Case Title: Dominic J. Anderson v. Board of Bar Examiners

Citation: 2006 WI 57

Docket Number: 2005AP002061-BA

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2006-06-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
2006 WI 57 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP2061-BA 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission of Dominic J. 
Anderson: 
 
 
Dominic J. Anderson, 
          Petitioner, 
     v. 
Board of Bar Examiners, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
BAR ADMISSION OF ANDERSON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 2, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
April 28, 2006   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the petitioner, there were briefs by Michael B. Van 
Sicklen, Daniel A. Kaplan, Theresa A. Andre and Foley & Lardner 
LLP, Madison, and oral argument by Michael B. Van Sicklen. 
 
For the respondent, the cause was argued by Thomas J. 
Balistreri, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief 
was Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general. 
 
 
2006 WI 57
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP2061-BA  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission  
of Dominic J. Anderson: 
 
Dominic J. Anderson, 
 
          Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Board of Bar Examiners, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 2, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of Board of Bar Examiners' decision.   Decision 
reversed and remanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a review, pursuant to SCR 
40.08(5)1 of the final decision of the Board of Bar Examiners 
(Board) declining to certify that the petitioner, Dominic J. 
Anderson, satisfied the character and fitness requirement for 
                                                 
1 SCR 40.08(5) provides that "[a] petition to the supreme 
court for review of an adverse determination of the board under 
this rule shall be filed with the clerk within 30 days of the 
date on which written notice thereof was mailed to the 
applicant." 
No. 
2005AP2061-BA   
 
2 
 
admission to the State Bar of Wisconsin set forth in SCR 
40.06(1).2  We reverse and remand the matter to the Board for 
further proceedings.   
¶2 
We appreciate the Board's concern regarding this 
candidate, and we appreciate the thorough investigation the 
Board conducted into Mr. Anderson's background and past conduct.  
The Board's inquiry revealed some troubling incidents in Mr. 
Anderson's past that raised substantial questions about his 
fitness to practice law.  The duty to examine an applicant's 
qualifications for bar admission rests initially on the Board, 
and this court relies heavily on the Board's investigation and 
evaluation.  In the final analysis, however, this court retains 
supervisory authority and has the ultimate responsibility for 
regulating admission to the Wisconsin bar.  See In re Bar 
Admission of Rippl, 2002 WI 15, ¶3, 250 Wis. 2d 519, 639 N.W.2d 
553, and In re Bar Admission of Vanderperren, 2003 WI 37, ¶2, 
261 Wis. 2d 150, 661 N.W.2d 27.   
¶3 
While we appreciate that the Board may have felt 
constrained to find that Mr. Anderson's past conduct precluded 
                                                 
2 SCR 40.06(1) provides:  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. 
2005AP2061-BA   
 
3 
 
certifying his character and fitness for purposes of bar 
admission, we conclude that the incidents the Board relied upon, 
while certainly troubling, are sufficiently remote in time and 
not of sufficient gravity to warrant a conclusion that Mr. 
Anderson should be forever barred from admission to the practice 
of law in this state.  Accordingly, we reverse. 
¶4 
Mr. Anderson is 38 years old.  He is married and has a 
young daughter.  He grew up on a small family dairy farm in 
rural Richland Center and graduated from Ithaca High School.  He 
began his undergraduate work at UW-Richland before transferring 
to UW-Platteville because he was interested in a career in law 
enforcement.  While at Platteville he joined the United States 
Army Reserve.  He withdrew from college in the fall of 1990 to 
pursue active duty and spent eight months of service in Saudi 
Arabia as part of Operation Desert Shield/Storm.  While in the 
military service Mr. Anderson was awarded the National Defense 
Service Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal, and the Driver 
and Mechanic Badge with Operator-S (Special) Bar.  He received 
an honorable discharge, returned home and re-enrolled in classes 
at UW-Platteville.   
¶5 
Mr. Anderson transferred from the United States Army 
Reserve to the Wisconsin Army National Guard.  While with the 
Guard unit, Mr. Anderson was selected by his unit commander to 
attend Officer Candidate School at the Wisconsin Military 
Academy.  Upon graduation a year later he was promoted to second 
lieutenant, received his commission from then Governor Thompson, 
and 
supervised 
a 
platoon. 
 
