Case Title: Charles A. Nichols v. Board of Bar Examiners

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2016AP001776-BA

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2017-06-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
2017 WI 55 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP1776-BA   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission  
of Charles A. Nichols. 
 
Charles A. Nichols, 
          Petitioner, 
     v. 
Board of Bar Examiners, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
BAR ADMISSION OF NICHOLS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 2, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
February 20, 2017   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, J. concurs, joined by A.W. Bradley, 
J. 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the petitioner, there were briefs filed by Tamara B. 
Packard, A.J. Grund and Pines Bach LLP, Madison. 
 
For the Board of Bar Examiners, there was a brief filed by 
Jacquelynn B. Rothstein, Director & Legal Counsel. 
 
 
 
 
2017 WI 55
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP1776-BA 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission of 
Charles A. Nichols: 
 
 
Charles A. Nichols, 
 
          Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Board of Bar Examiners, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 2, 2017 
 
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 Supreme 
Court Rule (SCR) 40.08(7), of the final decision of the Board of 
Bar Examiners (Board) declining to certify that the petitioner, 
Charles 
A. 
Nichols, 
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. Nichols 
satisfied the character and fitness requirements for admission 
to the Wisconsin bar was based primarily on Mr. Nichols' 
No. 
2016AP1776-BA   
 
2 
 
academic misconduct during his third year in law school and his 
failure to disclose certain matters on his bar application.  
After careful review, we reverse and remand the matter to the 
Board for further proceedings. 
¶2 
We appreciate the Board's concern regarding this 
applicant.  We appreciate the thorough investigation the Board 
conducted 
into 
Mr. Nichols' 
background 
and 
past 
conduct.  
Mr. Nichols' application raised significant questions 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 positive character evidence to warrant 
our conclusion that Mr. Nichols may be admitted to the practice 
of law in Wisconsin, albeit with conditions.  Accordingly, we 
reverse. 
¶4 
Mr. Nichols began law school at the University of 
Wisconsin in the fall of 2012.  In the summer of 2014, 
Mr. Nichols obtained a summer internship with the Office of the 
Lieutenant Governor.  This internship was unpaid, so Mr. Nichols 
No. 
2016AP1776-BA   
 
3 
 
also worked nights and weekends at a restaurant, 35 to 40 hours 
per week.  The Lieutenant Governor's office offered him a paid 
position at the end of the summer of 2014. 
¶5 
During the fall of 2014, his third year in law school, 
Mr. Nichols struggled to manage his work, volunteer service, and 
academic coursework.  He began to neglect his academic work, 
including a Law of Democracy course.  The grade for the course 
was almost solely based on a thirty-page research paper due at 
the end of the semester.  The syllabus for the course stated 
that plagiarism would result in a failing grade.   
¶6 
Mr. Nichols submitted a final paper.  The professor 
used an anti-plagiarism software program to check student 
papers.  The report revealed that Mr. Nichols' final paper 
contained extensive language copied verbatim or nearly verbatim 
from four published law review articles, without citations.  The 
repetition and nature of the matches led the professor to 
conclude 
that 
this 
could 
not 
have 
been 
coincidental.  
Mr. Nichols did not credit, in any form, the four law review 
articles from which he obtained the passages.  The professor 
concluded that large portions of Mr. Nichols' final paper were 
plagiarized.   
¶7 
On January 15, 2015, the professor convened a meeting 
with Mr. Nichols, the director of student affairs, and an 
associate dean.  When confronted with the apparent plagiarism, 
Mr. Nichols "told them immediately how he had developed the 
paper [with extensive cutting and pasting], and with complete 
No. 
2016AP1776-BA   
 
