Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2023 WI 32 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.:  
2022AP1916-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kevin R. Rosin, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Kevin R. Rosin, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ROSIN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 25, 2023   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
2023 WI 32
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2022AP1916-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
 
Kevin R. Rosin, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Kevin R. Rosin, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
APR 25, 2023 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
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 Kevin R. Rosin 
pursuant to SCR 22.12.1  In the stipulation, Attorney Rosin does 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides as follows:  
(continued) 
 
 
2022AP1916-D 
2 
 
not 
contest 
that 
he 
committed 
two 
acts 
of 
professional 
misconduct as alleged by the OLR in its complaint against him.  
Attorney Rosin also does not contest that a one-year suspension 
of his Wisconsin law license is appropriate discipline for his 
misconduct.   
¶2 
Upon careful review of the matter, we approve the 
stipulation and suspend Attorney Rosin’s law license for one 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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, together 
with a memorandum in support of the stipulation.  The respondent 
may file a response to the director’s memorandum within 14 days 
of the date of filing of the stipulation.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the appointment 
of a referee, in which case the supreme court may approve the 
stipulation, reject the stipulation, or direct the parties to 
consider specific modifications to the 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 a stipulation, a referee 
shall be appointed and the matter shall proceed as a complaint 
filed without a stipulation.  
(3m) If the supreme court directs the parties to consider 
specific modifications to the stipulation, the parties may, 
within 20 days of the date of the order, file a revised 
stipulation, in which case the supreme court may approve the 
revised stipulation, adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions 
of law, and impose the stipulated discipline.  If the parties do 
not file a revised stipulation within 20 days of the date of the 
order, 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. 
 
 
2022AP1916-D 
3 
 
year.  We do not order any restitution, as none was requested by 
the OLR.  Because this matter has been resolved by a stipulation 
under SCR 22.12 without the need for the appointment of a 
referee, we impose no costs on Attorney Rosin. 
¶3 
The facts of this disciplinary matter, as stipulated 
by Attorney Rosin, are as follows.  Attorney Rosin was admitted 
to the practice of law in Wisconsin in May 2004.  He does not 
have an address on file with the State Bar of Wisconsin.  The 
most recent address known to the OLR is in Cedarburg, Wisconsin.  
Attorney 
Rosin 
has 
not 
previously 
been 
the 
subject 
of 
professional discipline.  
¶4 
At the time of the events giving rise to this matter, 
Attorney Rosin was a lawyer at an intellectual property law firm 
located in Illinois (hereafter, “the firm”).  The terms of 
Attorney Rosin’s employment at the firm required him to provide 
and bill all legal and patent-related services through the firm. 
¶5 
On May 3, 2021, Attorney Rosin formed a Wisconsin 
limited liability company dedicated to providing patent law 
services (hereafter, “the Wisconsin LLC”).  He did not inform 
anyone at the firm that he had formed the Wisconsin LLC.  
Attorney Rosin understood that forming the Wisconsin LLC 
violated the terms of his employment with the firm. 
¶6 
On approximately May 6, 2021, Attorney Rosin solicited 
one of the firm’s clients, C.G.J., to become a client of the 
Wisconsin LLC.  On May 10, 2021, C.G.J. hired Attorney Rosin to 
perform patent-related services through the Wisconsin LLC.  
Attorney Rosin did not advise C.G.J. to terminate the firm’s 
 
 
2022AP1916-D 
4 
 
representation of him, or tell anyone at the firm that he was 
providing services to C.G.J. outside of the firm.   
¶7 
Attorney Rosin provided patent-related services to 
C.G.J. through the Wisconsin LLC between May 10, 2021 and 
November 2021.  C.G.J. paid the Wisconsin LLC $82,501 for those 
services.  Attorney Rosin did not report or remit any of the 
fees to the firm upon their receipt.   
¶8 
In addition, on October 21, 2021, Attorney Rosin spoke 
with a representative of a company that was not a client of the 
firm.  Attorney Rosin proposed that the company hire the 
Wisconsin LLC to provide intellectual property and/or patent-
related services, and he sent the company a proposed engagement 
letter for hiring the Wisconsin LLC.  The company chose not to 
retain the Wisconsin LLC’s services. 
¶9 
On November 30, 2021, the founding partners of the 
firm asked Attorney Rosin about information they had received 
that he was operating the Wisconsin LLC and doing work for at 
least one firm client outside of the firm.  Attorney Rosin told 
the partners that he had done some minimal consulting work 
independently of the firm for one client, but he denied having 
filed patent applications for the client.  Shortly thereafter, 
the partners obtained additional information showing that 
Attorney Rosin had filed several patent applications through the 
Wisconsin LLC while employed by the firm.  The partners then 
asked Attorney Rosin additional questions, at which time 
Attorney Rosin admitted that he had filed patent applications 
for C.G.J. through the Wisconsin LLC while employed by the firm. 
 
