Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Edgar

Summary

The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed a referee's recommendation to deny Jane A. Edgar's petition for reinstatement of her law license. The court adopted the referee's findings and conclusions, concluding that Edgar had not shown by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that she satisfied all reinstatement requirements. The court denied reinstatement and ordered Edgar to pay the costs of the proceeding.

Holdings

1. The court reviews the referee's factual findings for clear error and reviews legal conclusions de novo.
2. A suspended attorney seeking reinstatement must prove by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that the attorney satisfies all applicable reinstatement criteria, including moral character, protection of the administration of justice and public interest, substantiation of petition representations, and full compliance with the suspension order and SCR 22.26.
3. Edgar's petition for reinstatement was denied because she failed to establish by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that she satisfied all requirements for reinstatement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the referee's findings of fact were clearly erroneous.
2. Whether Edgar proved by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that she satisfied the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules' requirements for reinstatement of her law license.
3. Whether Edgar established that her mental-health-related conditions were sufficiently under control to satisfy the court's prior reinstatement order.

Disposition

other