2016 WI 60
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jane A. Edgar, Attorney at Law:
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,
Complainant,
v.
Jane A. Edgar,
Respondent-Appellant.
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jane A. Edgar, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
OPINION FILED: July 8, 2016 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE:
JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS: 2016 WI 60 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jane A. Edgar, Attorney at Law:
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, FILED Complainant, JUL 8, 2016 v. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court Jane A. Edgar,
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jane A. Edgar, Attorney at Law:
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Attorney's license
reinstated with conditions. No. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed by Referee
Jonathan V. Goodman, recommending that the court reinstate the
license of Jane A. Edgar to practice law in Wisconsin with
conditions. Upon careful review of the matter, we agree that
Attorney Edgar's license should be reinstated, with conditions.
We further agree that Attorney Edgar should be required to pay
the full costs of this proceeding, which are $2,575.60 as of
April 4, 2016.
¶2 Attorney Edgar was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin on June 17, 1985. On March 22, 1999, the Court
suspended her license to practice law for two years for
misconduct consisting of conversion of funds, improperly
commingling funds, and falsely certifying that she had a trust
account and maintained proper trust account and bank records.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Edgar, 230 Wis. 2d 205, 601
N.W.2d 284 (1999).
¶3 In 2003, Edgar's license was suspended for an
additional year, retroactive to March 22, 2001, for misconduct consisting of multiple violations of failing to take reasonably
practicable steps to protect her clients' interests; failing to
keep clients reasonably informed or to comply with clients'
requests for information; failing to act with reasonable
diligence; and failing to cooperate with OLR's grievance
investigations. She also failed to render a full accounting in
connection with an advanced fee; practiced law while under
administrative suspension; and failed to obtain a written
2 No. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D
conflict waiver. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Edgar, 2003 WI
49, 261 Wis. 2d 413, 661 N.W.2d 817.
¶4 On September 20, 2010, Attorney Edgar unsuccessfully
sought reinstatement of her Wisconsin law license. Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Edgar, 2012 WI 19, 338 Wis. 2d 729, 809
N.W.2d 524.
¶5 On June 22, 2015, Attorney Edgar filed a new petition
seeking reinstatement of her law license. On December 29, 2015,
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a response stating
it does not oppose her reinstatement but recommending a lawyer
oversee her practice for a period of two years. The referee
conducted a public hearing on February 10, 2016. The referee
filed his report and recommendation on March 15, 2016,
recommending reinstatement, with one year of monitoring by an
attorney.
¶6 Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 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 to
these requirements, SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m) provides additional
requirements that a petition for reinstatement must show. All
of these additional requirements are effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1). 3 No. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D
¶7 When we review a referee's report and recommendation,
we will adopt the referee's findings of fact unless they are
clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14,
¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.
¶8 We conclude that the referee's findings support a
determination that Attorney Edgar has met her burden to
establish by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that
she has met all of the standards required for reinstatement of
her license to practice law in Wisconsin. The referee found that
Attorney Edgar has not practiced law during the period of her
suspension; that she has complied fully with the terms of the
order of suspension and will continue to do so until her license
is reinstated; and that she has maintained competence and
learning in the law. If reinstated, Attorney Edgar intends to
serve as a guardian ad litem in Children's Court.
¶9 The record further supports the referee's conclusion
that Attorney Edgar's conduct since her suspension has been exemplary and above reproach; that she has a proper
understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are
imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with
those standards; that she 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
4 No. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D
of the courts; and that she has fully complied with the
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26.
¶10 In assessing Attorney Edgar's moral character and
whether her resumption of the practice of law would be
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of
the public interest, the referee was impressed by the testimony
of the Dean and Rector of All Saints Cathedral, who testified in
support of Attorney Edgar's character. The referee noted
Attorney Edgar was "very contrite" in acknowledging her past
professional misconduct and observed that Attorney Edgar's
suspension has resulted in significant economic and social
hardship to her.
¶11 The OLR also acknowledges that Attorney Edgar has
expressed "deep regret" for her misconduct. Attorney Edgar has
satisfied the costs imposed on her in connection with her 1999
disciplinary case, paid full restitution to former clients as
required by her 2003 suspension order, and has paid the costs
associated with her first attempt at reinstatement. And, significantly, Attorney Edgar has addressed mental health issues
that previously compromised her ability to function as a lawyer.
Consequently, many of the conditions imposed in prior
disciplinary proceedings are no longer warranted.
¶12 The OLR recommended that Attorney Edgar be monitored
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2016 WI 60
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jane A. Edgar, Attorney at Law:
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,
Complainant,
v.
Jane A. Edgar,
Respondent-Appellant.
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jane A. Edgar, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
OPINION FILED: July 8, 2016 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE:
JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS: 2016 WI 60 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jane A. Edgar, Attorney at Law:
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, FILED Complainant, JUL 8, 2016 v. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court Jane A. Edgar,
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jane A. Edgar, Attorney at Law:
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Attorney's license
reinstated with conditions. No. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed by Referee
Jonathan V. Goodman, recommending that the court reinstate the
license of Jane A. Edgar to practice law in Wisconsin with
conditions. Upon careful review of the matter, we agree that
Attorney Edgar's license should be reinstated, with conditions.
