Case Title: Nicholas Thomas Saganski v. Board of Bar Examiners

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1998AP002487-BA

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1999-06-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
98-2487-BA 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission  
of Nicholas Thomas Saganski: 
 
Nicholas Thomas Saganski,  
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
Board of Bar Examiners,  
 
Respondent.  
 
IN THE MATTER OF BAR ADMISSION OF SAGANSKI 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
June 15, 1999 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
April 9, 1999 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating: Bradley, J., withdrew from participation. 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the petitioner there were briefs by Gordon E. 
McQuillen and Cullen, Weston, Pines & Bach, Madison and oral 
argument by Gordon E. McQuillen. 
 
 
For the respondent the cause was argued by Alan 
Lee, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was James 
E. Doyle, attorney general. 
 
No. 
98-2487-BA 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 98-2487-BA 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission of 
Nicholas Thomas Saganski: 
Nicholas Thomas Saganski, 
 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
Board of Bar Examiners, 
 
 
Respondent. 
FILED 
 
JUN 15, 1999 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
Review of 
Board of 
Bar 
Examiners decision;  decision 
affirmed. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the decision of the Board of 
Bar Examiners (Board) declining to certify the character and 
fitness of Nicholas T. Saganski to practice law in Wisconsin.1 
                     
1  SCR 40.06 provides, in pertinent part: Requirement as to 
character and fitness to practice law. 
(1)  An applicant for bar admission shall establish good 
moral character and fitness to practice law. The purpose of this 
requirement is to limit admission to those applicants found to 
have the qualities of character and fitness needed to assure to 
a 
reasonable 
degree 
of 
certainty 
the 
integrity 
and 
the 
competence of services performed for clients and the maintenance 
of high standards in the administration of justice.  
No. 
98-2487-BA 
 
2 
Mr. Saganski contended that the Board’s determination that he 
failed to establish good moral character and fitness to practice 
law was based improperly on four findings of fact it made: (1) 
he received several citations from the housing authorities for 
alcohol and noise violations and a disorderly conduct violation 
while a dormitory resident at the University of Wisconsin - 
Madison but disclosed only the disorderly conduct violation on 
his application to the UW Law School; (2) he received numerous 
municipal 
citations 
for 
furnishing 
alcoholic 
beverages to 
underage persons at a party he co-hosted; (3) he was convicted 
of disorderly conduct following an altercation outside a bar, 
during which he threatened a police officer; (4) he explained 
those incidents to the Board “in a manner which denied or 
minimized his culpability or responsibility for them,” and his 
statement of the facts surrounding the disorderly conduct 
conviction was “so at variance with all other contemporaneous 
statements [concerning the incident] as to be incredible.”  
¶2 
Mr. Saganski contended further that the Board failed 
to take into account all of the factors set forth in its 
administrative rule, BA 6.03, that should be considered in 
                                                                  
(3) An applicant shall establish to the satisfaction of the 
board that the applicant satisfies the requirement set forth in 
sub. (1). The board shall certify to the supreme court the 
character and fitness of qualifying applicants. The board shall 
decline to certify the character and fitness of an applicant who 
knowingly makes a materially false statement of material fact or 
who 
fails 
to 
disclose 
a 
fact 
necessary 
to 
correct 
a 
misapprehension known by the applicant to have arisen in 
connection with his or her application.  
No. 
98-2487-BA 
 
3 
assigning weight and significance to a bar admission applicant’s 
prior conduct. Those factors are the applicant’s age at the time 
of the conduct, how recently it occurred, its seriousness, the 
reliability 
of 
information 
concerning 
it, 
mitigating 
or 
aggravating 
circumstances, 
evidence 
of 
rehabilitation, 
the 
applicant’s candor in the admissions process, the materiality of 
any omissions or misrepresentations, and the number of incidents 
revealing deficiencies.  
¶3 
Because we determine that the Board’s findings are 
sufficient to support its determination that Mr. Saganski failed 
to meet his burden of establishing the necessary character and 
fitness to be admitted to the practice of law and that the Board 
properly considered the factors applicable to his conduct, we 
affirm the decision of the Board. We determine further that Mr. 
Saganski’s prior conduct and his description of it in the bar 
admission 
process 
were 
not 
of 
sufficient 
seriousness 
to 
constitute a permanent impediment to his being admitted to the 
bar. Consequently, he may reapply for bar admission after one 
year from the date of the Board’s decision, during which time he 
will have the opportunity to demonstrate that he possesses the 
necessary character and fitness for admission.  
¶4 
Following graduation from UW Law School in August 
1996, Mr. Saganski applied for bar admission in October 1997. 
The Board issued a preliminary decision April 13, 1998, 
notifying him of its intention to decline to certify his 
satisfaction of the character and fitness admission requirement 
based on the following.  
No. 
98-2487-BA 
 