At 
UW-Platteville 
he 
earned 
No. 
2005AP2061-BA   
 
4 
 
memberships in the Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society and the Wisconsin 
Criminal Justice Education Association Honor Society.  He 
graduated from college summa cum laude with a 3.86 overall grade 
point average (GPA) and a 4.0 GPA in his major, Criminal Justice 
with an emphasis in Law Enforcement. 
¶6 
In early 1995 Mr. Anderson became employed by the 
Richland County Sheriff's Department.  In early 1996 he joined 
the Monona Police Department.  The record indicates that Mr. 
Anderson did well during his first three years on the Monona 
police force, and his supervising sergeant said that Mr. 
Anderson performed competently and professionally at all times 
during this period.  Mr. Anderson acknowledges that his 
performance over an approximate six-month period beginning in 
the spring of 1999 was not up to the standards expected.   
¶7 
In April 1999 Mr. Anderson received a performance 
evaluation that rated him as being "below standards" in 11 of 21 
categories.  He submitted a lengthy response to the evaluation 
in which he disputed most of the negative comments, questioned 
the motivation of those who felt he was not performing 
satisfactorily, and said he felt that some incidents had been 
blown out of proportion.   
¶8 
In 
August 
1999 
Mr. 
Anderson 
was 
placed 
on 
administrative leave following some issues with the proper 
performance of his duties as a police officer.  He was returned 
to active duty following a "fitness for duty" evaluation.  The 
evaluator found Mr. Anderson to be defensive and said he did not 
seem to appreciate the seriousness of the situation and that his 
No. 
2005AP2061-BA   
 
5 
 
indecisiveness at work appeared to result from a fear of failure 
so that he seemed to make excuses rather than confront the 
problem.  The evaluator concluded, however, that there was no 
psychopathology that would preclude Mr. Anderson's continuing to 
function in the capacity of a police officer.  The evaluator 
also commented that Mr. Anderson needed to be honest with 
himself and his goals and suggested that perhaps he might find a 
career other than law enforcement to be more satisfying. 
¶9 
In October 1999 Mr. Anderson was charged with four 
counts of criminal wrongdoing relating to a social gathering 
that occurred after shift, while he was off duty, at a local 
Monona bar, and a subsequent after-bar party that he attended 
with some other off-duty police officers and police department 
employees.  The conduct involved two women.  One worked as a 
dispatcher at the Monona Police Department and the other was a 
19-year-old who was at the bar that night when Mr. Anderson 
arrived. 
¶10 Mr. Anderson admits that while he was at the bar he 
squeezed the dispatcher's breasts without her permission, but 
claims he was just horsing around and that he immediately 
realized the inappropriateness of his conduct but it was already 
too late.  He also admits that he kissed the 19-year-old several 
times that evening, both at the bar and at the after-bar party, 
and he admits he put his hand in her pants but denies touching 
her genitals.  He says the activity with the 19-year-old was all 
consensual.  He also admits buying the 19-year-old drinks at the 
bar, and he says he had reason to know she was underage.  A jury 
No. 
2005AP2061-BA   
 
