2018 WI 115

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2018AP644-BA

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of the Bar Admission of Daniel R. 

Hausserman:

Daniel R. Hausserman,

 Petitioner,

 v.

Board of Bar Examiners,

 Respondent.

BAR ADMISSION OF HAUSSERMAN

OPINION FILED: December 28, 2018

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:

ORAL ARGUMENT: October 29, 2018

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:

For the petitioner there, was an oral argument by Terry E. 

Johnson and Von Briesen & Roper, Milwaukee.

For the Board of Bar Examiners, there was an oral argument 

by Jacquelynn B. Rothstein, Director & Legal Counsel. 
2018 WI 115

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2018AP644-BA

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of the Bar Admission 

of Daniel R. Hausserman:

Daniel R. Hausserman,

 Petitioner,

 v.

Board of Bar Examiners,

 Respondent.

FILED

DEC 28, 2018

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Supreme Court

Review of Board of Bar Examiners' decision. Decision 

affirmed. 

¶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, 

Daniel R. Hausserman, satisfied the character and fitness 

requirements for admission to the Wisconsin bar set forth in 

SCR 40.06(1). The Board's decision was based primarily on 

Mr. Hausserman's conduct in 2015, and his failure to disclose 

certain matters on his bar application. 
No. 2018AP644-BA 

2

¶2 After careful review, we agree that the record before 

us is insufficient to persuade us that Mr. Hausserman should be 

admitted to the practice of law at this time. Accordingly, we 

affirm.

¶3 There are, essentially, two concerns here. The most 

significant involves Mr. Hausserman's conduct over a period of 

approximately seven months during and after his final year of 

law school. The other involves certain shortcomings with his 

application for admission to the Wisconsin bar.

¶4 The standards for evaluating whether an applicant 

should be admitted to the Wisconsin bar are well settled. 

Supreme Court Rule 40.06(1)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 SCR 40.06(3) 

and SCR 40.07. The Appendix to SCR Ch. 40 contains the Board's 

rules that provide additional guidance to the Board and to 

applicants. 

 

1 SCR 40.06(1) provides: 

An applicant for bar admission shall establish 

good moral character and fitness to practice law. The 

purpose of this requirement is to limit admission to 

those applicants found to have the qualities of 

character and fitness needed to assure to a reasonable 

degree of certainty the integrity and the competence 

of services performed for clients and the maintenance 

of high standards in the administration of justice.
No. 2018AP644-BA 

3

¶5 Bar Admission Rule (BA) 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."

¶6 Bar Admission Rule 6.02 provides that in determining 

whether an applicant possesses the necessary character and 

fitness to practice law, there are 12 factors that are "cause 

for further inquiry." Several of these factors are implicated 

here, including unlawful conduct, violation of an order of a 

court, denial of admission to the bar in another jurisdiction on 

character and fitness grounds, and concealment or nondisclosure

of information during the bar application process. See id. at 

BA 6.02(a), (c), (h), and (k).

¶7 Bar Admission Rule 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

(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
No. 2018AP644-BA 

4

(h) the materiality of any omissions or 

misrepresentations and

(i) the number of incidents revealing deficiencies.

SCR Ch. 40 App., BA 6.03. 

¶8 When, as here, we review an adverse determination, the 

court adopts the Board's findings of fact that are not clearly 

erroneous. In re Bar Admission of Rippl, 2002 WI 15, ¶16, 250 

Wis. 2d 519, 639 N.W.2d 553. The court then determines, 

de novo, whether the Board's conclusions of law, based on the 

non-erroneous facts, are proper. When conducting our de novo 

review, we, like the Board, use the guidelines established in 

BA 6.01-BA 6.03. 

¶9 We have, as counsel for Mr. Hausserman urged, focused 

carefully on the facts of this record. Mr. Hausserman attended 

Drake University Law School. In February 2014, when he was 25

and in law school, Mr. Hausserman met B.F., a Drake University 

undergraduate student, and they began dating. The relationship 

was serious. In December 2014 the relationship ended. Some 

communication continued, however, and Mr. Hausserman thought the 

relationship would resume.

