Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Brian B. Burke

Citation: 2008 WI 119

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2008-10-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
2008 WI 119 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP432-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Brian B. Burke, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Brian B. Burke, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BURKE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 9, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: PROSSER, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 119
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP432-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Brian B. Burke, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Brian B. Burke, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 9, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, Christine Harris Taylor, that the petition of 
Attorney Brian B. Burke for the reinstatement of his license to 
practice law in this state be granted.  Because no party has 
responded to or appealed from that report and recommendation, 
our review proceeds under SCR 22.33(3).1    
                                                 
1 SCR 22.33(3) provides that "[i]f no appeal is timely 
filed, the supreme court shall review the referee's report, 
order 
reinstatement, 
with 
or 
without 
conditions, 
deny 
reinstatement, or order the parties to file briefs in the 
matter." 
No. 
2006AP432-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
After independently reviewing the matter, we determine 
that Attorney Burke has met his burden for reinstatement of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  We also conclude that 
Attorney Burke should be required to pay the outstanding costs 
of this reinstatement proceeding, amounting to $3,876.39 as of 
July 18, 2008. 
¶3 
The standards that apply to all petitions seeking 
reinstatement after a disciplinary suspension/revocation are 
found 
in 
SCR 
22.31(1).2 
 
The 
petitioning 
attorney 
must 
demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that 
he has the moral character necessary to practice law in this 
state, that his resumption of the practice of law will not be 
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of 
the public interest, and that he has fully complied with the 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.31(1) states: 
The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all 
of the following: 
(a) That he or she has the moral character to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
(b) 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. 
(c) That his or her representations in the 
petition, including the representations required by 
SCR 
22.29(4)(a) 
to 
[(4m)] 
and 
22.29(5), 
are 
substantiated. 
(d) 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. 
No. 
2006AP432-D   
 
3 
 
suspension order and SCR 22.26.  In addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c) 
incorporates requirements for a petition for reinstatement, 
pursuant to SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m).3  The petitioning attorney must 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.29(4)(a) through (4m) provides that a petition for 
reinstatement shall show all of the following: 
(a) 
The 
petitioner 
desires 
to 
have 
the 
petitioner's license reinstated. 
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during 
the period of suspension or revocation. 
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
will 
continue 
to 
comply 
with 
them 
until 
the 
petitioner's license is reinstated. 
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and 
learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities. 
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension 
or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach. 
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of 
and attitude toward the standards that are imposed 
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with the standards. 
(g) The petitioner can safely be 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 as an officer of 
the courts. 
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. 
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license 
if reinstated. 
No. 
2006AP432-D   
 
4 
 
demonstrate 
that 
the 
required 
representations 
in 
the 
reinstatement petition are substantiated. 
¶4 
Attorney Burke was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in September 1981.  From 1988 until January 3, 2003, 
Attorney Burke served as an elected Wisconsin state senator.  On 
January 3, 2006, pursuant to SCR 22.20, this court summarily 
suspended Attorney Burke's law license.  He has not practiced 
law since that time.   
¶5 
Attorney Burke's misconduct consisted of committing 
criminal 
acts 
that 
reflected 
adversely 
on 
his 
honesty, 
trustworthiness, 
and 
fitness 
as 
a 
lawyer. 
 
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Burke, 
2007 
WI 
46, 
300 
Wis. 2d 198, 730 N.W.2d 651.  The criminal charges alleged that 
between December 2000 and April 2002, Attorney Burke, while 
serving in public office as a senator, intentionally supervised 
and oversaw extensive work of state employees performing acts to 
further his campaign for attorney general, using resources of 
the State of Wisconsin over which Attorney Burke had authority 
to control in his public office.  Id., ¶4.  On October 5, 2005, 
                                                                                                                                                             
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation. 
(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 
petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to 
the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection for 
all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the 
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability 
to do so. 
No. 
2006AP432-D   
 