4 
 
candor."  Mr. Nichols admitted that his paper was "a mess" but 
said that he did not intentionally commit plagiarism.   
¶8 
The law school determined that Mr. Nichols had engaged 
in academic misconduct by submitting a paper that was copied in 
substantial part from several existing legal publications with 
no attribution in violation of UWS 14.03(1)(a).1  This conclusion 
is reflected in a letter from the professor to Mr. Nichols, 
dated January 23, 2015: 
During our meeting, you confirmed that you drew 
material from these sources—in particular, the [law 
review] article.  You further explained that your 
research and note-taking process involved cutting and 
pasting passages from [the law review article] and 
other sources, and you acknowledged that, in your rush 
to 
finish 
the 
paper, 
you 
may 
have 
(perhaps 
unintentionally) reproduced some of those passages 
without 
quotation 
marks, 
citations, 
or 
other 
attribution. 
As a sanction, Mr. Nichols received a failing grade on the paper 
and in the course.  The UW-Madison Dean of Students' Office also 
reviewed 
the 
matter 
and 
imposed 
an 
additional 
sanction, 
requiring Mr. Nichols to take an on-line course on academic 
integrity and research methods.  Mr. Nichols did so, and passed 
the exam.  
¶9 
In the spring of 2015, his final year, Mr. Nichols 
failed his required Professional Responsibility course because 
                                                 
1 UWS 14.03(1)(a) provides:  "Academic misconduct is an act 
in which a student [s]eeks to claim credit for the work or 
efforts of another without authorization or citation." 
 
No. 
2016AP1776-BA   
 
5 
 
he failed to comply with the attendance policy; a student who 
received more than three unexcused absences would fail the 
course.  Mr. Nichols retook the course and graduated from law 
school in December 2015.  
¶10 On March 23, 2015, Mr. Nichols submitted his bar 
application to the Board pursuant to the diploma privilege, 
SCR 40.03.  He disclosed the academic misconduct.  However, 
during the ensuing standard character and fitness review, the 
Board identified a number of discrepancies and omissions in his 
bar application, including: 
 Mr. Nichols had failed to report three underage 
drinking citations on his law school application.  He 
did report them on his bar application.  Mr. Nichols 
later explained that he did not "intend to purposely 
mislead."  He subsequently amended his law school 
application, and was informed the information would 
not have affected his admission. 
 Mr. Nichols failed to include on his bar application 
information regarding a 2007 eviction case in which he 
was named as a party.  He had no actual involvement in 
the case.  A former roommate owed rent and all 
roommates were listed as parties to the action.  The 
matter was resolved without Mr. Nichols' involvement.   
 Mr. Nichols failed to disclose on his bar application 
that in 2008, he sought and obtained a restraining 
order against a former girlfriend, for her harassment 
of him.   
 Mr. Nichols failed to include information on his bar 
application regarding 
a citation he received on 
March 18, 2009 
for an alleged absolute sobriety 
violation.  Mr. Nichols explained that the citation 
was dismissed because testing revealed no detectible 
level of alcohol.   
No. 
2016AP1776-BA   
 
6 
 
Mr. Nichols amended his bar application on January 27, 2016 in 
response to the Board's inquiries.  He said these omissions were 
accidental.   
¶11 On April 11, 2016, the Board informed Mr. Nichols that 
his bar application was at risk of being denied for failing to 
establish his good moral character and fitness within the 
meaning of SCR 40.06(1) and Bar Admission Rule (BA) 6.01.  
Mr. Nichols requested a hearing. 
¶12 The Board conducted a hearing on June 10, 2016, at 
which Mr. Nichols appeared and testified.  He also offered 
character 
witnesses 
including 
his 
colleague 
and 
former 
supervisor Attorney Daniel Suhr, Chief of Staff and Legal 
Counsel to the Lieutenant Governor.  Attorney Suhr stated he is 
"absolutely 
convinced 
that 
[Nichols] 
has 
the 
requisite 
integrity, diligence, and judgment to serve his clients and 
community well as an attorney in the State of Wisconsin."  
Professor 
Robert 
Yablon, 
the 
professor 
who 
identified 
Mr. Nichols' academic misconduct, also supported Mr. Nichols' 
admission to the bar, stating that he feels Mr. Nichols has been 
punished enough.  
¶13 On August 4, 2016, the Board issued an adverse 
decision concluding that Mr. Nichols failed to establish good 
moral character and fitness to practice law in Wisconsin under 
SCR 40.06(1) and (3).  The Board's decision stated, inter alia: 
In short, Mr. Nichols engaged in a blatant display of 
plagiarism.  By submitting a paper in connection with 
his Law of Democracy course in which he failed to 
include four separate sources from which he quoted 
No. 
2016AP1776-BA   
 
