Wisconsin May Discipline Its Lawyers for Out-of-State Pro Se Litigation Under the Forum’s Ethics Rules (SCR 20:8.5)

Introduction

In Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Angela W. DeBose (Wis. June 17, 2026), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin addressed a threshold disciplinary question: whether a Wisconsin-licensed attorney—litigating pro se in another state where she is not admitted—may nonetheless be disciplined in Wisconsin for that out-of-state litigation conduct, and whether Wisconsin may apply the other state’s professional conduct rules via Wisconsin’s choice-of-law rule.

The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint alleging that Attorney Angela W. DeBose’s extensive pro se litigation in Florida courts violated two Florida rules of professional conduct: Florida Rule 4-3.1 (frivolous proceedings) and Florida Rule 4-8.2(a) (false or reckless statements concerning the integrity of judges). A referee recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim, reasoning that because DeBose was not a Florida Bar member and allegedly lacked notice that Florida’s rules could apply to her pro se conduct, Wisconsin “like Florida” lacked authority to discipline her under SCR 20:8.5(b)(1).

With no appeal filed, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the matter under SCR 22.17(2), rejected the referee’s premise, vacated the referee’s report, and remanded for further proceedings.

Summary of the Opinion

The court held that Wisconsin’s disciplinary authority plainly reaches a Wisconsin-admitted lawyer’s conduct “regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs” under SCR 20:8.5(a). The possibility that Florida may or may not be able to discipline DeBose (a question the court expressly did not decide) is irrelevant to Wisconsin’s power to proceed.

The court further held that SCR 20:8.5(b)(1)—Wisconsin’s choice-of-law provision—means that for conduct connected with a matter pending before a tribunal, the rules of the jurisdiction where the tribunal sits apply. Because DeBose’s alleged misconduct occurred in Florida tribunals, the Florida Rules are the applicable rules in Wisconsin’s disciplinary proceeding. The court deemed unfounded the referee’s “lack of notice” concern: a Wisconsin lawyer is expected to know and follow Wisconsin’s rules, including the choice-of-law directive in SCR 20:8.5(b)(1).

Accordingly, the court vacated the referee’s dismissal recommendation and remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the OLR’s complaint.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court relied on the persuasive authority of Att'y Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. Whitted, 319 A.3d 1116 (Md. 2024). In Whitted, Maryland disciplined a Maryland-admitted lawyer for frivolous pro se litigation in Washington courts, even though the lawyer was not licensed in Washington, applying Washington’s professional conduct rules pursuant to a Maryland rule identical to Wisconsin’s SCR 20:8.5(b)(1).

The Wisconsin Supreme Court used Whitted to confirm two key propositions that directly countered the referee’s analysis:

  • Out-of-state, pro se status does not “exempt” a lawyer from professional standards when the lawyer is being disciplined by their home jurisdiction.
  • A home jurisdiction may apply the forum jurisdiction’s ethics rules through a choice-of-law provision like SCR 20:8.5(b)(1), even if the lawyer is not admitted there.

Notably, the opinion does not treat Whitted as binding precedent; rather, it functions as strong confirmation that the referee’s “no authority” conclusion is inconsistent with how identical rules operate elsewhere.

Legal Reasoning

The decision turns on a structured reading of Wisconsin’s professional responsibility framework:

  1. Step 1 — Disciplinary power (SCR 20:8.5(a)): A Wisconsin-admitted lawyer is subject to Wisconsin discipline “regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs.” The court emphasized the common-sense rationale: a lawyer’s fitness is measured holistically, and conduct in another jurisdiction can reflect on fitness to practice in Wisconsin.
  2. Step 2 — Which ethics rules apply (SCR 20:8.5(b)(1)): When the conduct is connected to a matter pending before a tribunal, the applicable rules are those “of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits,” unless the tribunal’s rules provide otherwise. Here, Florida tribunals were involved, so Florida’s rules supply the governing standards for the charged conduct.
  3. Step 3 — Rejecting the “Florida can’t discipline her” premise: The referee’s logic assumed that because DeBose was not a Florida lawyer, Florida could not regulate her, and therefore Wisconsin could not apply Florida rules either. The court rejected that linkage: Wisconsin’s authority comes from Wisconsin admission (SCR 20:8.5(a)), and Wisconsin’s choice-of-law directs use of the forum’s rules (SCR 20:8.5(b)(1))—without making Wisconsin’s authority contingent on Florida’s disciplinary reach.
  4. Step 4 — Notice: The court found no unfair surprise in applying Florida’s rules through SCR 20:8.5(b)(1), because Wisconsin lawyers are expected to know Wisconsin’s disciplinary and choice-of-law regime. Pro se status does not negate that expectation when the lawyer is being held to lawyer standards by their licensing authority.