6 
 
found Mr. Anderson not guilty of all offenses following a two 
day trial in June of 2000.  Mr. Anderson resigned from the 
Monona Police Department in lieu of being terminated.  After 
leaving the police force in order to better understand his 
behavior, 
Mr. 
Anderson 
voluntarily 
underwent 
an 
alcohol 
assessment which concluded he did not have a problem with 
alcohol.  He also participated in some sessions with a counselor 
to explore psychological and emotional issues. 
¶11 Following this incident, Mr. Anderson says he decided 
he wanted to pursue a career as an attorney.  After working for 
a year at other employment, he entered the Washburn University 
School of Law in Topeka, Kansas in the fall of 2001.  For 
financial reasons his wife and daughter remained in Wisconsin 
while he attended law school.  Mr. Anderson did well in law 
school and graduated tied for ninth in his 148-student class.  
He worked as an unpaid legal extern for a federal district court 
judge, Honorable Sam A. Crow, and he also served as a legal 
intern in a criminal defense clinic during the fall semester of 
2003. 
¶12 In April 2004 Mr. Anderson filed his initial Wisconsin 
bar application, which he supplemented on June 29, 2004, and 
November 5, 2004.  He took the bar exam in July 2004 and 
successfully passed it.  He says if he is admitted to the 
Wisconsin bar he intends to practice in Richland Center where he 
grew up. 
¶13 On December 10, 2004, the Board issued its preliminary 
decision to deny Mr. Anderson's bar application.  In January 
No. 
2005AP2061-BA   
 
7 
 
2005 Mr. Anderson requested an opportunity for a hearing.  The 
Board granted his request for a hearing, and the hearing was 
held on the record before the Board on April 6, 2005. 
¶14 At the hearing Mr. Anderson introduced evidence in 
support 
of 
his 
application 
for 
bar 
admission, 
including 
affidavits, letters of recommendation, and live testimony from 
his lifelong mentor, Gary Gutknecht, a physical education and 
health education teacher in the Ithaca Public Schools.  Mr. 
Anderson also testified on his own behalf.   
¶15 In its July 2005 decision denying Mr. Anderson's 
application for bar admission, the Board found that Mr. Anderson 
failed to "demonstrate that he has the temperament to conduct 
himself in a manner required by the Code of Professional 
Responsibility" and that he failed to demonstrate that "he has 
the honesty to conform to that Code."  In support of these 
findings the Board pointed to Mr. Anderson's conduct as a police 
officer, as evidenced by his job evaluations; his temperament, 
as evidenced by the psychological evaluation required by the 
Monona Police Department; his conduct as an off-duty police 
officer, as evidenced by the acts which led to his prosecution 
for sexual assault when his status and position of authority as 
an officer was known to the persons involved; his conduct as an 
off-duty police officer toward females in a public place where 
his status and position of authority was known to the persons 
involved; his history of job problems involving authority, 
leading to discharges from employment; and the great variance 
No. 
2005AP2061-BA   
 
8 
 
between his descriptions of his conduct and the descriptions of 
others. 
¶16 The Board found that the positive references submitted 
by Mr. Anderson were substantially countered by contemporaneous 
adverse evaluations.  It found that the positive testimony of 
Mr. Gutknecht referred to matters too distant in time to be 
relevant to Mr. Anderson's recent conduct.  It found that the 
positive reference by the supervising sergeant at the Monona 
Police Department was not of sufficient value or credibility to 
overcome 
the 
written 
record 
of 
Mr. 
Anderson's 
negative 
evaluations and reprimands as a police officer.  The Board 
specifically found that Mr. Anderson's testimony at the hearing 
was not credible.   
¶17 The Board made the following conclusions: 
1. 
The applicant failed to evidence the temperament 
necessary in an officer of the court by his 
conduct 
as 
a 
police 
officer 
and 
in 
other 
settings, which is relevant to his character and 
fitness under SCR 40.06(3).3 
                                                 
3 SCR 40.06(3) provides:  Requirement as to character and 
fitness to practice law. 
 
(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. 
2005AP2061-BA   
 
9 
 
2. 
The applicant misused his position of authority 
by his conduct as an off-duty police officer, 
which is relevant to his character and fitness 
under BA 6.02(g)4 and under SCR 40.06(3). 
3. 
The applicant failed to demonstrate the honesty 
necessary in an officer of the court by his 
disingenuous, evasive, and non-credible responses 
to the Board, which is relevant to his character 
                                                 
4 BA 6.02 states rule requirements as to character and 
fitness to practice law: 
 
Relevant Conduct.  The revelation or discovery of 
any of the following should be treated as cause for 
further inquiry before the Board decides whether the 
applicant possesses the character and fitness to 
practice law: 
 