¶10 On March 5, 2015, B.F. filed a complaint with Drake 

University stating that she was receiving unwanted 

communications from Mr. Hausserman. Mr. Hausserman's actions 

between March and September 2015 are the primary reason his

Wisconsin bar application was denied.

¶11 On March 9, 2015, Drake University officials advised 

Mr. Hausserman of the complaint and directed him to cease any 
No. 2018AP644-BA 

5

further contact with B.F. Within two weeks Mr. Hausserman had 

contacted B.F. by email at least twice. On March 27, 2015, 

Mr. Hausserman sent B.F. three more emails and had called her. 

¶12 On March 30, 2015, Drake University again directed 

Mr. Hausserman to have no contact with B.F. On April 2, 2015, 

following a meeting between University officials and 

Mr. Hausserman, the University sent a letter to Mr. Hausserman 

stating that he had violated the harassment provision of the 

school's code of conduct. Mr. Hausserman was barred from campus 

except for his academic classes.

¶13 On April 15, 2015, Mr. Hausserman sent B.F. another 

email which began: "I am aware this is in violation of the no 

communication/contact order and places me at risk of certain 

arrest." Two days later and in an apparent attempt to reach 

B.F., Mr. Hausserman sent a text message to her mother, also in 

violation of Drake University's no-contact directive. 

Thereafter, Mr. Hausserman was banned from the University except 

for completing his final exams and attending his graduation 

ceremony. He was advised that after his law school graduation, 

he would be barred indefinitely from the university campus.

¶14 On May 16, 2015, hours after his law school 

graduation, Mr. Hausserman left B.F. a telephone message. B.F. 

contacted the City of Des Moines Police Department.

¶15 A few days later, the police spoke with 

Mr. Hausserman, who said that he thought his graduation 

terminated the restrictions on communicating with B.F. The 

police told him to cease all contact with B.F. and warned him 
No. 2018AP644-BA 

6

that if he violated that directive he would be criminally 

charged. Approximately one week later, B.F. contacted the City 

of Des Moines Police Department again, to report that 

Mr. Hausserman had sent her several more text messages. 

¶16 On May 28, 2015, Mr. Hausserman was criminally charged 

in Iowa with Harassment in the Third Degree. He pled guilty in 

June of 2015 and received a deferred judgment, was placed on 

probation for 12 months, and ordered to have no contact with 

B.F. 

¶17 Meanwhile, Mr. Hausserman had graduated and applied 

for admission to the Iowa bar. At that time, however, the 

aforementioned criminal charges were pending against him and, 

following a hearing, the Iowa Board of Law Examiners (Iowa 

Board) concluded, on June 17, 2015, that Mr. Hausserman had not 

met his burden of demonstrating his character and fitness for 

admission to the Iowa bar. He was not permitted to take the 

Iowa Bar Exam. The Iowa Board apparently indicated that 

Mr. Hausserman might be permitted to sit for the Iowa Bar Exam 

in the future, when he could demonstrate that his harassment of 

B.F. had truly ended. A behavioral health evaluation was 

recommended. In its June 17, 2015 decision, the Iowa Board 

stated: 

An objective observer might find the above course of 

events would have sent a crystal-clear message for Mr. 

Hausserman to leave [B.F.] alone. Instead, Mr. 

Hausserman relentlessly continued contacting [B.F.] 

(and in one instance, her parents) in violation of the 

no contact orders. The board also notes that a good 

deal of this conduct occurred just before, and even 
No. 2018AP644-BA 

7

after, he filed his bar application. Mr. Hausserman 

continued to pursue this course of aberrant behavior 

come what may. Mr. Hausserman did acknowledge the 

criminal prosecution had gotten his attention, but he 

evinced no hint of remorse at the board interview and 

certainly did not suggest the course of conduct had 

come to an end. 

