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

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2020 WI 76 
 
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. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ROBINSON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 29, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2020 WI 76
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 
 
SEP 29, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and 
Attorney Jean M. Robinson have filed a stipulation pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 that Attorney Robinson's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin should be suspended for a period of 18 
months, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the District 
of Columbia Court of Appeals.   
¶2 
After reviewing the matter, we approve the stipulation 
and impose the stipulated reciprocal discipline.  In addition, we 
grant Attorney Robinson's unopposed motion to make the effective 
No. 
2019AP1696-D   
 
2 
 
date of the Wisconsin suspension coterminous with the imposed date 
of suspension of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, i.e. 
June 3, 2019.  The OLR did not request and we impose no restitution.  
Finally, because Attorney Robinson entered into a comprehensive 
stipulation prior to the appointment of a referee, we do not impose 
costs. 
¶3 
Attorney Robinson was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1985.  She was admitted to practice law in the 
District of Columbia in 2004.  Her professional disciplinary 
history in Wisconsin consists of a one-year suspension imposed in 
1987.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Robinson, 140 
Wis. 2d 538, 411 N.W.2d 137 (1987). 
¶4 
In 2008, Attorney Robinson obtained a corporate counsel 
certificate from the Virginia State Bar which enabled her to 
practice as in-house counsel for SourceAmerica, Inc., which is 
headquartered in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 
¶5 
On October 30, 2018, Attorney Robinson and the District 
of Columbia Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed an amended 
petition for negotiated discipline in the District of Columbia 
Court of Appeals.  The petition stated that in the course of her 
attorney-client relationship with SourceAmerica, Attorney Robinson 
intentionally 
prejudiced 
her 
client 
by 
revealing 
client 
confidences or secrets and she acted with dishonesty by concealing 
her assistance to government agents from her client.  The petition 
stated that Attorney Robinson was remorseful, had accepted 
responsibility for her misconduct, and admitted that her conduct 
violated the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct.  The petition 
No. 
2019AP1696-D   
 
3 
 
also stated that Attorney Robinson had cooperated with the Office 
of Disciplinary Counsel during its investigation.  In addition, 
the petition stated that although Attorney Robinson made 
disclosures in violation of the Virginia Rules of Professional 
Conduct, those disclosures appear to have been largely grounded in 
a sincere belief that she was correcting what she perceived to be 
inappropriate conduct by certain SourceAmerica representatives, 
rather than out of any personal or pecuniary interest. 
¶6 
On May 2, 2019, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals 
suspended Attorney Robinson from the practice of law in the 
District of Columbia for 18 months, effective June 3, 2019.  The 
court's order stated that Attorney Robinson's reinstatement is 
conditioned upon her demonstration of fitness to resume the 
practice of law. 
¶7 
On September 10, 2019, the OLR filed a disciplinary 
complaint alleging that Attorney Robinson should be subject to 
reciprocal discipline due to the suspension imposed by the District 
of Columbia Court of Appeals.  On May 22, 2020, the OLR and Attorney 
Robinson entered into a stipulation whereby Attorney Robinson 
agreed that the facts alleged in the OLR's complaint supported the 
imposition of reciprocal discipline. 
¶8 
Under SCR 22.22(3), this court shall impose the 
identical discipline imposed in another jurisdiction, unless one 
or more of three exceptions apply.  In the stipulation, Attorney 
Robinson states that she does not claim any of the exceptions.  
She agrees that this court should impose the level of discipline 
No. 
2019AP1696-D   
 
4 
 
sought by the OLR director, a suspension of her license to practice 
law in Wisconsin for 18 months. 
¶9 
Attorney Robinson further states that the stipulation 
was not the result of plea-bargaining, that she full understands 
the allegations against her, that she fully understands the 
ramifications should this court impose the stipulated level of 
discipline, that she fully understands the right to contest the 
matter, that she understands her right to consult with counsel, 
that her entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and 
voluntarily, that she has read the OLR's complaint and the 
SCR 22.12 stipulation, and that her entry into the stipulation 
represents her decision not to contest the allegations regarding 
reciprocal discipline in the OLR's complaint or the level and type 
of discipline sought by the OLR's director. 
¶10 On June 30, 2020, Attorney Robinson filed a motion asking 
that the court impose a date of suspension that runs coterminous 
with the imposed date of suspension of the District of Columbia 
Court of Appeals, that being an 18-month suspension beginning June 
3, 2019.  On July 7, 2020, the OLR filed a response saying it does 
not oppose Attorney Robinson's motion.  The OLR notes that it has 
no reason to dispute Attorney Robinson's statement that she has 
not practiced law since 2014, following her misconduct, and her 
District of Columbia law license was suspended in June 2019 
following a process that took years.  The OLR points out that if 
this court were to grant Attorney Robinson's request to make her 
18-month Wisconsin suspension coterminous with the onset of her 
District of Columbia suspension, the Wisconsin public would remain 
No. 
2019AP1696-D   
 
5 
 
adequately protected since if she should ever wish to pursue 
reinstatement of her Wisconsin law license, she will be required 
to file a formal reinstatement petition and prove her fitness to 
resume practice here.  See SCR 22.28(3). 
¶11 Having reviewed the matter, we accept the stipulation 
and impose an 18-month suspension of Attorney Robinson's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin, as discipline reciprocal to that 
imposed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.  We further 
grant Attorney Robinson's motion to make the Wisconsin suspension 
coterminous with the District of Columbia suspension.  In light of 
the SCR 22.12 stipulation, we do not impose costs. 
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jean M. Robinson to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 18 months, 
effective June 3, 2019.   
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jean M. 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. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(3). 
 
No. 
2019AP1696-D   
 
 
 
1