7 
 
extensively, and which accounted for over half of the 
paper, Mr. Nichols was both dishonest and deceptive.  
His conduct demonstrates that he is not honest, 
diligent, or reliable.   
The very next semester, Mr. Nichols took Professional 
Responsibility, a required law school course, for 
which he received a failing grade.  In the course 
syllabus, 
the 
attendance 
policy 
was 
outlined.  
According to Mr. Nichols, the policy stated that 
students who missed more than three (3) classes would 
receive a failing grade.  Mr. Nichols readily conceded 
that he was aware of that professor's attendance 
policy but that he missed several classes because of 
"workload and stuff."  Despite having been sanctioned 
for plagiarism the prior semester, Mr. Nichols still 
thought 
that 
the 
attendance 
policy 
was 
somehow 
"subject to change" and would therefore not be 
applicable to him.  His attitude evinces a disregard 
for rules and authority, and is especially concerning 
given its close proximity to his plagiarism incident.  
It suggests a pattern of problematic behavior in which 
Mr. Nichols does not believe that certain rules and 
requirements apply to him.   
Additionally, Mr. Nichols failed to disclose three 
underage drinking citations to the University of 
Wisconsin Law School which he reported on his bar 
application.  In an amendment to his bar application, 
Mr. Nichols explained that because the citations no 
longer appeared on file in the county in which they 
were issued, he did not believe that he was required 
to report them.  He went on to explain that "not 
having gone to law school and not knowing any 
attorneys" he "just missed" some things on his law 
school 
application. 
 
The 
Board 
did 
not 
find 
Mr. Nichols' explanation for failing to disclose the 
underage drinking citations to be persuasive.   
Mr. Nichols also failed to disclose a citation for an 
absolute sobriety violation, and two civil actions.  
The 
first 
civil 
matter 
involved 
him 
filing 
a 
restraining order against a former girlfriend.  The 
second involved an eviction matter.  Mr. Nichols 
claimed that it was a "misunderstanding" on his part 
as to why he had not included them in his application 
to the bar.  However, the Board did not find 
Mr. Nichols' explanations for failing to include these 
No. 
2016AP1776-BA   
 
8 
 
items in his bar application to be credible or 
convincing.   
It appears as if Mr. Nichols has engaged in a pattern 
of behavior in which he disregards certain rules and 
authority 
to 
suit 
his 
needs. 
 
Mr. Nichols' 
explanations about his academic misconduct in addition 
to his omissions on his bar application and his law 
school 
application 
were 
neither 
plausible 
nor 
believable.  Thus, the Board did not find him to be a 
credible witness.  Other than his employment, which 
Mr. Nichols seemed strongly focused upon—much to the 
detriment of his academic work, there does not appear 
to have been any other rehabilitative efforts on his 
part which would bolster or establish his required 
character or fitness for admission to the Wisconsin 
bar.  Mr. Nichols' employment is not a sufficient 
demonstration 
of 
rehabilitation 
to 
offset 
his 
troubling conduct.  Moreover, his academic misconduct 
occurred during his third year of law school, at which 
point 
he 
unquestionably 
should 
have 
known 
and 
understood the wrongfulness of committing plagiarism.   
When his omissions are coupled with his plagiarism, a 
clear picture emerges wherein disclosures which are 
not 
to 
Mr. Nichols' 
advantage 
are 
necessarily 
withheld.  Such conduct is of grave concern to the 
Board causing it to wonder how Mr. Nichols would 
prevent such behavior in the course of dealing with 
clients in a future legal practice. 
**** 
Mr. Nichols' various explanations for engaging in 
conduct of this type are neither convincing nor 
persuasive.  Mr. Nichols has minimized his behavior, 
providing excuses at every turn for his actions.  He 
engaged in intentional and wrongful conduct which 
demonstrates a lack of character and fitness on his 
part. 
(Record citations omitted).  Mr. Nichols seeks this court's 
review. 
¶14 Mr. Nichols first contends that several of the Board's 
findings are clearly erroneous and should be rejected by this 
No. 
2016AP1776-BA   
 
