Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas A. Robinson

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2007 WI 17 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP2786-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Thomas A. Robinson, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Thomas A. Robinson, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ROBINSON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 6, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 17
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP2786-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Thomas A. Robinson, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Thomas A. Robinson, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 6, 2007 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Thomas A. 
Robinson pursuant to SCR 22.121 requesting this court to suspend 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides:  Stipulation. 
 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee. 
No. 
2006AP2786-D   
 
2 
 
Attorney Robinson's license to practice law in Wisconsin as 
reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the Supreme 
Court of Illinois. 
¶2 
Following the filing of the OLR's complaint, this 
court issued an order requiring Attorney Robinson to show cause, 
in writing, pursuant to SCR 22.22(3)2 why the imposition of 
discipline identical to that imposed in Illinois would be 
unwarranted. 
 
The 
parties 
thereafter 
filed 
the 
present 
stipulation. 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
 
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. 
 
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
2 SCR 22.22(3) provides:  Reciprocal discipline. 
 
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
 
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process. 
 
(b) There was such an infirmity of proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity. 
 
(c) 
The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
No. 
2006AP2786-D   
 
3 
 
¶3 
According to the stipulation, Attorney Robinson became 
licensed 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Illinois 
in 
1980 
and 
was 
subsequently 
admitted 
to 
practice 
in 
Wisconsin 
in 
1987.  
Attorney Robinson most recently practiced in Illinois.  His 
license to practice in Wisconsin has been suspended since June 
5, 2000, for failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal 
education (CLE) requirements. 
¶4 
In the stipulation Attorney Robinson acknowledges that 
the Supreme Court of Illinois suspended his license to practice 
law in that state for a period of one year, effective October 
11, 2006.  According to the Illinois disciplinary records, which 
were incorporated into the OLR's complaint and acknowledged in 
the stipulation, Attorney Robinson's professional misconduct 
that led to his suspension involved his representation of the 
executor of an estate.  Specifically, Attorney Robinson was 
found to have committed professional misconduct consisting of 
conversion; failure to deliver promptly client funds that the 
client is entitled to receive and to render an accounting of 
such property; making a statement of material fact to a tribunal 
that he knew or reasonably should have known was false; engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation; 
engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice; and engaging in conduct which tends 
to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or 
the legal profession into disrepute. 
¶5 
With respect to the court's order to show cause, 
Attorney Robinson states in the stipulation that he does not 
No. 
2006AP2786-D   
 
4 
 
claim that any of the conditions listed in SCR 22.22(3)(a)-(c) 
prevent the imposition of reciprocal discipline in this case.  
Attorney Robinson and the OLR therefore jointly request that 
Attorney Robinson's license to practice law in this state be 
suspended for a period of one year.  The stipulation properly 
provides 
that 
Attorney 
Robinson 
did 
not 
enter 
into 
the 
stipulation because of plea-bargaining, that he understands the 
misconduct allegations and the ramifications of the stipulated 
level of discipline, that he understands his right to contest 
the matter and to consult with and retain counsel, and that he 
is nonetheless entering into the stipulation knowingly and 
voluntarily. 
¶6 
Following the filing of the stipulation, the OLR filed 
a statement requesting that costs not be imposed under SCR 22.24 
in this matter because the OLR's costs are minimal, Attorney 
Robinson 
had 
always 
cooperated 
fully 
with 
the 
OLR's 
investigation, and Attorney Robinson's prompt entry into a 
comprehensive stipulation prior to the appointment of a referee 
had prevented the OLR from incurring any unnecessary costs. 
¶7 
Based upon our independent review, we determine that 
the SCR 22.12 stipulation should be accepted and Attorney 
Robinson's license to practice law in Wisconsin should be 
suspended for one year as reciprocal discipline to that imposed 
by the Supreme Court of Illinois.  We also agree with the OLR's 
request that costs not be imposed under the particular facts of 
this case. 
No. 
2006AP2786-D   
 
5 
 
¶8 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Thomas A. Robinson 
to practice law in the State of Wisconsin is suspended for a 
period of one year, effective the date of this order. 
¶9 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Robinson shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
 
No. 
2006AP2786-D   
 
 
 
1