Case Title: Joshua E. Jarrett v. Board of Bar Examiners

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2015AP001393-BA

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2016-05-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
2016 WI 39 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP1393-BA 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission  
of Joshua E. Jarrett 
 
Joshua E. Jarrett, 
          Petitioner, 
     v. 
Board of Bar Examiners, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
BAR ADMISSION OF JARRETT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 18, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
February 24, 2016   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
PROSSER, J. concurs, joined by BRADLEY, A.W., J. 
and BRADLEY, R.G., J. 
 
DISSENTED: 
ROGGENSACK, C. J. dissents, joined by ZIEGLER, 
J. and GABLEMAN, J. 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the petitioner, there were briefs by Joshua E. Jarrett. 
 
For the Board of Bar Examiners, there was a brief by 
Jacquelynn B. Rothstein, Director & Legal Counsel. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 39
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2015AP1393-BA 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission  
of Joshua E. Jarrett 
 
 
Joshua E. Jarrett, 
 
          Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Board of Bar Examiners, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 18, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
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(7), of the final decision of the Board of Bar Examiners 
(Board) declining to certify that the petitioner, Joshua E. 
Jarrett, has satisfied the character and fitness requirements 
for admission to the Wisconsin bar set forth in SCR 40.06(1).  
The Board's refusal to certify that Mr. Jarrett satisfied the 
character 
and 
fitness 
requirements 
for 
admission 
to 
the 
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
2 
 
Wisconsin bar was based primarily on Mr. Jarrett's conduct 
following his second year in law school, when he committed 
academic misconduct by misrepresenting law school grades and 
information to a prospective employer.  After careful review, 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. Jarrett's background and past conduct. 
Mr. Jarrett's academic misconduct raised a significant question 
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 understand the Board's decision, we conclude 
that the incidents the Board relied upon, while troubling, are 
sufficiently offset by evidence of rehabilitation to warrant our 
conclusion that Mr. Jarrett may be admitted to the practice of 
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
3 
 
law in this state, albeit with conditions. Accordingly, we 
reverse. 
¶4 
Mr. Jarrett grew up in Georgia.  He attended Albany 
State University, majoring in Criminal Justice and graduating in 
2009. He participated in a prestigious summer internship with 
the U.S. Department of State in Washington D.C., and then 
returned to Georgia to become a police officer.  After serving 
successfully as a police officer for a year, Mr. Jarrett applied 
and was accepted at the University of Wisconsin Law School. 
¶5 
Mr. Jarrett started law school in the fall of 2011.  
As a first-year law student, Mr. Jarrett was accepted into the 
Wisconsin Innocence Project criminal appeals clinic where he 
performed well. 
¶6 
In 2012, Mr. Jarrett committed the misconduct that 
eventually gave rise to this proceeding.  The Board would later 
make the following factual findings regarding the incident: 
2.  In the Summer of 2012 and as part of the 
summer 
employment 
procurement 
process 
for 
law 
students, Mr. Jarrett submitted a resume and an 
unofficial transcript to the University of Wisconsin 
Law 
School 
office 
responsible 
for 
on-campus 
interviews.  Through that process, Mr. Jarrett sought 
employment with the New York City Law Department for 
the Summer of 2013.   
3.  The resume and unofficial transcript that 
Jarrett submitted to the New York City Law Department 
were both false. The resume contained two falsehoods.  
It showed Mr. Jarrett's grade point average (GPA) to 
be 2.75, when it was actually 2.72.  It also listed 
him as a staff member of the Wisconsin Law Review, 
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
4 
 
