Case Title: Bruce Joseph Croushore v.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 1998-10-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
98-0437-BA 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission of: 
 
Bruce Joseph Croushore and Axley Brynelson, LLP, 
 
Petitioners, 
 
v. 
Board of Bar Examiners, 
 
Respondent. 
 
 
BAR ADMISSION OF CROUSHORE 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
October 8, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
September 17, 1998 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the petitioners there were briefs by Bradley 
D. Armstrong, Andrew J. Clarkowski and Axley Brynelson, LLP, 
Madison. 
 
 
For the respondent the cause was submitted on the 
brief of Alan Lee, assistant attorney general, with whom on the 
brief was James E. Doyle, attorney general. 
 
No.  98-0437-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. 98-0437-BA 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission of: 
Bruce Joseph Croushore and Axley 
Brynelson, LLP, 
 
 
Petitioners, 
 
v. 
Board of Bar Examiners, 
 
Respondent. 
FILED 
 
OCT 8, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
Review 
of 
Board 
of 
Bar 
Examiners 
decision;  matter 
remanded.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   Bruce Joseph Croushore sought review 
pursuant to SCR 40.08(5)1 of the decision of the Board of Bar 
Examiners (Board) declining to certify his satisfaction of the 
legal competence requirement for bar admission on the basis of 
practice elsewhere. Mr. Croushore contended that the Board 
failed to address his request for waiver of the bar admission 
                     
1 SCR 
40.08 
provides, 
in 
pertinent 
part: 
Adverse 
determination. 
 . . .  
(5) 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.  98-0437-BA 
 
2 
rule, SCR 40.05(2),2 that permits legal service as corporate 
counsel in another jurisdiction to be deemed the practice of law 
in satisfaction of the legal competence requirement only if that 
work occurred in a jurisdiction where the applicant was admitted 
to the bar. He argued that the Board erroneously exercised its 
discretion by not addressing his request for a waiver in its 
decision of December 22, 1997, in which it concluded that he had 
failed to establish satisfaction of the legal competence 
requirements by his corporate counsel work in Alabama, where he 
was not admitted to the practice of law.  
¶2 
We determine that the Board did not erroneously 
exercise its discretion by not addressing Mr. Croushore’s 
request for waiver in its findings, conclusions, and ultimate 
determination, as it had stated in its prior letter notifying 
him of its intent to decline to certify his eligibility for bar 
admission 
its 
determination 
that 
he 
did 
not 
present 
an 
exceptional case or good cause for waiver. However, because that 
determination was set forth in conclusory language, albeit 
consistent with the bar admission waiver rule, SCR 40.10,3 we 
                     
2 SCR 40.05 provides, in pertinent part: Legal competence 
requirement: Proof of practice elsewhere. 
 . . .  
(2) Legal service as corporate counsel or trust officer, if 
conducted in a state where the applicant was admitted to 
practice law, may be deemed to be the practice of law for the 
purposes of sub. (1)(b) and (c).   
3 SCR 40.10 provides: Waiver of requirements. 
No.  98-0437-BA 
 
3 
remand the matter to the Board with directions to address more 
fully the issue of waiver, setting forth the reasons underlying 
its determination that the nature of Mr. Croushore’s Alabama 
corporate practice did not constitute “an exceptional case [or] 
good cause for a waiver.”  
¶3 
Mr. Croushore was admitted to the New York bar in 1974 
and worked in a law firm in that jurisdiction until 1982, when 
he became general counsel, executive vice president, and 
secretary for a corporate employer in Alabama. Alabama did not 
require a corporate counsel to be a member of its bar, and Mr. 
Croushore elected not to become a member. He did, however, 
retain his membership in the New York bar. In September, 1996, 
Mr. Croushore relocated to Madison, Wisconsin, where he joined a 
law firm in an “of counsel” capacity and continued to serve as 
the Alabama company’s corporate counsel. In February of 1997, he 
also became corporate counsel for a Florida company.  
¶4 
In his application for bar admission on practice 
elsewhere, Mr. Croushore described his primary duties as 
corporate counsel to include preparing all legal documents 
relating to the corporation’s real estate holding company, such 
as loan documents, real estate purchase and sales documents, and 
leases, and being chiefly responsible for preparing all of its 
contracts and financing documents. He estimated that he spent 85 
                                                                  