We further agree that Attorney Edgar should be required to pay
the full costs of this proceeding, which are $2,575.60 as of
April 4, 2016.
¶2 Attorney Edgar was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin on June 17, 1985. On March 22, 1999, the Court
suspended her license to practice law for two years for
misconduct consisting of conversion of funds, improperly
commingling funds, and falsely certifying that she had a trust
account and maintained proper trust account and bank records.
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Edgar, 230 Wis. 2d 205, 601
N.W.2d 284 (1999).
¶3 In 2003, Edgar's license was suspended for an
additional year, retroactive to March 22, 2001, for misconduct consisting of multiple violations of failing to take reasonably
practicable steps to protect her clients' interests; failing to
keep clients reasonably informed or to comply with clients'
requests for information; failing to act with reasonable
diligence; and failing to cooperate with OLR's grievance
investigations. She also failed to render a full accounting in
connection with an advanced fee; practiced law while under
administrative suspension; and failed to obtain a written
2 No. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D
conflict waiver. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Edgar, 2003 WI
49, 261 Wis. 2d 413, 661 N.W.2d 817.
¶4 On September 20, 2010, Attorney Edgar unsuccessfully
sought reinstatement of her Wisconsin law license. Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Edgar, 2012 WI 19, 338 Wis. 2d 729, 809
N.W.2d 524.
¶5 On June 22, 2015, Attorney Edgar filed a new petition
seeking reinstatement of her law license. On December 29, 2015,
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a response stating
it does not oppose her reinstatement but recommending a lawyer
oversee her practice for a period of two years. The referee
conducted a public hearing on February 10, 2016. The referee
filed his report and recommendation on March 15, 2016,
recommending reinstatement, with one year of monitoring by an
attorney.
¶6 Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 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 to
these requirements, SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m) provides additional
requirements that a petition for reinstatement must show. All
of these additional requirements are effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1). 3 No. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D
¶7 When we review a referee's report and recommendation,
we will adopt the referee's findings of fact unless they are
clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14,
¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.
¶8 We conclude that the referee's findings support a
determination that Attorney Edgar has met her burden to
establish by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that
she has met all of the standards required for reinstatement of
her license to practice law in Wisconsin. The referee found that
Attorney Edgar has not practiced law during the period of her
suspension; that she has complied fully with the terms of the
order of suspension and will continue to do so until her license
is reinstated; and that she has maintained competence and
learning in the law. If reinstated, Attorney Edgar intends to
serve as a guardian ad litem in Children's Court.
¶9 The record further supports the referee's conclusion
that Attorney Edgar's conduct since her suspension has been exemplary and above reproach; that she has a proper
understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are
imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with
those standards; that she 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
4 No. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D
of the courts; and that she has fully complied with the
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26.
¶10 In assessing Attorney Edgar's moral character and
whether her resumption of the practice of law would be
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of
the public interest, the referee was impressed by the testimony
of the Dean and Rector of All Saints Cathedral, who testified in
support of Attorney Edgar's character. The referee noted
Attorney Edgar was "very contrite" in acknowledging her past
professional misconduct and observed that Attorney Edgar's
suspension has resulted in significant economic and social
hardship to her.
¶11 The OLR also acknowledges that Attorney Edgar has
expressed "deep regret" for her misconduct. Attorney Edgar has
satisfied the costs imposed on her in connection with her 1999
disciplinary case, paid full restitution to former clients as
required by her 2003 suspension order, and has paid the costs
associated with her first attempt at reinstatement. And, significantly, Attorney Edgar has addressed mental health issues
that previously compromised her ability to function as a lawyer.
Consequently, many of the conditions imposed in prior
disciplinary proceedings are no longer warranted.
¶12 The OLR recommended that Attorney Edgar be monitored
by an attorney, approved by the OLR, for a period of two years
following her reinstatement, to assist her transition back into
the practice of law. The referee opined, without elaboration, that a single year would be sufficient. 5 No. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D
¶13 Upon careful review of the matter, we agree that
Attorney Edgar's license should be reinstated, subject to
monitoring by an attorney. We agree with the OLR that a period
of two years is appropriate to better ensure a smooth transition
as Attorney Edger resumes the practice of law.
¶14 It is this court's general practice to assess the full
costs of a proceeding against a respondent. See SCR 22.24(1m).
We follow that general practice here.
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jane A. Edgar to
practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date of
this order.
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a condition of
reinstatement of Jane A. Edgar's license to practice law in
Wisconsin, she shall be monitored by an attorney, approved by
the Office of Lawyer Regulation, for a period of two years
following reinstatement.
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Jane A. Edgar shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $2,575.60 as
of the date of this order.
6 No. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D