(a) unlawful conduct 
 
(b) academic misconduct 
 
(c) false statements by the applicant, including 
concealment or nondisclosure 
 
(d) acts 
involving 
dishonesty 
or 
misrepresentation 
 
(e) abuse of legal process 
 
(f) neglect of financial responsibilities 
 
(g) neglect of professional obligations 
 
(h) violation of an order of a court 
 
(i) evidence of mental or emotional impairments 
 
(j) evidence of drug or alcohol dependency 
 
(k) denial of admission to the bar in another 
jurisdiction on character and fitness grounds 
 
(l) disciplinary action by a lawyer disciplinary 
agency or other professional disciplinary agency of 
any jurisdiction 
No. 
2005AP2061-BA   
 
10 
 
and fitness under BA 6.02(c) and (d), and under 
SCR 40.06(3). 
4. 
The applicant failed to evidence the temperament 
necessary in an officer of the court by his 
conduct 
as 
a 
police 
officer 
and 
in 
other 
settings, which is relevant to his character and 
fitness under SCR 40.06(3). 
5. 
The applicant knowingly violated the law by his 
presence in a bar with and buying alcohol for an 
underage 
female, 
which 
is 
relevant 
to 
his 
character and fitness under BA 6.02(a), and under 
SCR 40.06(3). 
¶18 Mr. Anderson argues that the Board's findings are 
clearly erroneous because they do not fairly reflect the facts 
of record.  He asserts that he does possess the requisite 
character and fitness to practice law in Wisconsin.  In the 
alternative, he says that this court should consider the delay 
in his certification from the time of his May 2004 graduation 
from law school to the present as a sufficient probationary 
period and should still certify his application. 
¶19 This court applies a two-pronged standard of review 
when reviewing an adverse determination by the Board.  First, we 
will adopt the Board's findings of fact if they are not clearly 
erroneous.  Vanderperren, 261 Wis. 2d 150, ¶20.  Second, we then 
determine whether the Board's conclusions of law based on the 
non-erroneous 
facts, 
are 
proper. 
 
Although 
this 
court 
appreciates the Board's expertise in administering the bar 
admission rules, the court is obliged to make that legal 
determination de novo.  Id.   
¶20 A candidate for admission to the bar in Wisconsin 
bears the burden of proof to establish that he or she meets the 
No. 
2005AP2061-BA   
 
11 
 
qualifications for admission set forth in SCR 40.02; these 
qualifications 
include 
meeting 
the 
character 
and 
fitness 
requirements identified in SCR 40.06.  See SCR 40.02(3).  In 
addition, SCR 40.07 provides that "[t]he burden of proof shall 
be on the applicant to establish qualifications under SCR 
40.02. . . ."  Pursuant to SCR 40.06(3), the applicant must 
establish character and fitness to the satisfaction of the Board 
whose duty it is then to certify to the supreme court character 
and fitness of qualifying applicants.  Vanderperren, 261 Wis. 2d 
150, ¶21.  
¶21 After a careful review of the record, we do not deem 
any of the Board's findings of fact to be clearly erroneous.  
However, in our opinion, the findings of fact do not support the 
Board's ultimate conclusion to deny Mr. Anderson admission to 
the Wisconsin bar. 
¶22 As noted in Mr. Anderson's brief, the Board appears to 
focus on four points in denying his application for bar 
admission: (1) his job performance as an officer with the Monona 
Police Department in 1999, before he went to law school; (2) his 
off-duty conduct one night in 1999 which the Board suggests 
illustrates his propensity to misuse his position of authority, 
a poor attitude towards women, and a willingness to violate the 
law; (3) his "history of job problems" which led to his 
"discharges 
from 
employment;" 
and 
(4) 
his 
allegedly 
"disingenuous, evasive and non-credible responses to the Board," 
presumably related to inquiries wherein he continued to dispute 
No. 
2005AP2061-BA   
 