when, in fact, he was not a member.  The unofficial 
transcript 
listed 
three 
false 
grades 
for 
his 
coursework.  It indicated that he had "B" grades, 
when, in fact, he had "B-" grades for all three 
courses. 
4.  Thereafter, Mr. Jarrett sent an e-mail to the 
New York City Law Department.  In it, he explained 
that the deadline date for the submission of his 
employment materials was the same date upon which he 
had been informed that he had not been chosen for Law 
Review.   
5.  Determined to be "completely forthright" with 
the New York City Law Department, Mr. Jarrett attached 
an updated resume and unofficial transcript to the e-
mail noting that all the other information was current 
and valid.  However, Mr. Jarrett did not correct the 
other falsehoods, namely the inflated grades and GPA.  
Instead, this version of his transcript noted his GPA 
as a 3.0, not the inflated 2.75 or the actual 2.72. 
6.  In that same e-mail to the New York City Law 
Department, he continued to report incorrect grades. 
Two grades were inflated from "B-'s" to "B's."  Two 
others were similarly inflated; one from a B- to a B+ 
and the other from a B to a B+. 
7.  A hearing regarding Mr. Jarrett's alleged 
misconduct was held on September 7, 2012, before the 
Academic 
Misconduct 
Hearing 
Committee 
of 
the 
University of Wisconsin (Committee).  On September 17, 
2012, the Committee issued a written decision and 
determined 
that 
Mr. 
Jarrett 
admitted 
to 
having 
embellished his academic documents on two separate 
occasions.   
8. 
The Committee further found that although 
Mr. Jarrett had admitted to violating the University 
of Wisconsin's academic code of conduct by forging or 
falsifying 
academic 
documents 
or 
records, 
the 
seriousness 
of 
that 
offense 
did 
not 
seem 
to 
immediately resonate with Mr. Jarrett.  The Committee 
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
5 
 
also sanctioned Mr. Jarrett by placing him on two 
semesters of disciplinary probation.1 
9.  In his application for admission to the 
Wisconsin bar, Mr. Jarrett admitted to inflating his 
grades 
and 
misrepresenting 
his 
position 
on 
the 
Wisconsin Law Review. 
10.  Mr. Jarrett did not disclose the actual 
truth to the New York City Law Department about being 
on Law Review, his grades, or his GPA.   
11. 
 
Mr. 
Jarrett 
repeatedly 
cited 
feeling 
enormous pressure as the primary reason for engaging 
in his wrongful conduct.   
12.  Mr. Jarrett admitted that at the time of his 
wrongful conduct he did not believe that he would get 
caught for providing false information to the New York 
City Law Department or that anyone would check to see 
whether he was actually on Law Review.  
 
¶7 
Meanwhile, Mr. Jarrett's law school studies continued. 
He continued to perform well working for the Wisconsin Innocence 
Project, joined the University of Wisconsin Law School Moot 
Court Board, competed in two moot court competitions, coached a 
moot court team, participated in a Volunteer Income Tax 
Assistance Clinic, held an unpaid summer law clerk position with 
the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, and worked as an academic 
advisor at a private student housing facility. 
                                                 
1 In addition to placing Mr. Jarrett on academic probation 
for two semesters, the Committee also required Mr. Jarrett 
obtain the latest issue of Wisconsin Lawyer magazine, read the 
pages pertaining to attorney conduct, and schedule a meeting 
with the Law School Dean to discuss what he had read.  Mr. 
Jarrett satisfied these requirements. 
 
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
6 
 
¶8 
In 
December 
2013, 
as 
a 
third-year 
law 
student 
anticipating graduation, Mr. Jarrett applied for admission to 
the Wisconsin State Bar under the diploma privilege, SCR 40.03.  
In his bar application, Mr. Jarrett disclosed having inflated 
his grades and misrepresenting his position on the Wisconsin Law 
Review in his bar application.  Mr. Jarrett failed to report 
several traffic citations that he had received between 2009 and 
2013.   
¶9 
In January 2014, a Board investigator contacted Mr. 
Jarrett regarding his failure to disclose the traffic citations.  
Mr. Jarrett replied in writing that he "legitimately forgot" and 
filed an addendum regarding the citations.  
¶10 On August 5, 2014, the Board informed Mr. Jarrett, 
consistent with SCR 40.08(1), that his bar admission application 
was "at risk of being denied" on character and fitness grounds. 
Mr. Jarrett formally contested the Board's preliminary adverse 
determination and requested a hearing before the Board.   
¶11 The Board conducted a hearing on December 8, 2014, at 
which Mr. Jarrett appeared. Following the hearing Mr. Jarrett 
filed some additional documents in support of his application.  
On April 10, 2015, the Board issued an adverse decision making 
the findings set forth above, as well as the following findings: 
13.  During his hearing before the Wisconsin 
Board 
of 
Bar 
Examiners, 
Mr. 
Jarrett 
presented 
inconsistent and sometimes contradictory statements 
regarding his efforts to obtain summer employment with 
the New York City Law Department, and about the extent 
to which he notified the New York City Law Department 
regarding the falsehoods presented to them.  He also 
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
7 
 
