Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Virginia Rose Ray

Citation: 2011 WI 17

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2011-03-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
2011 WI 17 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2001AP1784-D & 2003AP1743-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Virginia Rose Ray, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation f/k/a Board of 
Attorneys  
Professional Responsibility, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Virginia Rose Ray, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR RAY 
 
 
ORDER FILED: 
March 16, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
CONCURRED/DISSENTED CROOKS, J. concurs in part; dissents in part. 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
2011 WI 17
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This order is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
 
 
 
No.  2009AP2007-D & 2003AP1743-D 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Virginia Rose Ray, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation f/k/a Board of 
Attorneys  
Professional Responsibility, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Virginia Rose Ray, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 16, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
On May 18, 2009, Virginia Rose Ray filed a petition for 
reinstatement of her license to practice law in Wisconsin 
following her suspension for professional misconduct.  See In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Ray, 
2004 
WI 
45, 
270 
Wis. 2d 651, 678 N.W.2d 246; In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ray, 2002 WI 116, 256 Wis. 2d 19, 651 N.W.2d 727.  
Attorney Stanley F. Hack was appointed referee.  Hearings on the 
petition were held in Madison, Wisconsin, on July 20, September 
14, 15, 16, 22, and 24, and October 24, 2010.  The referee filed 
his report on December 13, 2010, concluding that Attorney Ray 
failed to prove by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence 
that she has satisfied the requisites for reinstatement under 
SCR 22.29(4) and (4m).1  The referee found that Attorney Ray has 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.29(4) provides: 
No.  2009AP2007-D 
2 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
The 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. 
 
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation. 
 
No.  2009AP2007-D 
3 
practiced law during her suspension; has failed to fully comply 
with the terms of the order of her suspension; and has health 
issues that remain open and need attention.  No appeal 
challenging the referee's findings and conclusions has been 
filed. 
 
The referee's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommendation are approved and adopted.  Therefore,  
 
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement is 
denied;  
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the file be placed under seal 
because it contains confidential information; and 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the day of 
this order, Virginia Rose Ray pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which total $30,354.68 
as of January 3, 2011.   
 
Crooks, J., concurs in the denial of the petition for 
reinstatement and dissents from the portion of the order placing 
the file under seal. 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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.