Case Title: BAPR v. Jane A. Edgar

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2012-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
2012 WI 19 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Jane A. Edgar, Attorney at Law: 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jane A. Edgar, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jane Edgar, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jane Edgar, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
_________________________________________________ 
 
REINSTATEMENT PETITION OF EDGAR 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 1, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:         
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 COURT: 
        
 COUNTY: 
        
 JUDGE: 
        
  
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 CONCURRED: 
        
 DISSENTED: 
   
 NOT 
PARTICIPATING: 
        
  
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
2012 WI 19
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
Nos.  1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Jane A. Edgar, Attorney at Law: 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jane A. Edgar, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 1, 2012 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jane Edgar, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jane Edgar, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.    Reinstatement denied.  
 
Nos. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
2 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review, pursuant to SCR 22.33(3),1 a 
report filed on July 15, 2011, by Referee Hannah C. Dugan, 
recommending denial of Attorney Jane A. Edgar's petition for 
reinstatement of her license to practice law in Wisconsin.2  We 
adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and 
agree that Attorney Edgar's license to practice law should not 
be reinstated at this time.  We direct Attorney Edgar to pay the 
costs of the reinstatement proceeding, which totaled $7,597.25, 
as of August 3, 2011.  
¶2 
Attorney Edgar was admitted to practice law in 1985.  
She practiced in Milwaukee.  She was suspended effective 
March 22, 1999, for two years for converting $11,000 that 
belonged to a client and an adverse party in a divorce action, 
for commingling her own funds and client funds in her law office 
business account, for making deposits into and disbursements 
from that account for personal expenses, and for having falsely 
certified that she had a trust account and that she maintained 
that trust account and bank records in compliance with the 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.33(3) provides as follows:  "If no appeal is timely 
filed, the supreme court shall review the referee's report, 
order 
reinstatement, 
with 
or 
without 
conditions, 
deny 
reinstatement, or order the parties to file briefs in the 
matter." 
2 By order dated December 1, 2011, the court dismissed 
Attorney Edgar's appeal from the referee's report because of 
Attorney Edgar's repeated failure to file a timely brief.  
Attorney Edgar's request to reopen her appeal was denied by 
order dated January 24, 2012.  Accordingly, the court considers 
the report as if no appeal had been filed as provided in 
SCR 22.33. 
Nos. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
3 
 
applicable rules governing the conduct of attorneys.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Edgar, 230 Wis. 2d 205, 601 
N.W.2d 284 (1999).  
¶3 
Subsequently, 
Attorney 
Edgar 
entered 
into 
a 
stipulation for an additional one-year suspension for other 
incidents of professional misconduct.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Edgar, 2003 WI 49, 261 Wis. 2d 413, 661 
N.W.2d 817.  Attorney Edgar was ordered to pay restitution 
totaling $4,625 to four former clients, and the court adopted 
conditions applicable to Attorney Edgar's reinstatement as 
follows: 
(1) that 
[Attorney] 
Edgar's 
reinstatement 
be 
contingent upon her demonstrating that she has her 
depression and any other emotional or psychological 
problems under control, by her submission to an 
independent medical examination (IME) by a health 
provider approved by the OLR, at her own expense; 
(2) that [Attorney] Edgar's licensure following 
reinstatement 
be 
conditioned 
on 
[Attorney] 
Edgar 
remaining in treatment as recommended by the IME 
and/or her therapist, monitored by the OLR via 
obtainment of quarterly reports for a period of two 
years following her reinstatement; 
(3) that [Attorney] Edgar's practice of law be 
monitored by an attorney approved by the OLR for a 
period of two years following reinstatement, unless 
[Attorney] Edgar is either employed by a law firm or 
practicing 
with 
another 
attorney 
aware 
of 
her 
disciplinary and medical history. 
Id., ¶12. 
¶4 
On September 21, 2010, Attorney Edgar filed a petition 
for reinstatement.  The matter was assigned to Referee Hannah 
Dugan, who conducted an evidentiary hearing on May 23, 2011.  
Nos. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
4 
 