9 
 
court.  See In re Bar Admission of Rusch, 171 Wis. 2d 523, 528-
29, 492 N.W.2d 153 (1992).  He also contends that the Board's 
legal conclusions 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).  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 reverse the 
Board's adverse decision. 
¶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 re 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 in Wisconsin.  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. Nichols' assertion that the challenged 
Board findings are clearly erroneous.  Mr. Nichols challenges 
the Board's factual finding that "[b]y submitting a plagiarized 
paper 
in 
connection 
with 
his 
Law 
of 
Democracy 
course, 
Mr. Nichols was both dishonest and deceptive."  Mr. Nichols says 
that the record does not support the finding that he was ever 
No. 
2016AP1776-BA   
 
10 
 
"dishonest" or "deceptive."  He says that "nothing in the record 
supports the Board's contention that Mr. Nichols' conduct was 
intended to deceive or serves as evidence of dishonesty."  He 
also disputes the Board's finding that he "minimized the 
significance of the misconduct in which he had engaged."   
¶17 The Board stands by its findings.  It found that 
Mr. Nichols was not credible when explaining his conduct and the 
omissions on his bar application at the hearing before the 
Board.  The Board maintains that Mr. Nichols has consistently 
minimized the seriousness of his behavior and contends that this 
"record 
clearly 
reveals 
that 
Mr. Nichols 
has 
a 
serious 
credibility problem."  
¶18 The Board's factual findings essentially derive from 
the facts of the undisputed underlying academic misconduct and 
omissions 
on 
his 
bar 
application, 
coupled 
with 
its 
own 
credibility determinations made 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 not to accept Mr. Nichols' 
explanations for his plagiarism or his failures to disclose 
certain matters on his bar application.  The Board's factual 
findings, particularly those based on the Board's credibility 
determinations, have sufficient support and are not clearly 
erroneous.  
¶19 We 
next 
evaluate 
the 
Board's 
conclusion 
that 
Mr. Nichols 
failed 
to 
satisfy 
the 
character 
and 
fitness 
requirements for admission to the Wisconsin bar. 
No. 
2016AP1776-BA   
 
11 
 
¶20 The standards for evaluating an applicant's admission 
to the Wisconsin bar are well settled.  Supreme Court Rule 
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 Bar Admission 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 Bar Admission 
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 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 Bar Admission 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 
No. 
2016AP1776-BA   
 
12 
 
(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 
(i) the number of incidents revealing deficiencies 
See SCR 40 app., BA 6.03.   
¶24 When conducting our de novo review, we, like the 
Board, use the guidelines established in BA 6.02 and BA 6.03.   
¶25 Although both parties address each of these factors, 
the crux of Mr. Nichols' argument is that he committed a "single 
instance 
of 
academic 
misconduct 
that 
developed 
from 
carelessness, not intent."  He concedes this was serious but 
contends that it is not substantial enough to warrant denial of 
his admission to the bar.  He claims that the Board "ignored" 
other relevant evidence that reflects his good character, such 
as his positive character references from employers.   
¶26 The Board maintains that it considered all facets of 
Mr. Nichols' application.  It observes that most of Mr. Nichols' 
positive conduct is linked to his recent employment.  The Board 
determined that his negative conduct, coupled with his lack of 
candor and credibility, substantially outweighed his positive 
conduct.  Contrary to certain assertions in Mr. Nichols' brief, 
the Board does not seek to forever bar Mr. Nichols from 
No. 
2016AP1776-BA   
 