12 
 
the allegations relating to the criminal charges for which he 
was fully acquitted.   
¶23 With respect to his job performance on the Monona 
police force in 1999, Mr. Anderson acknowledges that after three 
years 
of 
satisfactory 
service 
as 
a 
police 
officer 
his 
performance slipped in his final year on the force and he was 
reprimanded, after which he resigned.  He says while he regrets 
the poor job performance that resulted in the reprimand, that 
incident should be taken in context, since he did perform well 
during his first three years as a Monona police officer. 
¶24 While the record supports the Board's findings that 
Mr. Anderson's conduct as a police officer during his final 
months on the job was, in at least some respects, substandard, 
we do not find the sub-par job performance of sufficient gravity 
to bar Mr. Anderson from being admitted to the practice of law 
in this state.  While, in hindsight, Mr. Anderson probably 
should have resigned from the Monona Police Department and 
pursued other employment sooner than he did; ultimately, he did 
heed the evaluator's suggestion that he might find a career 
other than law enforcement more satisfying.   
¶25 With respect to Mr. Anderson's "history of job 
problems" which led to "discharges from employment," Mr. 
Anderson admits that he was terminated from two jobs, the 
Country Kitchen and Kwik Trip, in Richland Center in 1989, 
before he began his undergraduate studies at UW-Platteville and 
before he entered military service and nearly 15 years before 
his application for bar admission.  We find these long ago 
No. 
2005AP2061-BA   
 
13 
 
incidents of little or no relevance in weighing whether Mr. 
Anderson currently has the character and fitness to practice law 
in Wisconsin.  While Mr. Anderson admits that he resigned from 
the Monona Police Department in lieu of being terminated, we 
again do not find this sufficient cause to forever bar him from 
the practice of law in this state. 
¶26 Mr. Anderson's off-duty conduct which led to the 
criminal charges being filed against him in 1999 is, without a 
doubt, the most troubling part of this record.  Even though he 
was acquitted of the criminal charges and was not charged with 
providing 
alcohol 
to 
a 
minor, 
a 
31-year-old 
man, 
and 
particularly a police officer, should have conducted himself in 
a more becoming and mature manner than Mr. Anderson did at the 
Monona bar and the party that followed.  While Mr. Anderson 
attempts 
to 
excuse 
his 
conduct 
by 
saying 
that 
he 
was 
experiencing marital problems at the time and that he had lost 
interest in his job, neither of these factors excuses the 
extremely immature and troubling behavior.  Nevertheless, it is 
important to look at Mr. Anderson's conduct and record since 
1999.  We find Mr. Anderson's post-1999 conduct supports the 
conclusion that he does have the character and fitness to be 
admitted to the Wisconsin bar.  
¶27 Since 
leaving 
the 
Monona 
Police 
Department 
Mr. 
Anderson has had a largely unblemished record of good behavior.  
He paid his own way through law school and graduated in the top 
ten of his law school class.  In support of his application for 
bar admission Mr. Anderson submitted multiple affidavits from 
No. 
2005AP2061-BA   
 
14 
 
people who knew or worked with him in law school, and all were 
uniformly positive.  Mr. Anderson admits that in 1999 he 
exercised poor judgment and engaged in conduct of which he is 
not proud.  He says he is human and made some mistakes but since 
that time he has rededicated his life.  Although we, like the 
Board, are very troubled by the 1999 incidents, we do not 
believe those incidents should preclude Mr. Anderson's admission 
to the bar of this state on character and fitness grounds. 
¶28 The Board found Mr. Anderson's testimony at the 
evidentiary hearing was disingenuous, evasive, and incredible.  
The Board argues the fact that a jury acquitted Mr. Anderson of 
all criminal charges arising from the 1999 incident does not 
necessarily mean the jury believed his version of events and the 
acquittal simply meant that the jury had a reasonable doubt 
about some element of the offenses with which Mr. Anderson was 
charged.  Several board members observed, following the hearing, 
that although Mr. Anderson said he was sorry for his bad 
behavior, he then turned right around and said he did not do 
anything wrong for which he had any reason to be sorry. 
¶29 In support of its conclusion that Mr. Anderson was 
untruthful, the Board points to his responses to questions posed 
by the Board about an incident that occurred in a Topeka tavern 
on St. Patrick's Day 2004, when Mr. Anderson was in his last 
semester of law school.  Mr. Anderson and a female law school 
friend went to a tavern.  After observing police officers, Mr. 
Anderson admits making a boorish and inappropriate remark which 
he says was a quote "from a movie."  Mr. Anderson claims he made 
No. 
2005AP2061-BA   
 