¶5 
The standard to be met for reinstatement of a law 
license is set forth in SCR 22.31(1).3  In particular, the 
petitioning attorney must demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, 
and convincing evidence that he or she has the moral character 
necessary to practice law in this state, that his or her 
resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the 
administration of justice or subversive of the public interest, 
and that the attorney has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms 
of the suspension.  In addition, SCR 22.29(4) sets forth related 
requirements that a petition for reinstatement must show.4  All 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.31(1) states: 
The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all 
of the following: 
(a) That he or she has the moral character to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
(b) That his or her resumption of the practice of 
law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest. 
(c) That 
his or her representations in the 
petition, including the representations required by 
SCR 
22.29(4)(a) 
to 
[(4m)] 
and 
22.29(5), 
are 
substantiated. 
(d) That he or she has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
with the requirements of SCR 22.26. 
4 SCRs 22.29(4)(a) through (4m) provide as follows: 
(4) The petition for reinstatement shall show all 
of the following: 
(a) The 
petitioner 
desires 
to 
have 
the 
petitioner's license reinstated. 
Nos. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
5 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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. 
(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. 
Nos. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
6 
 
of these additional requirements are effectively incorporated 
into SCR 22.31(1). 
¶6 
The referee found that Attorney Edgar's petition met 
some of the reinstatement criteria.  She does desire the 
reinstatement of her law license.  SCR 22.29(4)(a).  She has not 
practiced law since the suspension of her license in 1999.  
SCR 22.29(4)(b).  She provided the requisite information about 
her plans if she is reinstated, indicating that she would like 
to serve as a guardian ad litem in children's court and 
potentially in family court.  SCR 22.29(4)(j).  She has stated 
that she does not intend to return to private practice.  
¶7 
Attorney 
Edgar 
provided 
information 
about 
her 
activities during her suspension.  Attorney Edgar cared for her 
disabled son, volunteered at several non-profit organizations 
and at her son's school, held leadership positions within 
several non-profit organizations which included managing funds, 
and was elected to the West Allis School Board.   
¶8 
Attorney Edgar has also complied with continuing legal 
education 
requirements, 
SCR 
22.29(4)(d), 
and 
has 
made 
restitution or settled all claims of the four clients who were 
injured or harmed by her misconduct and who were included in the 
2003 stipulated suspension order.  SCR 22.29(4m). 
¶9 
Ultimately, however, the referee found that Attorney 
Edgar 
had 
failed 
to 
meet 
several 
of 
the 
criteria 
for 
reinstatement. Many of the criteria are interrelated, as 
evidenced by the referee's comments.  The referee expressed an 
overriding concern about the manner in which Attorney Edgar 
Nos. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
7 
 
presented her reinstatement petition.  According to the referee, 
Attorney Edgar did not follow basic lawyering standards for 
presentation 
and 
refutation 
of 
documentation 
or 
witness 
procurement and preparation.  More specifically, Attorney Edgar 
did not present witnesses or exhibits either to support her 
petition or to refute an adverse exhibit offered by the OLR.  
The 
referee 
expressed 
concern 
that 
Attorney 
Edgar 
twice 
incorrectly stated that the sole issue before the referee was 
whether she satisfied the supreme court's order with respect to 
having her mental health issues under control.  The referee 
explained: "In her demeanor was both casualness about the 
reinstatement process and an unsubstantiated confidence in her 
readiness to resume practice."  
¶10 Indeed, the referee found that Attorney Edgar's 
presentation and pro se advocacy at her evidentiary hearing 
suggests that she cannot at this time meet the standards of 
SCR 22.26(g).  
¶11 The referee also expressed concern about a pattern of 
incomplete disclosure.  For example, Attorney Edgar had stated 
she was not party to any civil action, but it was determined 
that she had several civil judgments against her related to 
failure to pay office rent, failure to pay OLR costs, and 
several 
Wisconsin 
Department 
of 
Revenue 
tax 
warrants.  
Similarly, Attorney Edgar offered a written statement that 
"[s]ince my suspension, I have filed joint state and federal 
taxes with my husband each year in a timely fashion" but made no 
mention of the outstanding tax warrants and a current tax debt 
Nos. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
8 
 
of about $27,000 to $29,000.  She also stated that she did not 
have information about her finances from 1997-1999, but it was 
later revealed that a Wisconsin Department of Revenue warrant 
for unpaid taxes was filed with the Milwaukee County Circuit 
Court and, as the referee noted, some financial information 
could have been obtained from that case.  The referee noted 
Attorney Edgar failed "to understand that these unresolved civil 
lawsuits calls into question whether she, as a practitioner or 
as 
a 
lawyer 
susceptible 
to 
equivocation, 
can 
be 
safely 
recommended to the legal profession, the courts, and the public 
as a person fit to be consulted by others."  
¶12 Thus, the referee concluded that Attorney Edgar did 
not present an appropriate attitude regarding the reinstatement 
process that would be considered in conformity with standards of 
the practicing bar.  See SCR 22.29(4)(f).  The referee noted 
that these omissions also raised concerns about Attorney Edgar's 
understanding of and attitude towards court proceedings, as well 
as toward future clients' needs and expectations.  
¶13 The referee also found that Attorney Edgar has never 
been in full compliance with SCR 22.26.  See SCR 22.29(4)(h).  
She did not provide any documentation demonstrating that she had 
complied with the rules requiring an attorney to notify clients 
of a suspension.  The notice to clients that she described in 
her testimony did not comport with SCR 22.26.  The referee also 
noted that Attorney Edgar appeared unconcerned about her 
oversights in this regard.  Thus, the referee found that 
Nos. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
9 
 