4 
¶5 
(1) He was involved in an altercation outside a bar in 
August 1995, as a result of which he was charged with and later 
pleaded no contest to disorderly conduct, for which he was fined 
$147.  
¶6 
(2) In October 1991 he hosted a party at his residence 
at which those attending purchased a cup to obtain alcoholic 
beverages. The police gave him 21 citations for providing 
alcoholic 
beverage 
to 
underage 
persons. 
Those 
citations 
ultimately were reduced to three charges, to which he pleaded no 
contest, and he paid approximately $2000 in forfeitures.  
¶7 
(3) He received at least five citations for alcohol 
violations, at least two citations for noise violations, and one 
citation 
for 
disorderly 
conduct 
from 
university 
housing 
authorities during the three years he lived in dormitory housing 
while an undergraduate. He disclosed only one of them -- the 
disorderly conduct citation -- on his law school admission 
application.  
¶8 
(4) He made “incomplete and untruthful disclosure” of 
the foregoing incidents on his bar admission application.  
¶9 
Expressing 
concern 
with 
what 
it 
termed 
“the 
substantial disparity between [his] version of the facts 
relating 
to 
the 
[1995 
disorderly 
conduct] 
incident 
and 
statements collected by and given by the police,” the Board said 
in its notification letter, “You minimized your culpability and 
responsibility and asserted that you were provoked when you 
involved yourself with an on-going disturbance.” The Board 
added, 
No. 
98-2487-BA 
 
5 
 
  . . . Although the Board does not believe that your 
1995 nor your 1991 convictions nor your selective 
disclosure to the Law School individually or together 
disqualify you from admission to the bar, the Board 
finds that your explanations of the events leading to 
those convictions, coupled with your accounts of them 
and 
of 
the 
conduct 
associated 
with 
them 
raise 
substantial doubt that you will maintain the high 
standards in the administration of justice which are 
required of Wisconsin attorneys . . . . 
 
¶10 The letter informed Mr. Saganski of his right to 
contest its decision and respond to the Board, noting that if he 
wanted a hearing before the Board, he had to request one 
specifically in writing, demonstrating that there were facts 
bearing on his case that could not be presented in writing. Mr. 
Saganski filed a lengthy response and requested a hearing 
“because of the inherent ambiguities in some of the concerns” 
articulated in the Board’s letter and so that he could be heard 
about those concerns. While noting that the Board usually does 
not hold a hearing if the information sought to be provided can 
be presented in writing, Mr. Saganski wrote, “I feel the need to 
have a direct dialogue with the Board so that its members can see 
that I am not attempting to conceal or mislead the Board.” The 
Board denied the request for a hearing on the ground that Mr. 
Saganski failed to show, as required by the rules, that there 
were facts bearing on his case that could not be presented in 
writing.  
No. 
98-2487-BA 
 
6 
¶11 At oral argument in this review, counsel for the Board 
asserted that the Board was prohibited from granting Mr. 
Saganski’s request for a hearing by the mandatory language of SCR 
40.08(2): “The board shall grant a hearing to an applicant only 
upon a showing that there are facts bearing on the applicant’s 
case that cannot be presented in writing.  . . . .” While that 
rule may be sound in respect to objective facts, if followed 
literally, it might prevent the Board from reaching an informed 
determination 
on 
facts 
not 
susceptible 
of 
objective 
determination, such as the applicant’s sincerity, remorse and 
other matters for which a written submission would not be an 
adequate substitute for the applicant’s appearance before the 
Board. Accordingly, we direct the Board to consider the operation 
of that rule in this respect and, if it is deemed necessary or 
appropriate, that it propose its amendment.  
¶12 Following its preliminary decision, the Board issued 
findings of fact, conclusions of law and its determination July 
29, 1998 declining to certify that Mr. Saganski satisfied the 
requirements for admission to the bar. The Board specifically 
concluded that he failed to meet the character and fitness 
requirement under SCR 40.06(1), that his unlawful conduct and 
incomplete 
and 
untruthful 
disclosure 
are 
relevant 
to 
his 
character and fitness, and that his explanation of the incidents 
No. 
98-2487-BA 
 