minimized the significance of the misconduct in which 
he had engaged.    
14.  Mr. Jarrett's conduct in connection with his 
efforts to secure summer employment with the New York 
City Law Department was both dishonest and deceptive.  
Such conduct demonstrates that Mr. Jarrett is not 
honest, diligent, or reliable.   
15.  Mr. Jarrett also failed to report three 
speeding tickets on his bar application.  The speeding 
infractions occurred in 2009, 2011, and 2014.  Mr. 
Jarrett explained that the reason he failed to report 
those citations was because he forgot about them.  The 
Board did not find Mr. Jarrett's explanation regarding 
why he failed to report those tickets to be credible.   
16.  In 2006, Mr. Jarrett was arrested in Albany, 
Georgia, on a bench warrant because of his failure to 
appear for two speeding tickets.  As a result of his 
nonappearance, he spent two days in jail.  
17.  Following the receipt of his Georgia 
speeding tickets, Mr. Jarrett claimed that he tried 
contacting the local traffic department and the court 
to change the date of his appearance because it 
conflicted with his college exam schedule.  However, 
Mr. Jarrett admitted that he never wrote a letter or 
sent an e-mail in which he notified the court that he 
had 
a 
conflict 
on 
the 
scheduled 
date 
of 
his 
appearance.   
18.  The Board did not find Mr. Jarrett's 
explanations about his misconduct or his omissions on 
his bar application to be plausible or believable.  As 
a result, the Board did not find Mr. Jarrett to be a 
credible witness.    
¶12 Based on its findings, the Board  determined that Mr. 
Jarrett failed to establish good moral character and fitness to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin 
under 
SCR 
40.06(1) 
and 
(3), 
concluding: 
Taken as a whole, Mr. Jarrett's conduct suggests a 
pattern of behavior that is both dishonest and 
deceptive.  He has not been forthright but has instead 
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
8 
 
engaged in conduct that demonstrates that he is not 
honest, diligent, or reliable.  Throughout these 
proceedings, Mr. Jarrett has consistently tried to 
minimize the gravity of his offenses. 
¶13 Mr. Jarrett unsuccessfully sought review of the 
Board's adverse determination pursuant to SCR 40.08(6).  He now 
seeks this court's review. 
¶14 Mr. Jarrett contends that the Board's findings are 
clearly erroneous and should be rejected by this court. See In 
re Bar Admission of Rusch, 171 Wis. 2d 523, 528-29, 492 N.W.2d 
153 (1992). Furthermore, he contends that the legal conclusions 
reached by the Board are not supported by the record evidence, 
and that this court must, after its de novo review, reject the 
Board's conclusions of law. See Rippl, 250 Wis. 2d 519, ¶16; In 
re Bar Admission of Crowe, 141 Wis. 2d 230, 232, 414 N.W.2d 41 
(1987).  Mr. Jarrett also challenges the Board's decision 
declining to offer him conditional bar admission pursuant to SCR 
§ 40.075(1). 
 