(R. at 51).

¶18 In late September 2015, B.F. reported to police that 

she had received a Snapchat friend request from Mr. Hausserman. 

Following an interview with police, Mr. Hausserman admitted that 

he had contacted B.F. again because he had reason to believe she 

was involved in derogatory internet postings about him, and he 

wanted to discuss that with her. He acknowledged this action 

violated the terms of his deferred judgment. He was arrested 

and his home searched. He was found to be in possession of four 

firearms, two of which were loaded, in violation of his deferred 

prosecution agreement.2

¶19 Mr. Hausserman was found in contempt of court, 

sentenced to 30 days in jail, given a year of probation and 

supervision, and ordered to complete a mental health assessment. 

The mental health evaluation revealed no drug or alcohol issues, 

but recommended that Mr. Hausserman undergo treatment to address 

 

2 Mr. Hausserman explained at his Board hearing that he is a 

sportsman, purchased the guns legally, and practices at a gun 

range.
No. 2018AP644-BA 

8

his behavior.3 The record indicates that Mr. Hausserman has not 

attempted any further contact with B.F. since September 2015. 

¶20 In November 2015, Mr. Hausserman first applied for 

admission to the Wisconsin bar. Some delays that are not 

relevant followed. In February 2017 he passed the Wisconsin Bar 

Exam. On September 19, 2017, the Board informed Mr. Hausserman 

that his bar application was "at risk" of denial for failing to 

establish his good moral character and fitness within the

meaning of SCR 40.06(1) and BA 6.01. SCR 40.08(1). The Board's 

concerns were not based solely on his conduct with B.F. The 

Board also expressed concern about inadequate disclosures on his 

Wisconsin bar application. 

¶21 When Mr. Hausserman first applied to take the 

Wisconsin Bar Exam in November 2015, he responded affirmatively 

to Question 20 which asks, in part, whether the applicant has

been disciplined or placed on probation by a law school. 

Mr. Hausserman explained that he had been placed on academic 

probation for one semester. He failed to disclose the 

restrictions Drake University imposed on him related to B.F.4

 

3 Mr. Hausserman has cited cost as a barrier to seeking 

counseling as well as concerns that it might be perceived as 

something undertaken merely to bolster his bar application.

4 By correspondence dated January 16, 2016, the Board directed Mr. Hausserman to 

amend his application and explain why he failed to reveal his misconduct with B.F. Mr. 

Hausserman did not file the requested amendment, but did include information about B.F. on a

subsequent bar application. 
No. 2018AP644-BA 

9

¶22 When asked to explain his harassment conviction, 

Mr. Hausserman's answer was this: "[B.F.] made a criminal 

complaint against me. The complaint was based on text messages 

received from my number and emails received from my [email] 

address." 

¶23 Mr. Hausserman disclosed an underage drinking ticket 

from 2007 and a 2012 citation for failing to have proof of 

automobile insurance in connection with a traffic stop. 

However, the Board was troubled by his description of these 

events. He explained the ticket this way: while at a Badger 

football game he was "grabbed by police because he had one foot 

on the sidewalk." He explained the traffic citation like this: 

he was driving his father's car and was pulled over because 

"police don't like young kids driving nice cars."

¶24 Mr. Hausserman failed to report an incident from 2003 

(when he was 15) in which he and a friend were cited for 

destroying a mailbox. He had reported the incident on his law 

school application. 

¶25 Upon receipt of the Board's intent to deny letter,

Mr. Hausserman exercised his right to request a hearing, which 

the Board conducted on January 19, 2018. Mr. Hausserman 

appeared by counsel and testified. On March 7, 2018, the Board 

issued an adverse decision concluding that Mr. Hausserman had 

failed to establish good moral character and fitness to practice 

law in Wisconsin under SCR 40.06(1) and (3). 

¶26 Mr. Hausserman seeks this court's review. This court 

retains supervisory authority and has the ultimate 
No. 2018AP644-BA 

10

responsibility for regulatory admission to the Wisconsin bar. 