13 
 
admission to the practice of law in Wisconsin.  The Board 
suggests he could reapply pursuant to SCR 40.04 after a year.  
The court has used this or a similar mechanism in the past, 
typically when the court deemed it appropriate to defer an 
applicant's admission.  See, e.g., In re Bar Admission of 
Gaylord, 155 Wis. 2d 816, 456 N.W.2d 590 (1990); In re Bar 
Admission of Saganski, 226 Wis. 2d 678, 78-80, 595 N.W.2d 631 
(1999). 
¶27 Mr. Nichols 
argues 
that 
the 
Board's 
adverse 
determination is inconsistent with this court's resolution of 
other bar admission cases, most notably and recently, In re Bar 
Admission 
of 
Jarrett, 
2016 
WI 
39, 
368 
Wis. 2d 567, 
879 
N.W.2d 116.  See also, In re Bar Admission of Anderson, 2006 WI 
57, ¶26, 290 Wis. 2d 722, 715 N.W.2d 586; Vanderperren, 261 
Wis. 2d 150, ¶65; Rippl, 250 Wis. 2d 519. 
¶28 The most factually analogous case is our recent 
decision in Jarrett.  Mr. Jarrett committed academic misconduct 
after his first year in law school.  He sent a resume and 
unofficial transcript to a potential employer, containing false 
information and inflated grades.  Jarrett, 2016 WI 39, ¶6.  
Mr. Jarrett also failed to disclose in his bar application that 
he had received several traffic violations.  This court 
ultimately opted to admit Mr. Jarrett, with conditions.   
¶29 Here, as in Jarrett, we emphasize that the Board acted 
reasonably in questioning Mr. Nichols' character and fitness, 
and conducted its review in accordance with the established 
standards.  Bar Admission 6.02 provides that both academic 
No. 
2016AP1776-BA   
 
14 
 
misconduct 
and 
false 
statements 
(including 
nondisclosure) 
"should be treated as cause for further inquiry."  (Emphasis 
added.)  The record reflects that the Board considered the 
factors set forth in BA 6.03; particularly the recency of the 
conduct, which occurred during his final year of law school, 
(6.03(b)), its seriousness (6.03(d)), and the applicant's candor 
in the admissions process (6.03(g)).  See SCR 40 app, BA 6.03 
(a)-(i).  The Board expressed very reasonable concern about a 
pattern "wherein disclosures which are not to Mr. Nichols' 
advantage are necessarily withheld."  The Board explicitly found 
that "Nichols' employment is not a sufficient demonstration of 
rehabilitation to offset his troubling conduct."   
¶30 The Board serves the critically important role as a 
gatekeeper to admission to the bar.  The Board was right to be 
deeply concerned by Mr. Nichols' record.  Still, as in Jarrett, 
this court has reviewed this record and has opted to afford this 
applicant the benefit of the doubt.  We conclude that 
Mr. Nichols can be admitted to the practice of law, subject to 
the imposition of certain conditions.2  In reaching this 
conclusion we are influenced by the fact that employers who work 
closely with Mr. Nichols speak highly of him as an individual, 
and of his work ethic.  The omissions on his bar application 
were careless, but the items omitted do not, themselves, reflect 
                                                 
2 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. Nichols' license to practice law.   
No. 
2016AP1776-BA   
 