 
2022AP1916-D 
5 
 
¶10 On December 2 and 3, 2021, Attorney Rosin provided the 
founding partners of the firm with records showing the work he 
had done through the Wisconsin LLC while employed by the firm.  
On December 3, 2021, Attorney Rosin sent the firm a check for 
$36,914.80, which represented what the firm would have collected 
under Attorney Rosin’s compensation formula if the work he had 
performed and billed through the Wisconsin LLC had been 
performed and billed through the firm. 
¶11 The above-described conduct by Attorney Rosin gave 
rise to the two misconduct claims that the OLR brought against 
Attorney Rosin in its complaint, which it filed on November 7, 
2022.   
Count 1: By forming [the Wisconsin LLC] to advance his 
own financial interests while employed by the firm; 
soliciting a firm client and providing services to 
that client outside the firm; billing, collecting and 
retaining for himself legal fees that should have been 
billed through the firm; soliciting another potential 
client to provide services outside the firm; and 
making misrepresentations to the firm when initially 
confronted with questions about his actions, in each 
instance, [Attorney] Rosin violated SCR 20:8.4(c).[2]   
Count 2: By forming [the Wisconsin LLC] to advance his 
own financial interests while employed by the firm; 
soliciting a firm client and providing services to 
that client outside the firm; billing, collecting and 
retaining for himself legal fees that should have been 
billed through the firm; soliciting another potential 
client to provide services outside the firm; and 
making misrepresentations to the firm when initially 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4 (c) provides: “It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation.” 
 
 
2022AP1916-D 
6 
 
confronted with questions about his actions, in each 
instance, [Attorney] Rosin breached his fiduciary duty 
to 
his 
firm 
and 
his 
duty 
of 
honesty 
in 
his 
professional dealings with his firm, in violation of 
the 
standard 
of 
conduct 
set 
forth 
in 
[In 
re] 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shea, 190 Wis. 2d 
560, [527 N.W.2d 314 (1995),3 actionable via] SCR 
20:8.4(f).[4]  
¶12 Attorney Rosin did not file an answer to the OLR’s 
complaint.  On January 24, 2023, however, the OLR and Attorney 
Rosin filed a stipulation whereby Attorney Rosin stipulated to 
all of the facts alleged and to the two counts of misconduct set 
forth in the complaint. 
¶13 In the stipulation, Attorney Rosin states that the 
stipulation did not result from bargaining, and that he does not 
contest the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR or the 
discipline sought by the OLR.  Attorney Rosin further states 
that he fully understands the misconduct allegations; fully 
understands the ramifications should this court impose the 
stipulated level of discipline; fully understands his right to 
contest this matter; and fully understands his right to consult 
with counsel.  Attorney Rosin represents that his entry into the 
stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily, and that his 
                                                 
3 In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shea, 190 Wis. 2d 
560, 527 N.W.2d 314 (1995) holds that an attorney has a 
fiduciary duty and a duty of honesty in the attorney's 
professional dealings with the attorney's law firm. 
 
4 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides: “It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court 
order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers.” 
 