Rippl, 250 Wis. 2d 519. Mr. Hausserman argues that he has met 

his burden of producing information sufficient to affirmatively 

demonstrate his present character and fitness appropriate for 

bar admission. BA 6.01. He asks this court to reverse the 

Board's adverse decision and permit him to become a member of 

the Wisconsin bar. He indicates that he would accept conditions 

that this court might impose on his law practice.5

 

5 The parties both noted that the Board declined to offer 

Mr. Hausserman conditional admission pursuant to SCR 40.075(1). 

We accept the Board's determination that conditional admission 

pursuant to SCR 40.075(1) was not appropriate here. 

There is a difference between "conditional admission" and 

"admission with conditions." "Conditional admission" is an 

option set forth in SCR 40.075 that the Board may offer to 

certain applicants. This option requires the applicant enter a 

contract in which the applicant agrees to abide by certain 

conditions during the initial years of law practice. For 

example, an applicant with a record of substance abuse who can 

document ongoing recovery might agree to maintain sobriety and 

submit to random chemical testing for a period of time. 

Conditional admission is confidential. If the applicant 

successfully completes the terms of the contract, the conditions 

expire. 

"Admission with conditions" may occur if the Board renders 

an adverse determination and the applicant seeks supreme court 

review. If this court determines that the applicant has 

sufficiently satisfied character and fitness requirements, this 

court may order the Board to certify the applicant for 

admission. The court may also impose certain conditions on the 

applicant's practice of law, typically for a limited period of 

time. These conditions are imposed by the court, as opposed to 

the Board, and are a matter of public record. See, e.g., In re 

Bar Admission of Jarrett, 2016 WI 39, 368 Wis. 2d 567, 879 

N.W.2d 116.
No. 2018AP644-BA 

11

¶27 The Board maintains that Mr. Hausserman's defiance of 

law school officials, the police, and a court order reflects a 

repeated and blatant disregard for authority and the rule of law 

that should preclude his admission to practice law. Although 

Mr. Hausserman took issue with the Board's characterization of 

certain matters at oral argument, the underlying facts are not 

really in dispute. Mr. Hausserman says that what occurred in 

2015 was a brief, unfortunate, emotional episode in his life 

that is not likely to recur and does not adversely reflect on 

his ability to practice law. He emphasizes that his record 

reflects no issues with honesty, probity, or truthfulness. He 

suggests that however wrongful his behavior with B.F. may have 

been, it involved motivations and circumstances "which are 

entirely unrelated to the practice of law." 

¶28 Mr. Hausserman acknowledges that he could have been 

more forthcoming on his bar application, but says he thought the 

Board had received all of the information because he had 

supplied his entire student record. He disputes the Board's 

conclusion with respect to character, arguing that while that is 

no excuse for the mistakes he made, the circumstances underlying 

Mr. Hausserman's behavior should have been considered in 

assessing whether his conduct bears on his character and fitness 

to practice law. He argues that the Board did not give weight 

to Mr. Hausserman's explanation for his actions. 

¶29 Mr. Hausserman argues that the Board's conclusion of 

law is not supported by the record and, moreover, is 

inconsistent with this court's resolution of other bar admission 
No. 2018AP644-BA 

12

cases. Mr. Hausserman correctly reminds this court that we 

have, on occasion, overruled the Board and admitted certain 

applicants despite troubling conduct.

¶30 We have carefully reviewed the facts of these unique 

cases and have concluded that, on the record before us, 

Mr. Hausserman cannot be admitted to their ranks. 

¶31 The facts of these cases vary greatly. One applicant 

had been convicted of theft in college and also admitted taking 

personal items from an employer. She had multiple unpaid 

traffic tickets and an ordinance citation for disorderly conduct 

that occurred during her third year of law school. Rippl, 250 

Wis. 2d 519. Her eventual admission by this court was 

predicated on evidence that she had undergone treatment for 

depression, demonstrated an excellent work ethic, offered 

glowing recommendations, undertaken extensive community service, 

and more than four years had passed since she had first sought 

admission to the bar. Id. at ¶¶33-38.