Attorney Edgar failed to address the requirement that she 
demonstrate her compliance with this condition.  
¶14 The referee also expressed some concern about her 
findings related to Attorney Edgar's handling of this court's 
order requiring payment of restitution to injured clients and 
OLR costs.  The referee did find that Attorney Edgar currently 
is in compliance with that portion of the court's order.  
However, the referee noted the four clients only received their 
restitution in 2010, months before Attorney Edgar filed her 
reinstatement petition.  Moreover, Attorney Edgar provided no 
documentation to substantiate the payment of restitution and no 
documentation 
or satisfactory explanation was provided to 
explain the delay in payment.  No documentation was provided by 
either party that Attorney Edgar returned to the court to ask 
for an extension of time to pay the restitution or otherwise to 
waive payment.  Indeed, the referee noted that one of the former 
clients had died and, therefore, never was directly provided 
restitution.  The referee found further that Attorney Edgar 
seemed "unconcerned and unremorseful" about the payment delay.  
The referee found Attorney Edgar followed a similar pattern with 
respect to payment of the costs of the previous OLR disciplinary 
matter. 
¶15 Thus, the referee's report and recommendation describe 
a pattern of shortcomings in Attorney Edgar's compliance with 
the requirements of suspension and reinstatement that, taken 
individually, might be excusable.  Taken cumulatively, however, 
they caused the referee to conclude that Attorney Edgar does not 
Nos. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
10 
 
have a proper understanding of and attitude towards meeting the 
professional standards imposed on a member of the bar or an 
appreciation 
of 
the 
justification 
for 
the 
suspensions.  
Ultimately, the referee concluded Attorney Edgar did not carry 
her burden of proof with respect to the requirements of 
reinstatement set forth in the supreme court rules.  
¶16 As noted, the court had also imposed additional 
requirements on Attorney Edgar's reinstatement, requiring her to 
demonstrate that her depression and other related issues are 
under control, as evidenced by her submission to an independent 
medical examination (IME) by a health provider approved by the 
OLR, at her own expense. 
¶17 Attorney Edgar complied with this directive, but the 
medical evaluation was not received until about one week before 
the evidentiary hearing.5  The referee found that the report, 
once received, was not definitive.  The report stated that 
Attorney Edgar's depression is under control, but the referee 
noted it did not explicitly conclude that her other "emotional 
or psychological problems are under control," a condition the 
court 
had 
explicitly 
imposed 
upon 
Attorney 
Edgar's 
reinstatement.  
¶18 Attorney Edgar offered extensive testimony regarding 
the independent medical report.  The referee acknowledged that 
                                                 
5 The referee noted that Attorney Edgar repeatedly expressed 
the desire to proceed with the evidentiary hearing despite 
indications there was insufficient evidence supporting her 
petition. 
Nos. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
11 
 
since 
her 
suspension, 
Attorney 
Edgar 
has 
addressed 
very 
challenging family health issues——both her son's and her own.  
The 
referee 
found 
that 
through 
diligence 
and 
treatment 
compliance, she and her son are functioning with greater health 
and are leading productive lives.  The referee acknowledged that 
Attorney Edgar disagreed with many aspects of the evaluation.  
However, the referee found that the report "cannot be ignored or 
found unsupportable," and Attorney Edgar presented no witnesses 
or 
documentation 
from 
her 
doctors 
that 
refuted 
certain 
conclusions in the IME.  
¶19 Thus, the referee found that "it is apparent that 
[Attorney] Edgar has made significant progress in her mental 
health treatment with respect to her diagnosed depression," but 
she was not satisfied that Attorney Edgar had established that 
her other mental health related issues are sufficiently under 
control to satisfy court-ordered reinstatement requirements.  
¶20 This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  
After careful review of the record, we agree with the referee 
that Attorney Edgar has not established by clear, satisfactory, 
and convincing evidence that she 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 
to 
deny 
this 
petition 
for 
Nos. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
12 
 
reinstatement.  We further direct Attorney Edgar to pay the full 
costs of the reinstatement proceeding. 
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 
the license of Jane A. Edgar to practice law in Wisconsin is 
denied. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Jane A. Edgar shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the full costs of this proceeding.  If the costs are 
not paid within the time specified and Jane A. Edgar has not 
entered into a payment plan approved by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation, then the Office of Lawyer Regulation is authorized 
to move this court for a further suspension of the license of 
Jane A. Edgar to practice law in Wisconsin. 
 
Nos. 1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
 
 
1