He 
references 
numerous, 
positive 
character 
references and hours of volunteer service. In sum, he maintains 
that he has met his burden of producing information sufficient 
to affirmatively demonstrate his present character and fitness.  
He asks this court to order his immediate admission, order the 
Board to conditionally admit him, or allow him to immediately 
re-apply for admission to the Wisconsin bar without being 
required to take the Wisconsin bar exam. 
¶15 When this court reviews an adverse determination of 
the Board pursuant to SCR 40.08(7), we adopt the Board's 
findings of fact if they are not clearly erroneous. In the 
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
9 
 
Matter of the Bar Admission of Vanderperren, 2003 WI 37, ¶20, 
261 Wis. 2d 150, 661 N.W.2d 27. We then determine if the Board's 
conclusions of law based on those facts are proper. Id. This 
court retains the ultimate authority to determine who should be 
admitted to the bar of this state.  While the Board's experience 
in administering the bar admission rules is appreciated, this 
court is obligated to make its legal determinations de novo. 
Rippl, 250 Wis. 2d 519, ¶¶13, 16.  
 
¶16 We reject Mr. Jarrett's assertion that the Board's 
findings are clearly erroneous. Mr. Jarrett disputes the Board's 
factual finding that "[Mr.] Jarrett exhibited a lack of 
candor/credibility in applying for admission," a finding Mr. 
Jarrett describes as "patently untrue."  He disputes the Board's 
finding that he minimized the significance of his conduct, 
stating that the Board read too much into the UW misconduct 
decision and asserting that the "record shows that [Mr. Jarrett] 
realized his actions were significant, wrong, unethical, and 
would impact his character and fitness."  Mr. Jarrett disputes 
the Board's finding that he willfully failed to report the 
speeding tickets in his initial bar application.  He maintains 
that he "legitimately forgot" and notes that he answered "yes" 
to Question 21(a) in his bar application which asks if the 
applicant has ever been arrested, charged, or issued civil 
citations and adds that he "took corrective steps by providing 
the Board with separate addenda explaining the circumstances how 
he forgot to list them."  He thus asserts that he "did not fail 
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
10 
 
to disclose the fact that he had received multiple speeding 
tickets and took action to inform the Board."   
¶17 The Board stands by its finding that Mr. Jarrett was 
not credible at the hearing before the Board and when claiming 
he forgot about the three separate speeding violations from 
Georgia, Kentucky, and Wisconsin that he received in 2009, 2011, 
and 2013.  The Board reminds the court that the 2013 speeding 
violation occurred in Madison three months prior to Mr. Jarrett 
filing his bar application with the Board. The Board concedes 
that each ticket, standing alone, was not overly concerning, but 
finds that failing to include all three was "careless at best 
and deliberately deceptive at worst."  The Board maintains that 
Mr. Jarrett has consistently minimized the seriousness of his 
behavior by glossing over both the recency and the gravity of 
his conduct, pointing not only to statements from the 2012 
academic misconduct proceeding but also statements at the 
hearing before the Board. 
¶18 The Board's factual findings essentially derive from 
the undisputed underlying academic misconduct proceeding and 
from its own credibility determinations at the Board hearing. We 
are disinclined to second guess credibility determinations made 
by factfinders. Nothing in this record suggests that it was 
clearly erroneous for the Board to reject Mr. Jarrett's claim 
that he forgot to disclose traffic citations, particularly when 
his application was already at-risk for his admitted academic 
misconduct. The other factual findings, particularly those based 
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
11 
 
