Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas A. Rothstein

Citation: 2010 WI 30

Docket Number: 2010AP000494-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2010-04-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
2010 WI 30 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP494-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas A. Rothstein, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Thomas A. Rothstein, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ROTHSTEIN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 28, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 30
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2010AP494-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas A. Rothstein, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Thomas A. Rothstein, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 28, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter.  
We review the stipulation entered by Attorney Thomas A. 
Rothstein and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) for the 
imposition of discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the 
Minnesota Supreme Court.  After our review of the matter, we 
accept the stipulation.  By virtue of having been disbarred by 
the Minnesota Supreme Court for violation of the Minnesota Rules 
of Professional Conduct, Attorney Rothstein is subject to 
No. 
2010AP494-D   
 
2 
 
reciprocal 
discipline 
in 
Wisconsin. 
 
We 
revoke 
Attorney 
Rothstein's license to practice law in Wisconsin.  The OLR does 
not seek costs.  Accordingly, no costs will be imposed. 
¶2 
Attorney Rothstein was admitted to the State Bar of 
Wisconsin in 1999.  He was admitted to practice law in Minnesota 
in 1991.  On September 3, 2009, Attorney Rothstein's Wisconsin 
law license became inactive.  His law license remains inactive.  
¶3 
On October 14, 2009, Attorney Rothstein pled guilty to 
one count of felony theft by swindle in an amount more than 
$35,000, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subds. 2(4) and 
3(1).  His guilty plea was based on his misappropriation of 
funds from the law firm where he worked as a partner.  Attorney 
Rothstein's 
misconduct 
violated 
the 
Minnesota 
Rules 
of 
Professional 
Conduct. 
 
The 
stipulation 
between 
Attorney 
Rothstein and the OLR states that by virtue of being disbarred 
by the Minnesota Supreme Court for his misconduct, Attorney 
Rothstein is subject to reciprocal discipline pursuant to SCR 
22.22.1  Attorney Rothstein stipulates that he does not claim any 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 provides, in part:  Reciprocal discipline. 
(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.  
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.  
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a 
judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing 
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for 
medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the 
practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in 
No. 
2010AP494-D   
 
3 
 
of the potential defenses articulated in SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c).  
Attorney Rothstein stipulates to the revocation of his license 
to practice law in Wisconsin, reciprocal to the discipline 
imposed in Minnesota.   
                                                                                                                                                             
this state, the director may file a complaint in the 
supreme court containing all of the following:  
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order 
from the other jurisdiction. 
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the 
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the 
grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of 
the identical discipline or license suspension by the 
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual 
basis for the claim. 
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process. 
(b) There 
was 
such 
an 
infirmity 
of 
proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity. 
(c) The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
(4) Except as provided in sub. (3), a final 
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney 
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity 
shall 
be 
conclusive 
evidence 
of 
the 
attorney's 
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a 
proceeding under this rule.  . . .  
No. 
2010AP494-D   
 
4 
 
¶4 
The stipulation was filed pursuant to SCR 22.12, with 
the request that the court consider the disciplinary complaint 
and stipulation without the appointment of a referee.2  The 
stipulation states it is not the result of plea bargaining, that 
Attorney Rothstein admits the facts and misconduct alleged, and 
that Attorney Rothstein verifies he fully understands the 
misconduct allegations.  He stipulates he fully understands the 
ramifications should the court impose the stipulated level of 
discipline; he fully understands his right to contest the matter 
and his right to consult with and retain counsel.  Attorney 
Rothstein acknowledges he has retained counsel and he enters 
into the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily.  He understands 
that revocation of his law license will result in his law 
license remaining revoked until and unless he successfully 
petitions for reinstatement, pursuant to the procedures set 
forth in SCRs 22.29-22.33.   
                                                 
2 SCR 22.12 provides, in part, as follows:  Stipulation. 
(1)  The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee.   
(2)  If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline.  . . .  
 
No. 
2010AP494-D   
 
5 
 
¶5 
Upon 
our 
review 
of 
the 
matter, 
we 
accept 
the 
stipulation and impose discipline identical to that imposed by 
the Minnesota Supreme Court.  See SCR 22.22(3).   
¶6 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Thomas A. Rothstein 
to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of 
this order. 
¶7 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas A. Rothstein shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
revoked. 
 
No. 
2010AP494-D   
 
 
 
1