Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Daniel W. Morse

2021 WI 17, 955 N.W.2d 161, 395 Wis. 2d 851

• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Decided: March 2, 2021
• Docket: 2016AP001288-D
• Status: Published

Opinion

2021 WI 17

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2016AP1288-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Daniel W. Morse, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant-Respondent, v. Daniel W. Morse, Respondent-Appellant.

ATTORNEY MORSE REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS Reported at 386 Wis. 2d 654, 927 N.W.2d 543 PDC No: 2019 WI 53 - Published

OPINION FILED: March 2, 2021 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE:

JUSTICES: Per Curiam. NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS: 2021 WI 17 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2016AP1288-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Daniel W. Morse, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED Complainant-Respondent, MAR 2, 2021 v. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court Daniel W. Morse,

Respondent-Appellant.

ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted.

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed by Referee Robert E. Kinney recommending that the court reinstate the

license of Daniel W. Morse to practice law in Wisconsin. No

appeal has been filed from the referee's report and

recommendation. Accordingly, our review proceeds pursuant to

Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.33(3). Upon careful review of the

matter, we adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions

of law and agree that Attorney Morse's petition for

reinstatement should be granted. As is our normal custom, we also direct that the costs of the reinstatement proceeding, No. 2016AP1288-D

which are $5,448.81 as of December 15, 2020, be paid by Attorney

Morse.

¶2 Attorney Morse was admitted to practice law in

Wisconsin in 1979. Attorney Morse was also licensed to practice

law in Florida and Pennsylvania. He was disbarred in Florida in

2019, and his Pennsylvania law license is administratively

suspended. In 2019, Attorney Morse's Wisconsin law license was

suspended for one year. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings

Against Morse, 2019 WI 53, 386 Wis. 2d 654, 927 N.W.2d 543. The

misconduct in that case related to an estate matter. Attorney

Morse failed to take steps to advance the interests of the

estate; failed to promptly deliver documents in his possession;

failed to abide by a probate court order; and failed to keep in

trust funds totaling over $25,000 belonging to the estate,

instead paying those funds to his law firm and himself and using

the funds to pay personal obligations.

¶3 Attorney Morse filed a petition for the reinstatement

of his Wisconsin law license on April 6, 2020. A hearing was held before the referee on October 13, 2020. The referee issued

his report and recommendation on November 24, 2020. The referee

found that Attorney Morse: desires to have his license

reinstated; has not practiced law during the period of

suspension; has not given members of the public misleading

information about his suspension or reinstatement; has fully

complied with the terms of the order of suspension; has

maintained competence and learning in the law by attending educational sessions; understands the gravity of his misconduct; 2 No. 2016AP1288-D

and has promptly made restitution. The referee also found that

Attorney Morse's conduct since the suspension has been exemplary

and above reproach and that he has a proper understanding of and

attitude toward the standards that are imposed on members of the

bar and will act in conformity with those standards. The

referee found that Attorney Morse can be safely recommended to

the legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit

to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise

act in matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in

the administration of justice as a member of the bar and an

officer of the courts.

¶4 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) provides the standards to

be met for reinstatement. Specifically, the petitioner must

show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or

she has the moral character to practice law, that his or her

resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the

administration of justice or subversive to the public interest,

and that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of the order of suspension. In addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c)

incorporates the statements that a petition for reinstatement

must contain pursuant to SCR 22.29(4)(a) – (m). Thus, the

petitioning attorney must demonstrate that the required

representations in the reinstatement petition are substantiated.

¶5 When reviewing referee reports in reinstatement

proceedings, we utilize standards of review similar to those

used for reviewing referee reports in disciplinary proceedings. We do not overturn a referee's findings of fact unless they are 3 No. 2016AP1288-D

clearly erroneous. On the other hand, we review a referee's

legal conclusions, including whether the attorney has in fact

satisfied the criteria for reinstatement, on a de novo basis.

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jennings, 2011 WI 45,

¶39, 334 Wis. 2d 335, 801 N.W.2d 304; In re Disciplinary

Proceedings Against Gral, 2010 WI 14, ¶22, 323 Wis. 2d 280, 779

N.W.2d 168. In making his recommendation, the referee noted

that Attorney Morse has acknowledged his ethical violations.

The referee said Attorney Morse is very knowledgeable about his

specific area of practice, and if, in the future, an issue at

the periphery of his knowledge arises, he has vowed that he will

consult with other experienced professionals. The referee said

making use of the expertise of these attorneys would be an

invaluable resource for Attorney Morse.

¶6 Upon review of the record, we agree that Attorney

Morse has established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing

evidence that he has satisfied all of the criteria necessary for

reinstatement. Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and we accept the referee's

recommendation that Attorney Morse's license to practice law in

Wisconsin should be reinstated. As is our standard policy, we

also find it appropriate to impose the full costs of this

proceeding on Attorney Morse.

¶7 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Daniel W. Morse to

practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date of

this order.

4 No. 2016AP1288-D

¶8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date

of this order, Daniel W. Morse shall pay to the Office of Lawyer

Regulation costs of this proceeding, which are $5,448.81 as of

December 15, 2020.

5 No. 2016AP1288-D