on the Board's credibility determination, also have sufficient 
support and are not clearly erroneous.2  
¶19 We next evaluate the Board's decision not to certify 
Mr. Jarrett's character and fitness. 
¶20 The standards for evaluating an applicant's admission 
to the Wisconsin bar are well settled.  SCR 40.06(1) requires 
that applicants for bar admission establish good moral character 
and fitness to practice law.  The burden rests with the 
applicant to establish character and fitness to the satisfaction 
of the Board.  See SCRs 40.06(3) and 40.07.  The Appendix to SCR 
Ch. 40 contains the Board's rules that provide additional 
guidance to the Board and to applicants.   
¶21 BA 6.01 provides that "[a] lawyer should be one whose 
record of conduct justifies the trust of clients, adversaries, 
courts and others with respect to the professional duties owed 
to them."  That same section notes that "[a] record manifesting 
a deficiency in the honesty, diligence or reliability of an 
applicant may constitute a basis for denial of admission."  
¶22 BA 6.02 provides that in determining whether an 
applicant possesses the necessary character and fitness to 
practice law, 12 factors "should be treated as cause for further 
inquiry."  BA 6.02 (Relevant Conduct or Condition).  As 
                                                 
2 Mr. Jarrett identifies one factual inaccuracy in the 
Board's decision.  The Board's underlying decision states that 
Jarrett received a speeding citation in 2014.  However, the last 
traffic citation Mr. Jarrett received occurred in 2013.  This 
error is not material to the Board's decision. 
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
12 
 
relevant, these factors include a person's unlawful conduct, 
academic 
misconduct, 
false 
statements 
by 
the 
applicant, 
including concealment or nondisclosure, and acts involving 
dishonesty or misrepresentation.  See id.  
¶23 BA 
6.03 
provides 
that 
in 
assigning 
weight 
and 
significance to the applicant's prior conduct, the following 
factors are to be considered: 
(a) the applicant's age at the time of the conduct; 
(b) the recency of the conduct; 
(c) the reliability of the information concerning the 
conduct; 
(d) the seriousness of the conduct; 
(e) the mitigating or aggravating circumstances; 
(f) the evidence of rehabilitation; 
(g) the applicant's candor in the admissions process; 
(h) the materiality of any omissions or misrepresentations; 
and 
(i) the number of incidents revealing deficiencies. 
See SCR 40 app., BA 6.03.   
 ¶24 The crux of this appeal is whether Mr. Jarrett's 
conduct and actions, taken as a whole, establish that he has the 
requisite character and fitness for admission to the bar. When 
conducting our de novo review, we, like the Board, use the 
guidelines established in BA 6.02 and BA 6.03.   
¶25 The Board was not persuaded that Mr. Jarrett's 
academic achievements and his various law-related experiences 
were sufficient to warrant certifying his character at this 
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
13 
 
time. In response to Mr. Jarrett's explanation that he was under 
"immense pressure" to find a job for the summer which led him to 
make a "poor decision," the Board stated: 
[A]t no point did Mr. Jarrett identify any such 
specific pressures that may have warranted such 
extreme behavior on his part. Presumably the vast 
majority 
of 
law 
students 
want 
or 
need 
summer 
employment. Ideally, they would prefer to be employed 
in law-related positions. But few, if any, resort to 
conduct similar to Mr. Jarrett's in order to obtain 
it. His explanation for engaging in conduct of this 
type primarily because he was under pressure is not 
convincing and rings hollow. 
¶26 As the Board observed, whatever pressures Mr. Jarrett 
felt while in law school "are not likely to appreciably diminish 
or disappear now that he has graduated."  
¶27 Having reviewed the record and the Board's specific 
findings, we reject Mr. Jarrett's claim that, in making its 
decision, the Board focused solely on the 2012 incident.  We are 
persuaded that the Board duly considered all facets of Mr. 
Jarrett's application, and its decision was not based solely or 
unduly on the 2012 misconduct. See Saganski v. Board of Bar 
Examiners, 226 Wis. 2d 678, 595 N.W.2d 631 (1999) (holding that 
it is sufficient that the Board consider those BA 6.03 factors 
that are applicable to the conduct of the applicant). 
¶28 Mr. 
Jarrett 
argues 
that 
the 
BBE's 
adverse 
determination is inconsistent with this court's resolution of 
other bar admission cases.  This court has, on several 
occasions, certified applicants to the bar despite an adverse 
determination from the BBE.   
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
14 
 