15 
 
the comment in a low voice that he intended only his female 
friend to hear.  One or more police officers heard the remark 
and, after an apparently heated discussion with Mr. Anderson, 
issued a ticket for interference with a police officer.  The 
ticket was subsequently dismissed, either because it was lost or 
because the issuing officer chose to withdraw it.   
¶30 Although the Board's decision denying Mr. Anderson's 
application for bar admission does not refer to the Topeka 
incident, the Board discussed the incident at some length in its 
brief and also at oral argument.  The Board says instead of 
recognizing that he made an apparently inflammatory remark which 
would naturally anger a police officer, Mr. Anderson continues 
to blame the officers who overheard the remark for getting upset 
because they did not personally like his comment.  The Board 
accuses Mr. Anderson of "flip-flopping" in his answers to 
questions about the Topeka incident.  It says this flip-flopping 
is 
consistent 
with 
personality 
traits 
discussed 
in 
Mr. 
Anderson's fitness assessment while on the Monona police force 
in which the evaluator noted that Mr. Anderson had a tendency to 
answer questions in a "socially desirable fashion rather than 
being entirely honest" and that he tended to minimize his 
problems and blame others rather than accepting responsibility 
for his own shortcomings.  The Board points out that lawyers are 
often criticized by opposing counsel for things they say.  The 
Board asserts both Mr. Anderson's underlying conduct when he was 
justifiably criticized for his demeaning remark in the Topeka 
tavern and his continuing efforts to justify actions that 
No. 
2005AP2061-BA   
 
16 
 
unnecessarily escalated the confrontation he created fail to 
inspire confidence in his ability to appropriately deal with the 
ordinary pressures of practicing law.   
¶31 We find the Topeka incident very troubling, both 
because it is another example of immature behavior and because 
it mars Mr. Anderson's otherwise seemingly exemplary record 
since leaving the Monona police force.  However, we note that 
Mr. Anderson did disclose the incident, and we also note that 
his female companion submitted an affidavit in which she 
completely corroborated his version of events.  Under the 
circumstances we cannot find that the Topeka incident should 
preclude Mr. Anderson's admission to the bar on character and 
fitness grounds.   
¶32 We appreciate the time-consuming and difficult job the 
Board 
performs 
in 
conducting 
character 
and 
fitness 
investigations pursuant to SCR 40.06.  We conclude, however, 
after our own mandated de novo review, that the incidents from 
Mr. Anderson's past cited by the Board to support its fact-
driven determination that he lacks the character and fitness to 
be admitted to the bar of this state, are not of sufficient 
gravity for us to adopt that conclusion.  In closing, we find 
Justice Prosser's concurrence in Vanderperren to apply with 
equal force here:   
With respect to her character and fitness, the 
incidents described are serious but they are mostly 
youthful excesses and mistakes, and cannot block her 
admission forever.  All in all, I believe the 
applicant deserves the benefit of the doubt.  She 
should have the opportunity to begin the practice of 
No. 
2005AP2061-BA   
 
17 
 
law with a clean slate--with an understanding of the 
importance that courts attach to character and ethics 
and a warning that this court has a long memory.   
Vanderperren, 
261 
Wis. 2d 
150, 
¶65 
(Prosser, 
J., 
concurring). 
¶33 IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Board of Bar 
Examiners declining to certify that Dominic J. Anderson has 
satisfied the requirements for admission to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Board 
for further action consistent with this opinion. 
 
No. 
2005AP2061-BA   
 
 
 
1