7 
in a manner that denied or minimized his culpability or 
responsibility for them was to be given weight.  
¶13 In this review, Mr. Saganski noted correctly that his 
application to law school required information only about charges 
or convictions that were criminal, while the bar admission 
application 
specified 
civil 
or 
criminal 
violations. 
That 
distinction is irrelevant, however, to his failure to disclose on 
his law school application at least seven citations he received 
from the university housing authorities while an undergraduate. 
His response in that regard was to a different question –- 
whether he ever had been “dropped, suspended, expelled, placed on 
probation or otherwise disciplined by any college, university or 
law school either for academic or other reasons.” To his 
affirmative response he added, “Placed on housing probation for 
minor fistfight in UW - Madison dorms in April of 1991.” We find 
without 
merit 
Mr. 
Saganski’s 
contention 
that 
because 
he 
subsequently was admitted to law school and completed its 
program, he was justified in concluding that his other housing 
problems did not constitute an impediment to his admission to 
practice law.  
¶14 Likewise without merit is Mr. Saganski’s assertion that 
in respect to the underage alcohol ordinance citations received 
in connection with the party he co-hosted, he gave more 
information on the law school admission form than was required, 
No. 
98-2487-BA 
 
8 
as that conduct was not criminal in nature, and that denial of 
bar admission on the basis of that response would constitute 
penalizing him for something he volunteered. Regardless of 
whether those citations had to be disclosed on the law school 
form, he was required to disclose civil law arrests, charges, and 
convictions and ordinance violations on the bar admission form.  
¶15 In respect to the 1995 disorderly conduct conviction, 
Mr. Saganski denied that he attempted to minimize or deny his 
culpability in the incident but merely presented his view of what 
had occurred. He stated that he grabbed the door, held it open, 
pointed to the employees, and demanded to see the manager. 
Contrary to his characterization of that conduct as “relatively 
benign,” the police reported the bar employee’s statement that 
Mr. Saganski charged the front door, shouted at him, charged the 
door a second time, and forced his fist and arms through the 
opening. The employee was reported to be especially disturbed by 
Mr. Saganski’s “unprovoked and particularly violent” attack. As 
to his culpability for that incident, we are not persuaded by Mr. 
Saganski’s assertion that his no contest plea and payment of a 
fine constitute his acknowledgment of culpability.  
No. 
98-2487-BA 
 
9 
¶16 In response to the Board’s finding that he threatened a 
police officer in connection with that incident,2 Mr. Saganski 
asserted that there was no evidence that the officer took his 
conduct as a threat and that he was not charged with the crime of 
threatening a police officer. The Board properly rejected Mr. 
Saganski’s attempt to explain away that threat by asserting that 
he meant merely that he “fully intended to challenge the citation 
in court as vigorously as possible because the officer’s 
conclusions about the situation were grossly flawed.”  
¶17 The Board’s finding that Mr. Saganski attempted to 
explain his conduct in these matters in a manner that denied or 
minimized his culpability or responsibility for it was based on 
the following. He disclosed only one “minor fistfight” on the law 
school admission application, and when asked to explain that 
incident by the Board, he set forth the other housing citations 
he received, terming them citations “given out quite frequently 
to residents and rather sloppily.” Moreover, on his bar admission 
application, the “minor fistfight” became a “shoving match.”  
¶18 In addition, Mr. Saganski reported his citations for 
providing alcohol to underage persons as being fined as only one 
of five persons holding a beer party, explaining that the 
                     
2  One of the police officers reported: “Saganski told me 
that he was a law student, and he intended to make my life 
miserable. He stated he would do everything he could to make 
this the worst experience of my life.”  
No. 
98-2487-BA 
 
10
citations resulted from enforcement of the 21-year-old drinking 
age, “which [he] opposed,” “during the police department’s 
‘Operation Sting,’ which [he] considered unfair.” He stated that 
he was the one who received the 21 citations because he also was 
cited for marijuana possession, a charge that was subsequently 
dismissed. Finally, his explanation of the altercation at the 
bar, while conceding the truthfulness of the officers’ reports, 
sought to blame others for it and questioned the accuracy of one 
of the police reports as it concerned him.  
¶19 We affirm the Board’s decision declining to certify Mr. 
Saganski for bar admission on the ground of his having failed to 
establish the requisite character and fitness to practice law. 
The findings on which that decision is based have not been shown 
to be clearly erroneous, and their cumulative effect provides 
sufficient support for the Board’s determination.  
¶20 In this review Mr. Saganski asked the court itself to 
certify his character and fitness to practice law or remand the 
matter to the Board for reconsideration. As an alternative, he 
requested permission to reapply for bar admission one year from 
the date of his October 1997 application. The Board expressed no 
position on that alternative.  
¶21 As we did in Matter of Bar Admission of Gaylord, 155 
Wis. 2d 816, 456 N.W.2d 590 (1990), we determine that a one-year 
period is the appropriate time for Mr. Saganski to wait before 
No. 
98-2487-BA 
 
11
reapplying for bar admission. Here, however, that time period 
commences the date of the Board’s adverse decision in respect to 
Mr. Saganski’s character and fitness –- July 29, 1998.  
By the Court.-—The decision of the Board of Bar Examiners is 
affirmed.  
¶22 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., withdrew from participation.  
 
 
1