¶29 In 
Anderson, 
the 
court 
deemed 
the 
applicant's 
"extremely immature and troubling" behavior "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."  In the Matter of the Bar 
Admission of Anderson, 2006 WI 57, ¶26, 290 Wis. 2d 722, 715 
N.W.2d 586.  By the time of his bar application, Mr. Anderson's 
record had been unblemished for several years.   
¶30 In Vanderperren, the Board's refusal to certify Ms. 
Vanderperren was based primarily on her "less than forthright 
and complete responses" to questions on her application for 
admission to Hamline University School of Law, and on her 
subsequent Wisconsin bar application.  By the time this court 
considered her bar application, Ms. Vanderperren had been 
admitted to practice law in Minnesota, had passed the Wisconsin 
bar exam, had voluntarily corrected her bar application, and 
several years had elapsed since her last reported incident 
involving excessive alcohol consumption.  Vanderperren, 261 Wis. 
2d 150, ¶65; see also  Rippl, 250 Wis. 2d 519, ¶3. 
¶31 Mr. Jarrett reminds the court that here, "[m]ore than 
two years elapsed between the academic misconduct and the date 
of the Board's hearing, and more than three years have elapsed 
as of today." Indeed, as of the date of this court's decision, 
nearly four years have passed.  Mr. Jarrett argues that now, 
sufficient time has passed and he should be admitted to practice 
law. 
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
15 
 
¶32 The Board was right to be deeply concerned by Mr. 
Jarrett's dishonesty, which cannot fairly be characterized as 
"youthful 
excesses 
and 
mistakes" 
and 
is 
different 
from 
indiscretions arising from immature behavior coupled with 
situational or pervasive substance abuse that has since been 
addressed. 
¶33 Still, a majority of this court has determined that 
denying Mr. Jarrett admission to the bar is simply too harsh a 
penalty under the circumstances presented. We appreciate the 
time-consuming 
and 
difficult 
job 
the 
Board 
performs 
in 
conducting its character and fitness investigations.  Indeed, we 
find no fault with the Board's findings or reasoning in this 
case.  The Board serves the critically important role as a 
gatekeeper to admission to the bar.  Ultimately, however, we are 
persuaded that, subject to the imposition of certain conditions, 
Mr. Jarrett may safely be admitted to the practice of law.   
¶34 While not excusing his actions, we are mindful that 
Mr. Jarrett has faced difficult family circumstances that 
imposed considerable pressure on him, both financial and 
otherwise. His goal of becoming a lawyer has now been delayed 
several years, and his prospect of ever obtaining bar admission 
has been uncertain.  By his own admission, his actions in law 
school have caused him significant obstacles, embarrassment, and 
financial difficulties.  
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
16 
 
¶35 In 
the 
nearly 
four 
years 
since 
his 
academic 
misconduct, Mr. Jarrett has completed unpaid legal internships 
and 
meaningful 
legal 
volunteer 
work 
serving 
economically 
challenged clients, has mentored students, and currently works 
in a public trust position in Washington, D.C. Employers and 
professors who have worked closely with Mr. Jarrett speak highly 
of him as an individual, and of his sincere commitment to 
justice. The many letters reflect a consistent theme of 
admiration for Mr. Jarrett's work ethic, judgment, and his 
compassion.  We therefore choose to exercise our prerogative and 
afford this applicant the benefit of the doubt.3 
¶36 Accordingly, we direct the Board to certify Mr. 
Jarrett's admission to practice law in Wisconsin.  Mr. Jarrett's 
admission to the practice of law in Wisconsin is contingent on 
his compliance with certain requirements set forth in this order 
as well as certain conditions on his license to practice law. 
Specifically, we direct the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) to 
identify and appoint a practice monitor to serve as a mentor to 
Mr. Jarrett and to supervise and oversee Mr. Jarrett's practice 
of law and related professional activities for a period of two 
                                                 
3 We accept the Board's determination that conditional 
admission pursuant to SCR 40.075(1) was not appropriate here. 
This does not preclude this court from imposing its own 
conditions on Mr. Jarrett's license to practice law.   
 