Importantly, this order does not decide whether DeBose in fact violated Florida Rule 4-3.1 or Florida Rule 4-8.2(a). It decides only that the complaint should not have been dismissed on the theory that Wisconsin lacked authority or that the Florida Rules were inapplicable due to DeBose’s pro se/non-Florida-admitted status.

Impact

The order’s practical and doctrinal impacts are significant, even though it is procedurally an order vacating a referee’s report and remanding:

  • Clarifies “no pro se carve-out” for attorneys: Wisconsin lawyers cannot avoid professional discipline by characterizing out-of-state court conduct as purely personal pro se activity. If the conduct reflects on fitness and occurs in connection with tribunal proceedings, Wisconsin may act.
  • Strengthens SCR 20:8.5(b)(1) as an operational tool: The court reads the choice-of-law rule as applying “by its plain terms” to the lawyer’s tribunal-connected conduct, not as dependent on whether the forum state could independently discipline the lawyer.
  • Interjurisdictional accountability: Lawyers admitted in Wisconsin but litigating elsewhere—especially in repeated, sanctionable, or vexatious patterns—are on clear notice that Wisconsin discipline can follow, and the forum’s ethics rules may supply the standards.
  • Procedural consequence for OLR practice: OLR complaints premised on forum-state rules for forum-tribunal conduct should survive early dismissal where SCR 20:8.5(a) and (b)(1) are satisfied, shifting disputes to whether the conduct meets the elements (e.g., frivolousness, knowledge/recklessness).

Complex Concepts Simplified

Pro se
Representing yourself in court without a lawyer. The key point here is that a person can be pro se and still be a licensed lawyer—and their licensing state may still regulate them as a lawyer.
Disciplinary authority (SCR 20:8.5(a))
Wisconsin’s power to discipline lawyers admitted in Wisconsin, even for conduct outside Wisconsin.
Choice of law (SCR 20:8.5(b)(1))
Which jurisdiction’s ethics rules Wisconsin will apply in a Wisconsin disciplinary case. For tribunal-related conduct, Wisconsin uses the rules of the state where the court sits.
“Tribunal sits”
The physical/legal location of the court (e.g., Florida state court or a federal court located in Florida). That location determines which ethics rules apply under SCR 20:8.5(b)(1).
Res judicata and collateral estoppel
Doctrines that prevent relitigation. Res judicata (claim preclusion) bars re-filing the same claim after a final judgment; collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) bars re-arguing issues already decided.
Frivolous litigation (Florida Rule 4-3.1)
Bringing claims with no basis in law or fact, unless there is a good-faith argument to change existing law.
Statements about judges (Florida Rule 4-8.2(a))
Prohibits knowingly false statements—or statements made with reckless disregard for truth—about a judge’s qualifications or integrity.
Vacate and remand
To “vacate” is to nullify the prior report/order. To “remand” is to send the case back for further proceedings consistent with the higher court’s ruling.

Conclusion

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Angela W. DeBose establishes a clear Wisconsin rule for attorney discipline across borders: Wisconsin may discipline its lawyers for out-of-state conduct, including pro se litigation conduct, and may apply the forum tribunal’s ethics rules under SCR 20:8.5(b)(1). The court rejected the notion that non-admission in the forum state or alleged lack of notice creates an exemption from professional standards enforced by the lawyer’s licensing jurisdiction. The immediate result is procedural—vacatur and remand—but the doctrinal message is durable: bar membership carries portable professional accountability.