 
2022AP1916-D 
7 
 
entry into the stipulation represents his decision not to 
contest the misconduct alleged in the complaint or the level and 
type of discipline sought by the OLR. 
¶14 In its memorandum in support of the stipulation, the 
OLR points to prior decisions in which this court imposed 
significant suspensions for somewhat analogous conduct.  See 
Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 WI 39, 
391 Wis. 2d 196, 942 N.W.2d 302 (imposing a six-month license 
suspension on an attorney who converted at least $8,665 in funds 
belonging to his law firm for his personal use by failing to 
tender billed fees to the firm or by collecting money directly 
from the client and writing-off his billable time; attorney had 
no 
disciplinary 
history, 
cooperated 
with 
the 
OLR’s 
investigation, and expressed sincere remorse); see also In Re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hotvedt, 2016 WI 93, 372 Wis. 
2d 68, 888 N.W.2d 393 (imposing an 18-month license suspension 
on an attorney who converted over $173,000 in funds belonging to 
his law firm by writing-off fees owed to the firm, depositing 
client fee payments directly into his own personal bank account 
rather than depositing the fees into the firm account, and 
establishing a consulting firm for the purpose of converting 
client fees owed to the firm; attorney had no disciplinary 
history but failed to cooperate with the OLR’s investigation); 
see also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Koenig, 2015 WI 
16, 361 Wis. 2d 16, 859 N.W.2d 105 (imposing a two-year license 
suspension on an attorney who converted at least $39,920 in 
funds belonging to his law firm by directly accepting payments 
 
 
2022AP1916-D 
8 
 
for legal work from firm clients or other parties using firm 
resources in 37 separate instances without notifying the firm of 
such payments, and by periodically falsifying billing statements 
that he submitted to the firm). 
¶15 Although no two disciplinary cases are exactly alike, 
Moodie, Hotvedt, and Koenig all establish that misappropriations 
of law firm funds will trigger lengthy license suspensions.  The 
stipulated one-year suspension of Attorney Rosin’s law license 
fits comfortably within this precedent.  We note, too, that 
according to the OLR’s memorandum in support of the stipulation, 
Attorney Rosin has been subjected to other sanctions for his 
misconduct:  The Director of the Office of Enrollment and 
Discipline of the United States Patent and Trademark Office 
(USPTO) entered into a settlement agreement with Attorney Rosin 
related to the same misconduct whereby the USPTO publicly 
reprimanded Attorney Rosin, ordered him to serve a two-year 
probationary period, and ordered him to complete four hours of 
continuing 
legal 
education 
primarily 
concerning 
ethics, 
fiduciary duty, or a lawyer's duty of candor.  If Attorney Rosin 
fails to comply with the terms of the agreement or any of the 
USPTO 
Rules 
of 
Professional 
Conduct 
during 
his 
two-year 
probationary period, he faces a six-month suspension of his 
license to practice before the USPTO.5  We are satisfied that, 
                                                 
5 We note that this matter is being presented to us as a de 
novo disciplinary action, not as a reciprocal disciplinary 
matter.  As we explained in In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Strizic, 2015 WI 57, ¶18 n.2, 362 Wis. 2d 659, 864 
N.W.2d 869, our rules do not require the OLR “to automatically 
(continued) 
 
 
2022AP1916-D 
9 
 
under the totality of the circumstances presented, this court’s 
imposition of the stipulated one-year suspension of Attorney 
Rosin’s Wisconsin law license will be sufficient to accomplish 
the objectives of the lawyer disciplinary system. 
¶16 Accordingly, we accept the stipulation and impose the 
requested one-year suspension. We do not order restitution; as 
mentioned above, the OLR has not requested it, and Attorney 
Rosin has voluntarily made restitution of funds owed to the 
firm.  Because the stipulation was filed at the outset of this 
proceeding, thereby avoiding litigation costs and the need to 
appoint a referee, we impose no costs on Attorney Rosin. 
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Kevin R. Rosin to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, 
effective May 25, 2023.     
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kevin R. Rosin 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. 
                                                                                                                                                             
invoke the reciprocal disciplinary system whenever an attorney 
is publicly disciplined in another jurisdiction.”  As relevant 
here, SCR 22.22(2) states that upon receiving a certified copy 
of a judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing 
discipline for misconduct of an attorney admitted to the 
practice of law in this state, the OLR director “may” file a 
reciprocal discipline complaint.  “The statement in SCR 22.22(2) 
that the OLR director ‘may’ file a complaint demonstrates that 
the director has discretion to file a reciprocal discipline 
complaint, to file a de novo disciplinary action, or to take no 
action at all.”  Strizic, 362 Wis. 2d 659, ¶18 n.2.  Here, the 
OLR has elected to file a de novo disciplinary action.  
 
 
 
2022AP1916-D 
10 
 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See SCR 
22.28(3).
 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
2022AP1916-D   
 
 
 
1