Except for the requirements under SCR 40.03, the board may 
waive any of the requirements of this chapter in exceptional 
cases and for good cause if failure to waive the requirement 
would be unjust.  
No.  98-0437-BA 
 
4 
to 90 percent of his time performing legal work. He specifically 
requested that his application be considered a request for 
waiver of the requirement that corporate counsel work have been 
conducted in a state where the applicant was admitted to the bar 
in order to be deemed the practice of law for purposes of 
admission in Wisconsin.  
¶5 
On July 23, 1997, the Board notified Mr. Croushore in 
writing of its decision to decline certification of his 
eligibility for admission on practice elsewhere, as it was 
unable to conclude that he was primarily engaged in the active 
practice of law for the requisite durational period. The last 
sentence of the Board’s letter stated: “Further, the Board 
determined that you did not present an exceptional case nor good 
cause for a waiver of the requirements of SCR 40.05(2), such 
that failure to waive the requirement would be unjust.”  
¶6 
The Board’s letter also informed Mr. Croushore that if 
he wished to contest its decision, he could avail himself of the 
procedure under SCR 40.08.4 Mr. Croushore did so, and the Board 
                     
4 SCR 
40.08 
provides, 
in 
pertinent 
part: 
Adverse 
determination. 
(1) Before declining to certify an applicant’s satisfaction 
of requirements under this chapter, the board shall notify the 
applicant in writing of the basis for its decision and, except 
as to failure of the bar examination under SCR 40.04, the 
applicant shall have the opportunity to respond in writing 
within 20 days of the mailing of notification of the board’s 
decision to the applicant at the last address furnished by the 
applicant in writing to the board.   
No.  98-0437-BA 
 
5 
made 
findings 
and 
conclusions 
supporting 
its 
earlier 
determination that he failed to satisfy the legal competence 
requirements for bar admission on practice elsewhere. However, 
those findings and conclusions did not address the issue of 
waiver of the corporate counsel legal service rule.  
¶7 
In this review, Mr. Croushore asked the court to 
determine independently of the Board that the circumstances he 
presented in respect to his Alabama corporate practice warrant 
waiver of the rule. He also contended that the distinction in 
SCR 40.05(2) between legal service as corporate counsel or trust 
officer and legal services in other capacities specified in the 
rule5 that need not be conducted in a state where the applicant 
                                                                  
(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. The board shall not 
grant a hearing on its decision on waiver under SCR 40.10.  
(3) Not less than 30 days prior to the hearing the board 
shall notify the applicant of the time and place thereof, the 
issues to 
be 
considered 
and that 
the applicant may be 
represented by counsel and present evidence.  
(4) If the determination of the board following a hearing 
is adverse to the applicant, the board shall mail a copy of the 
board’s findings of facts and conclusions of law to the 
applicant at the last address furnished by the applicant in 
writing to the board.  
5 SCR 40.05(3) provides:  
The following activities, whether or not conducted in a 
state where the applicant was admitted to practice law, may be 
deemed to be the practice of law for the purposes of sub. (1)(b) 
and (c):  
(a) Service as a judge of a court of record of the United 
States, any state or territory or the District of Columbia.  
No.  98-0437-BA 
 
6 
is admitted to the bar is “vague and arbitrary.” Finally, he 
suggested that the rule should be amended to permit legal 
service as corporate counsel or trust officer to be deemed the 
practice of law for purposes of bar admission even if conducted 
in a jurisdiction where the applicant is not admitted to the 
bar.  
¶8 
Because we remand the matter to the Board for further 
consideration 
and 
specification 
of 
the 
grounds 
for 
its 
determination on the waiver issue, it is unnecessary to address 
any of Mr. Croushore’s arguments and requests at this time. He 
will have the opportunity to respond to any determinations the 
Board makes following remand.  
¶9 
IT IS ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the 
Board 
of 
Bar 
Examiners 
for 
further 
consideration 
and 
determination consistent with this opinion.  
                                                                  
(b) Legal service with any local or state government or 
with the federal government.  
(c) Legal service in the armed forces of the United States.  
(d) Teaching in any law school approved by the American bar 
association.  
 
 
1