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
17 
 
years following the practice monitor's appointment.  The 
practice monitor shall be licensed to practice law in Wisconsin 
and be located in the region of Mr. Jarrett's place of 
employment or residence.  
¶37 Upon Mr. Jarrett's admission to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin and his enrollment with the State Bar of Wisconsin 
pursuant to SCR 10.03(2), Mr. Jarrett is directed to initially 
elect inactive membership status.  See SCR 10.03(3)(a). This 
will afford the OLR time to identify a practice monitor and will 
obviate the need for Mr. Jarrett to bear the costs and 
obligations of monitoring before he assumes the active practice 
of law. 
¶37 When the OLR advises Mr. Jarrett that a practice 
monitor has been identified, Mr. Jarrett may, with written 
notice to the OLR, change his classification to active status by 
complying with SCR 10.03(3)(b)1. The formal appointment date of 
the monitor will be the date Mr. Jarrett elects active 
membership in the State Bar pursuant to SCR 10.03 (3)(b)1.  
¶38 We direct Mr. Jarrett to cooperate with the OLR, 
cooperate 
with 
his 
practice 
monitor, 
comply 
with 
all 
requirements imposed upon him by the OLR relating to his 
monitoring including executing, within five days of the date he 
elects active membership, a written monitoring agreement setting 
forth the terms of Mr. Jarrett's monitoring as determined by the 
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
18 
 
practice monitor.  Mr. Jarrett shall comply with all reasonable 
requests of his practice monitor4 and shall bear the reasonable 
costs of such monitoring.  
¶39 Upon appointment, the monitor shall report to the OLR, 
in writing, on a quarterly basis.  Within thirty days prior to 
the expiration of the two-year monitoring period, the OLR shall 
file a report in this court in which it shall recommend to the 
court that the conditions on Mr. Jarrett's admission be allowed 
to terminate or be extended. 
¶40 Should Mr. Jarrett fail to make a good faith effort to 
satisfy these conditions, or should he commit misconduct during 
the monitoring period, his license to practice law may be 
suspended or revoked and he may be subject to other discipline 
pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. 
¶41 IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Board of Bar 
Examiners declining to certify that Joshua E. Jarrett 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 order. 
                                                 
4 Lawyer monitoring often requires a lawyer to undergo an 
AODA 
(alcohol 
and 
other 
drug 
abuse) 
assessment 
and/or 
psychological evaluation. The record before this court is devoid 
of evidence suggesting these assessments are needed here. They 
should not be imposed absent evidence that would warrant such 
conditions.    
No. 
2015AP1393-BA   
 
19 
 
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joshua E. Jarrett shall 
comply with the directives set forth in this order and shall, 
promptly upon receipt of this order, provide the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation with a copy of the entire record in this 
matter and authorize the OLR to share the record with the 
practice monitor.  
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that subject to the required 
disclosures to the Office of Lawyer Regulation and practice 
monitor as set forth herein, the documents submitted under seal 
are deemed confidential, and will be maintained under seal until 
further order of the court. 
 
