Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jean M. Robinson

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2021 WI 80 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP1696-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jean M. Robinson, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Jean M. Robinson, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY ROBINSON REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS 
Reported at 394 Wis. 2d 1,948 N.W.2d 898 
PDC No:2020 WI76 - Published 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 20, 2021   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2021 WI 80 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2019AP1696-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jean M. Robinson, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jean M. Robinson, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
OCT 22, 2021 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   This 
court 
has 
pending 
before 
it 
Attorney Jean M. Robinson's petition for reinstatement of her 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  Upon consideration of the 
reinstatement petition; the Office of Lawyer Regulation's (OLR) 
response pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.30(4); the 
parties' SCR 22.30(5)(a) stipulation; and the OLR's memorandum 
in support of the stipulation, we conclude that Attorney 
Robinson's petition for reinstatement should be granted. 
¶2 
Attorney Robinson was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1985.  She was admitted to practice law in the 
No. 
2019AP1696-D   
 
2 
 
District of Columbia in 2004.  In 1987, this court suspended her 
Wisconsin law license for one year.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Robinson, 140 Wis. 2d 538, 411 N.W.2d 137 
(1987).  In 2020, this court suspended Attorney Robinson's 
Wisconsin law license for a period of 18 months, effective June 
30, 2019.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Robinson, 
2020 WI 76, 394 Wis. 2d 1, 948 N.W.2d 898.  The Wisconsin 
suspension was reciprocal to that imposed upon Attorney Robinson 
in the District of Columbia, and the effective date of the 
Wisconsin suspension was coterminous with the imposed date of 
the District of Columbia suspension.  Attorney Robinson's 
misconduct in the District of Columbia involved allegations of 
improprieties surrounding her former client.  Her misconduct was 
found to be intentionally prejudicing her client in the course 
of 
their 
attorney-client 
relationship; 
revealing 
client 
confidences or secrets; and acting with dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation.   
¶3 
Attorney Robinson filed a petition for reinstatement 
of her Wisconsin law license on March 24, 2021.  The OLR 
investigated Attorney Robinson's petition and found she had 
demonstrated that she has satisfied all of the criteria for 
reinstatement.  The OLR noted that Attorney Robinson has 
displayed exemplary conduct since her suspension, and she 
appears to be genuinely remorseful for her misconduct.  It also 
noted that Attorney Robinson's references spoke very highly of 
her honesty, integrity, and fitness to practice law.  The OLR 
concluded that Attorney Robinson demonstrated that she has a 
No. 
2019AP1696-D   
 
3 
 
great appreciation for the gravity of her situation, and it 
commented that she said, "I am profoundly repentant of the 
misconduct upon which my suspension was based and I realize the 
necessity for irreproachable conduct within the profession and 
the sacredness of an Attorney's duties." 
¶4 
On August 10, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation in 
which the OLR stated that Attorney Robinson has met her 
SCR 22.305 
burden 
to 
prove 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, 
and 
convincing evidence: 
(1) That he or she has the moral character to practice 
law in Wisconsin. 
(2) 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. 
(3) That his or her representations in the petition, 
including 
the 
representations 
required 
by 
SCR 22.29(4)(a) 
to 
(m) 
and 
22.29(5), 
are 
substantiated.  
(4) 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. 
The OLR also filed a memorandum in support of the stipulation in 
which it states that Attorney Robinson has resolved all civil 
litigation surrounding the incident that led to her suspension 
in the District of Columbia.  The OLR also reiterates that 
Attorney Robinson has expressed remorse and an understanding of 
an attorney's role and duties. 
¶5 
The parties' joint stipulation for Attorney Robinson's 
reinstatement is now before us.  Effective January 1, 2021, new 
reinstatement provisions permit this court to consider a 
No. 
2019AP1696-D   
 
4 
 
reinstatement petition by stipulation where, as here, the OLR 
concludes, 
upon 
investigation, 
that 
the 
petitioner 
has 
demonstrated, to the OLR's director's satisfaction, that all of 
the reinstatement criteria have been meet.  See SCR 22.305 and 
SCR 22.29(4).  The court considers the petition and stipulation 
without the appointment of a referee and may approve the 
stipulation and reinstate the petitioner's law license; the 
court may reject the stipulation and refer the petition to a 
referee for a hearing; or the court may direct the parties to 
consider modifications to the stipulation.  SCR 22.30(5)(b). 
¶6 
Based on the stipulation, and noting that the record 
contains no evidence to the contrary, we conclude that Attorney 
Robinson has established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 
evidence that she has satisfied all of the criteria necessary 
for 
reinstatement. 
 
Accordingly, 
we 
accept 
the 
parties' 
stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.30(5)(b), and we reinstate 
Attorney Robinson's license to practice law in Wisconsin, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶7 
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 
Jean M. Robinson to practice law in Wisconsin is granted, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶8 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs will be imposed in 
connection with this reinstatement proceeding.  
No. 
2019AP1696-D   
 
 
 
1