonstrably satisfy SCR 22.29 and 22.305, document compliance, and secure OLR’s backing.
Public confidence: Balances the attorney’s second chance with assurance that only rehabilitated, trustworthy lawyers return to practice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Stipulation (SCR 22.30(5)(b)): A joint agreement between the petitioner and OLR stating that the petitioner has met all the legal criteria for reinstatement. If supported by the OLR, the Court can grant reinstatement without a formal hearing.
Clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence: A standard of proof requiring a high degree of certainty, less than “beyond a reasonable doubt” but more than a “preponderance of the evidence.”
SCR 20:8.4(c) and (f): Rules defining professional misconduct—(c) prohibits dishonesty and fraud; (f) prohibits violation of court rules or orders.
Fiduciary duty to a law firm: An attorney must act with loyalty and honesty toward their employer firm, avoiding secret profits or undisclosed conflicts.

Conclusion

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin establishes a clear, rule-based process for reinstatement on stipulation under SCR 22.30(5)(b). It reaffirms that an attorney who demonstrates rehabilitation, compliance with disciplinary orders, exemplary conduct, and secures OLR’s support can promptly regain the privilege to practice law. By articulating the necessary criteria and procedures, this decision will guide future reinstatement petitions and bolster the integrity of Wisconsin’s disciplinary system.