 
No.  2015AP1393-BA.dtp 
1 
 
¶44 DAVID T. PROSSER, J.   (concurring).  This is an 
unusual and difficult case that has divided the court.  I write 
separately to explain my thinking. 
¶45 The court finds no fault in the decision of the Board 
of 
Bar 
Examiners 
(Board) 
not 
to 
certify 
Joshua 
Jarrett 
unconditionally for membership in the Wisconsin bar.  We also 
understand the Board's determination that Mr. Jarrett did not 
qualify for conditional admission under SCR 40.075 because 
"[o]nly an applicant whose record of conduct demonstrates 
documented ongoing recovery [from such problems as drug or 
alcohol dependency] and an ability to meet the competence and 
character and fitness requirements set forth in SCR 40.02 may be 
considered for conditional admission."  SCR 40.075(1) (emphasis 
added).  The Board reasoned that Mr. Jarrett did not meet the 
character and fitness requirements of the rule and that the rule 
has no provision for demonstrating the "ongoing recovery" of an 
applicant's character and fitness. 
¶46 Admittedly, the Board did "not foreclose [Mr. Jarrett] 
from ever practicing law in Wisconsin."  He could, the Board 
said, take a bar examination pursuant to SCR 40.04.  But a 
majority of the court believes this option is not satisfactory 
on the facts of the case.   
¶47 Mr. Jarrett graduated from the University of Wisconsin 
Law School in mid-2014.  He has been out of law school now for 
two years.  He presently lives in Maryland and works in a non-
legal capacity in the District of Columbia.   
¶48 To take the Wisconsin bar exam, Mr. Jarrett would have 
to come to Wisconsin, and he would likely have to enroll in a 
No.  2015AP1393-BA.dtp 
2 
 
Wisconsin bar review course to prepare for the examination.  
Passing the exam would reaffirm his legal competence——which is 
not in dispute——but it would not necessarily enhance his 
"character and fitness" or assure that the Board would grant him 
certification. 
¶49 As an alternative, Mr. Jarrett could take a bar exam 
in the District of Columbia, Maryland, or his home state of 
Georgia.  Superficially, one of these options might appear more 
convenient, but they would all be time consuming and costly and 
would not assure his admission in one of those jurisdictions so 
long 
as 
the 
denial 
of 
his 
Wisconsin 
admission 
remained 
unchanged. 
¶50 In my view, the fundamental question facing the court 
is whether it is possible to permit Mr. Jarrett to practice law 
now, under reasonable conditions, without depreciating the 
seriousness of his misconduct.  If we answer this question 
"yes," we risk criticism that we have damaged the reputation and 
integrity of the legal profession.  If we answer the question 
"no," however, we may be precluding Mr. Jarrett from ever 
practicing law. 
¶51 There may be risks in our decision.  But intelligent 
risk-taking often yields spectacular rewards.  I believe Mr. 
Jarrett has the ability to be a superb attorney, and he has 
demonstrated the desire to serve others.  This court expects Mr. 
Jarrett to vindicate the high hopes we have in him.  It will 
surely remember if he does not. 
¶52 Courts cannot succeed for long if they are unable to 
leaven justice with mercy.  By fashioning a unique form of 
No.  2015AP1393-BA.dtp 
3 
 
conditional admission, we practice that principle in the present 
case. 
¶53 For the reasons stated, I respectfully concur in the 
opinion of the court. 
¶54 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY and Justice REBECCA G. BRADLEY join this concurrence. 
 
 
No.  2015AP1393-BA.pdr 
 
1 
 
 
 
¶55 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, C.J.  (dissenting).   I 
would affirm the final decision of the Board of Bar Examiners 
(Board) declining to certify Joshua E. Jarrett's character and 
fitness for admission to the Wisconsin bar.  I am persuaded by 
the Board's finding that Mr. Jarrett's conduct in connection 
with his efforts in 2012 to secure summer employment with the 
New York City Law Department was both dishonest and deceptive 
and that such conduct demonstrates that Mr. Jarrett has acted in 
a manner that is not honest, diligent, or reliable.  Coupled 
with the Board's finding that Mr. Jarrett was not credible at 
the evidentiary hearing before the Board and when claiming he 
forgot to disclose three fairly recent separate speeding 
violations from Georgia, Kentucky, and Wisconsin, I conclude 
that there are simply too many incidents in which Mr. Jarrett 
considered the truth optional when it was not to his advantage. 
¶56 Based on the record before this court, I am not 
persuaded that Mr. Jarrett has demonstrated the requisite moral 
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."  SCR 40.06.  I would affirm the 
Board's decision.  
¶57 I am authorized to state that Justices ANNETTE 
KINGSLAND ZIEGLER and MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN join this dissent. 
 
 
No.  2015AP1393-BA.pdr 
 
1