15 
 
poorly on Mr. Nichols' character.  We are also influenced by the 
fact that the professor of the class in which Mr. Nichols 
committed academic misconduct supports his admission to the bar.  
The professor noted that Mr. Nichols had been "forthright in 
acknowledging his errors and accepting responsibility," and that 
he seems genuinely contrite.  The professor noted further that 
Mr. Nichols "has paid a real price for his actions, with an F on 
his transcript and his misconduct made the admission process 
vastly more time consuming, expensive, and stressful." 
¶31 Accordingly, 
we 
direct 
the 
Board 
to 
certify 
Mr. Nichols' 
admission 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin.  
Mr. Nichols' admission to the practice of law in Wisconsin is 
contingent on his compliance with certain requirements set forth 
in this decision as well as certain conditions on his license to 
practice law. 
¶32 We direct the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) to 
identify and appoint a practice monitor to serve as a mentor to 
Mr. Nichols and to supervise and oversee Mr. Nichols' practice 
of law and related professional activities for a period of two 
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. Nichols' place of employment 
or residence.  
¶33 Upon Mr. Nichols' admission to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin and his enrollment with the State Bar of Wisconsin 
pursuant to SCR 10.03(2), Mr. Nichols is directed to initially 
elect inactive membership status.  See SCR 10.03(3)(a).  This 
No. 
2016AP1776-BA   
 
16 
 
will afford the OLR time to identify a practice monitor and will 
obviate the need for Mr. Nichols to bear the costs and 
obligations of monitoring before he assumes the active practice 
of law.   
¶34 When the OLR advises Mr. Nichols that a practice 
monitor has been identified, Mr. Nichols shall execute a written 
monitoring agreement setting forth the terms of Mr. Nichols' 
monitoring as determined by the practice monitor.  Mr. Nichols 
may 
then, 
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. Nichols elects active membership in the 
State Bar pursuant to SCR 10.03(3)(b)1.  
¶35 We direct Mr. Nichols to cooperate with the OLR, 
cooperate with his practice monitor, and comply with all 
requirements imposed upon him by the OLR relating to his 
monitoring.  Mr. Nichols shall comply with all reasonable 
requests of his practice monitor and shall bear the reasonable 
costs of monitoring.3  
¶36 Upon appointment, the monitor shall report to the OLR, 
in writing, on a quarterly basis.  Within thirty days prior to 
                                                 
3 Lawyer monitoring often requires a lawyer to undergo an 
AODA 
(alcohol 
and 
other 
drug 
abuse) 
assessment 
and/or 
psychological evaluation.  The record in this case does not 
appear to warrant such conditions and they should not be imposed 
here.  In the event such conditions appear necessary, the OLR 
shall provide Mr. Nichols with notice and an opportunity to be 
heard.    
No. 
2016AP1776-BA   
 
17 
 
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. Nichols' admission be allowed 
to terminate or be extended. 
¶37 Should Mr. Nichols 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. 
¶38 IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Board of Bar 
Examiners declining to certify that Charles A. Nichols 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 decision. 
¶39 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Charles A. Nichols shall 
comply with the directives set forth in this decision and shall, 
promptly upon receipt of this decision, 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.  
¶40 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.  2016AP1776-BA.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶41 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   (concurring).  I write 
separately to provide some context for ¶40 of this opinion, 
which may be confusing for those who are not thoroughly 
conversant with our court rules.  The paragraph provides 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."  
¶42 Persons seeking admission to practice law in Wisconsin 
must file an application with the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE).  
See SCR 40.14.  The information an applicant must disclose to 
the BBE is extensive and some of it is highly personal.  For 
this reason, SCR 40.12 provides that the "application files of 
an applicant and all examination materials are confidential.  
The supreme court or the board may authorize the release of 
confidential information to other persons or agencies."   
¶43 When an applicant asks this court to review an adverse 
determination from the BBE, SCR 40.08(7), the record submitted 
to this court typically contains the applicant's bar application 
and related documents, which comprise the "application file."  
Consistent with our rule, material from the application file is 
confidential and is not available to the public, absent a court 
order.  In this matter, the applicant, himself, voluntarily 
opted to include in the appendix to his appellate brief some 
items from his bar application, including certain amendments to 
his bar application.  When an applicant does not file 
No.  2016AP1776-BA.ssa 
 
2 
 
confidential material under seal with this court, a question may 
arise whether confidentiality is waived. 
¶44 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY joins this concurrence. 
 
 
No.  2016AP1776-BA.ssa 
 
 
 
1