Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Daniel W. Morse

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2021-03-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
2021 WI 17 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP1288-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Daniel W. Morse, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Daniel W. Morse, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY MORSE REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS 
Reported at 386 Wis. 2d 654, 927 N.W.2d 543 
PDC No: 2019 WI 53 - Published 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 2, 2021   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
2021 WI 17
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2016AP1288-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Daniel W. Morse, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Daniel W. Morse, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
FILED 
 
MAR 2, 2021 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report filed by Referee 
Robert E. Kinney recommending that the court reinstate the 
license of Daniel W. Morse to practice law in Wisconsin.  No 
appeal 
has 
been 
filed 
from 
the 
referee's 
report 
and 
recommendation.  Accordingly, our review proceeds pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.33(3).  Upon careful review of the 
matter, we adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions 
of 
law 
and 
agree 
that 
Attorney 
Morse's 
petition 
for 
reinstatement should be granted.  As is our normal custom, we 
also direct that the costs of the reinstatement proceeding, 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
2 
 
which are $5,448.81 as of December 15, 2020, be paid by Attorney 
Morse. 
¶2 
Attorney Morse was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1979.  Attorney Morse was also licensed to practice 
law in Florida and Pennsylvania.  He was disbarred in Florida in 
2019, and his Pennsylvania law license is administratively 
suspended.  In 2019, Attorney Morse's Wisconsin law license was 
suspended for one year.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Morse, 2019 WI 53, 386 Wis. 2d 654, 927 N.W.2d 543.  The 
misconduct in that case related to an estate matter.  Attorney 
Morse failed to take steps to advance the interests of the 
estate; failed to promptly deliver documents in his possession; 
failed to abide by a probate court order; and failed to keep in 
trust funds totaling over $25,000 belonging to the estate, 
instead paying those funds to his law firm and himself and using 
the funds to pay personal obligations.   
¶3 
Attorney Morse filed a petition for the reinstatement 
of his Wisconsin law license on April 6, 2020.  A hearing was 
held before the referee on October 13, 2020.  The referee issued 
his report and recommendation on November 24, 2020.  The referee 
found that Attorney Morse:  desires to have his license 
reinstated; 
has 
not 
practiced 
law 
during 
the 
period 
of 
suspension; has not given members of the public misleading 
information about his suspension or reinstatement; has fully 
complied with the terms of the order of suspension; has 
maintained competence and learning in the law by attending 
educational sessions; understands the gravity of his misconduct; 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
3 
 
and has promptly made restitution.  The referee also found that 
Attorney Morse's conduct since the suspension has been exemplary 
and above reproach and that he has a proper understanding of and 
attitude toward the standards that are imposed on members of the 
bar and will act in conformity with those standards.  The 
referee found that Attorney Morse can be safely 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 an 
officer of the courts. 
¶4 
Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) provides the standards to 
be met for reinstatement.  Specifically, the petitioner must 
show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or 
she has the moral character to practice law, that his or her 
resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the 
administration of justice or subversive to the public interest, 
and that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of 
the 
order 
of 
suspension. 
 
In 
addition, 
SCR 
22.31(1)(c) 
incorporates the statements that a petition for reinstatement 
must contain pursuant to SCR 22.29(4)(a) – (m).  Thus, the 
petitioning 
attorney 
must 
demonstrate 
that 
the 
required 
representations in the reinstatement petition are substantiated.   
¶5 
When 
reviewing 
referee 
reports 
in 
reinstatement 
proceedings, we utilize standards of review similar to those 
used for reviewing referee reports in disciplinary proceedings.  
We do not overturn a referee's findings of fact unless they are 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
4 
 
clearly erroneous.  On the other hand, we review a referee's 
legal conclusions, including whether the attorney has in fact 
satisfied the criteria for reinstatement, on a de novo basis.  
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jennings, 2011 WI 45, 
¶39, 334 Wis. 2d 335, 801 N.W.2d 304; In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Gral, 2010 WI 14, ¶22, 323 Wis. 2d 280, 779 
N.W.2d 168.  In making his recommendation, the referee noted 
that Attorney Morse has acknowledged his ethical violations.  
The referee said Attorney Morse is very knowledgeable about his 
specific area of practice, and if, in the future, an issue at 
the periphery of his knowledge arises, he has vowed that he will 
consult with other experienced professionals.  The referee said 
making use of the expertise of these attorneys would be an 
invaluable resource for Attorney Morse. 
¶6 
Upon review of the record, we agree that Attorney 
Morse has established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 
evidence that he has satisfied all of the criteria necessary for 
reinstatement.  Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of 
fact and conclusions of law, and we accept the referee's 
recommendation that Attorney Morse's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin should be reinstated.  As is our standard policy, we 
also find it appropriate to impose the full costs of this 
proceeding on Attorney Morse. 
¶7 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Daniel W. Morse to 
practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date of 
this order. 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
5 
 
¶8 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Daniel W. Morse shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation costs of this proceeding, which are $5,448.81 as of 
December 15, 2020. 
 
 
No. 
2016AP1288-D   
 
 
 
1