Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jean M. Robinson

2021 WI 80

• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Decided: October 22, 2021
• Docket: 2019AP001696-D
• Status: Published

Opinion

2021 WI 80

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2019AP1696-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jean M. Robinson, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Jean M. Robinson, Respondent.

ATTORNEY ROBINSON REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS Reported at 394 Wis. 2d 1,948 N.W.2d 898 PDC No:2020 WI76 - Published

OPINION FILED: October 20, 2021 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE:

JUSTICES: Per Curiam. NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS: 2021 WI 80

NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2019AP1696-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jean M. Robinson, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED Complainant, OCT 22, 2021 v. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court Jean M. Robinson,

Respondent.

ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted.

¶1 PER CURIAM. This court has pending before it

Attorney Jean M. Robinson's petition for reinstatement of her license to practice law in Wisconsin. Upon consideration of the

reinstatement petition; the Office of Lawyer Regulation's (OLR)

response pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.30(4); the

parties' SCR 22.30(5)(a) stipulation; and the OLR's memorandum

in support of the stipulation, we conclude that Attorney

Robinson's petition for reinstatement should be granted.

¶2 Attorney Robinson was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1985. She was admitted to practice law in the No. 2019AP1696-D

District of Columbia in 2004. In 1987, this court suspended her

Wisconsin law license for one year. See In re Disciplinary

Proceedings Against Robinson, 140 Wis. 2d 538, 411 N.W.2d 137

(1987). In 2020, this court suspended Attorney Robinson's

Wisconsin law license for a period of 18 months, effective June

30, 2019. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Robinson,

2020 WI 76, 394 Wis. 2d 1, 948 N.W.2d 898. The Wisconsin

suspension was reciprocal to that imposed upon Attorney Robinson

in the District of Columbia, and the effective date of the

Wisconsin suspension was coterminous with the imposed date of

the District of Columbia suspension. Attorney Robinson's

misconduct in the District of Columbia involved allegations of

improprieties surrounding her former client. Her misconduct was

found to be intentionally prejudicing her client in the course

of their attorney-client relationship; revealing client

confidences or secrets; and acting with dishonesty, fraud,

deceit or misrepresentation.

¶3 Attorney Robinson filed a petition for reinstatement of her Wisconsin law license on March 24, 2021. The OLR

investigated Attorney Robinson's petition and found she had

demonstrated that she has satisfied all of the criteria for

reinstatement. The OLR noted that Attorney Robinson has

displayed exemplary conduct since her suspension, and she

appears to be genuinely remorseful for her misconduct. It also

noted that Attorney Robinson's references spoke very highly of

her honesty, integrity, and fitness to practice law. The OLR concluded that Attorney Robinson demonstrated that she has a 2 No. 2019AP1696-D

great appreciation for the gravity of her situation, and it

commented that she said, "I am profoundly repentant of the

misconduct upon which my suspension was based and I realize the

necessity for irreproachable conduct within the profession and

the sacredness of an Attorney's duties."

¶4 On August 10, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation in

which the OLR stated that Attorney Robinson has met her

SCR 22.305 burden to prove by clear, satisfactory, and

convincing evidence:

(1) That he or she has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin.

(2) That his or her resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest.

(3) That his or her representations in the petition, including the representations required by SCR 22.29(4)(a) to (m) and 22.29(5), are substantiated.

(4) That he or she has complied fully with the terms of the order of suspension or revocation and with the requirements of SCR 22.26. The OLR also filed a memorandum in support of the stipulation in

which it states that Attorney Robinson has resolved all civil

litigation surrounding the incident that led to her suspension

in the District of Columbia. The OLR also reiterates that

Attorney Robinson has expressed remorse and an understanding of

an attorney's role and duties.

¶5 The parties' joint stipulation for Attorney Robinson's

reinstatement is now before us. Effective January 1, 2021, new reinstatement provisions permit this court to consider a

3 No. 2019AP1696-D

reinstatement petition by stipulation where, as here, the OLR

concludes, upon investigation, that the petitioner has

demonstrated, to the OLR's director's satisfaction, that all of

the reinstatement criteria have been meet. See SCR 22.305 and

SCR 22.29(4). The court considers the petition and stipulation

without the appointment of a referee and may approve the

stipulation and reinstate the petitioner's law license; the

court may reject the stipulation and refer the petition to a

referee for a hearing; or the court may direct the parties to

consider modifications to the stipulation. SCR 22.30(5)(b).

¶6 Based on the stipulation, and noting that the record

contains no evidence to the contrary, we conclude that Attorney

Robinson has established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing

evidence that she has satisfied all of the criteria necessary

for reinstatement. Accordingly, we accept the parties'

stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.30(5)(b), and we reinstate

Attorney Robinson's license to practice law in Wisconsin,

effective the date of this order. ¶7 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of

Jean M. Robinson to practice law in Wisconsin is granted,

effective the date of this order.

¶8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs will be imposed in

connection with this reinstatement proceeding.

4 No. 2019AP1696-D