5 
 
pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Attorney Burke 
entered a guilty plea to one count of misconduct in public 
office, a Class E felony, and one count of obstructing an 
officer, a Class A misdemeanor.  Other charges were amended, 
dismissed, and read in.  See id., ¶7. 
¶6 
On October 29, 2007, Attorney Burke filed a petition 
for reinstatement of his license to practice law.  As required 
by SCR 22.29, Attorney Burke's petition states that he has fully 
complied with the terms of the order of his suspension and will 
continue to comply with them until his license is reinstated.  
He states he has not practiced law during his period of 
suspension 
and, 
by 
agreement 
with 
the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR), he voluntarily refrained from the practice of 
law from the summer of 2002, when he was advised that the OLR 
was reviewing the events on which the disciplinary proceeding 
was based.  He also states that he has paid the costs of the 
disciplinary proceedings in the sum of $11,081.49.  He avers 
that he has obtained 15 continuing legal education credits and 
has fully complied with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning 
the duties of a person whose license to practice law in 
Wisconsin has been suspended.   
¶7 
Following its investigation, the OLR filed a response 
to Attorney Burke's reinstatement petition that conditionally 
supported the petition, subject to the outcome of the public 
hearing.  At the end of the public hearing, the OLR did not 
oppose reinstatement.  The Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) also 
recommended Attorney Burke's license reinstatement.  The BBE 
No. 
2006AP432-D   
 
6 
 
confirmed that Attorney Burke completed the necessary number of 
continuing legal education hours, including ethics credits.   
¶8 
A public hearing on Attorney Burke's petition for 
reinstatement was held May 29, 2008.  On July 2, 2008, the 
referee submitted her report recommending that Attorney Burke's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin be reinstated.  The referee 
stated that no evidence was presented at the public hearing to 
cast doubt on Attorney Burke's present qualifications to 
practice law.  The referee observed that the public hearing and 
the entire proceedings were not contentious.   
¶9 
The referee found that Attorney Burke's conduct since 
his suspension has been exemplary and above reproach.  The 
referee 
observed 
Attorney 
Burke 
displayed 
the 
proper 
understanding and attitude toward the standards imposed upon 
members of the bar and concluded he will act in conformity with 
those standards.  The referee found that Attorney Burke 
testified convincingly about the facts and circumstances of his 
ethical lapses that led to his criminal conviction, subsequent 
suspension, his activities during the last two years, as well 
his current situation and future plans.  The referee concluded 
that Attorney Burke can safely be 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.   
¶10 Attorney 
Burke 
presented 
the 
testimony 
of 
five 
witnesses attesting to his character.  The referee found there 
was no doubt that Attorney Burke has been rehabilitated and will 
No. 
2006AP432-D   
 
7 
 
approach any future activities as a lawyer with a keenly 
heightened awareness and vigilance.  The referee determined the 
evidence proves, to the standard of clear, satisfactory, and 
convincing, that Attorney Burke has fully complied with the 
terms of the suspension order and SCR 22.26, that his resumption 
of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the 
administration of justice or subversive of the public interest, 
and that he has the moral character to practice law in 
Wisconsin.   
¶11 The referee concluded that Attorney Burke established 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he has 
satisfied all of the criteria in SCR 22.29 for reinstatement of 
his license to practice law.  The referee found that Attorney 
Burke has maintained competence and learning in the law by 
attending 12 different continuing legal education seminars.  The 
referee recommended the petition for reinstatement be granted 
and that Attorney Burke pay the costs of the reinstatement 
proceeding within six months following his reinstatement.   
¶12 Upon our independent review, we determine that the 
referee's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2004 WI 19, ¶9, 269 
Wis. 2d 172, 675 N.W.2d 792 (referee's factual findings affirmed 
unless clearly erroneous).  We agree with the referee, based 
upon those factual findings, that Attorney Burke has satisfied 
the legal requirements for the reinstatement of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  We note that Attorney Burke has not 
been subject to professional discipline prior to his current 
No. 
2006AP432-D   
 
8 
 
suspension.  In addition, while Attorney Burke's professional 
misconduct in the course of his work as a state senator 
seriously breached the public trust, it did not directly relate 
to his work as a practicing lawyer representing clients.  Based 
on the referee's findings of fact, we have no reason to doubt 
that Attorney Burke will meet his professional obligations as an 
attorney.  Therefore, we grant Attorney Burke's petition for 
reinstatement.  We further determine that Attorney Burke should 
be required to pay the full costs of this reinstatement 
proceeding. 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that Brian B. Burke's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated effective the date of 
this order. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date 
of this order Brian B. Burke shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs are not 
paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to this 
court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of Brian B. Burke to practice law in Wisconsin shall be 
suspended until further order of the court. 
¶15 DAVID T. PROSSER, J., did not participate.   
No. 
2006AP432-D   
 
 
 
1