¶32 Another applicant failed to disclose that she had been 

involved with a series of alcohol-related incidents in college, 

including argumentative run-ins with police and university 

authorities. In re Bar Admission of Vanderperren, 2003 WI 37, 

261 Wis. 2d 150, 661 N.W.2d 27. We admitted her after she had, 

sua sponte, corrected omissions on her law school application, 

undergone an AODA evaluation, produced reports showing that 

alcohol was not a continuing problem and she was "in full 

remission," had been admitted to practice law in Minnesota, and 

some five years had elapsed since her last problematic incident.
No. 2018AP644-BA 

13

¶33 Another applicant had been charged with inappropriate 

sexual contact with two women that occurred at a social 

gathering with colleagues from work. He was acquitted, but 

agreed to resign from his employment with the police department. 

In re Bar Admission of Anderson, 2006 WI 57, ¶26, 290 

Wis. 2d 722, 715 N.W.2d 586. The court admitted him, noting 

that he had voluntarily undergone an alcohol assessment, sought 

counseling, and worked, all before attending law school, and his 

record had been unblemished for some six years when he sought 

admission to the bar. 

¶34 Another applicant committed academic misconduct during 

and after his first year in law school, falsifying a resume and 

inflating his grades, then failed to disclose several serious 

traffic infractions on his bar application. In re Bar Admission 

of Jarrett, 2016 WI 39, 368 Wis. 2d 567, 879 N.W.2d 116. We 

admitted him, with conditions, noting that he had completed 

unpaid legal internships and meaningful legal volunteer work 

serving economically challenged clients, offered glowing 

recommendations that emphasized his work ethic, judgment, and 

his compassion, and nearly four years had elapsed since his 

academic misconduct.

¶35 Most recently, we admitted an applicant who had 

submitted a heavily plagiarized paper in law school, failed a 

required Professional Responsibility class, and failed to report 

three underage drinking citations on his law school application. 

In re Bar Admission of Nichols, 2017 WI 55, 375 Wis. 2d 439, 895 

N.W.2d 831. We admitted him, with conditions, influenced by the 
No. 2018AP644-BA 

14

fact that employers who work closely with him speak highly of 

him as an individual, and of his work ethic. We were strongly 

influenced by the fact that the professor of the class in which 

the applicant committed academic misconduct supported his 

admission to the bar, noting that the applicant had been 

"forthright in acknowledging his errors and accepting 

responsibility." Approximately three years had elapsed between 

the academic misconduct and his admission.

¶36 Crucial to these decisions are several common factors 

that are not present in the record before us. These factors 

include excellent character references, particularly from people 

who are aware of the troubling conduct compromising the 

application. These cases also include some affirmative evidence 

of rehabilitation. In some cases, where mental health or 

substance abuse issues may have been causally related to the 

underlying conduct, and the applicant provided evidence of 

having sought and pursued counseling or treatment. In other 

cases the applicant has demonstrated an interest in and 

commitment to the community, through the investment of time 

which also speaks to character. And, a critical factor is the 

passage of time. As time passes with no concerning conduct, we 

are increasingly likely to be persuaded that the applicant has 

addressed whatever concerns initially precluded admission.

¶37 As of the date of oral argument, three years have 

elapsed since the last incident involving B.F. and there is no 

evidence of any other concerning conduct during this period. 

This reflects favorably on Mr. Hausserman. However, given the 
No. 2018AP644-BA 

15

severity of his misconduct, which includes violation of a court 

order, it is a relatively short period of time compared with the 

cases noted above. Some additional unblemished time is 

warranted. Mr. Hausserman offered two character references from 

people who speak well of him. Again, this is commendable; 

however, there was some question as to whether these individuals

were wholly informed of the matters of concern. These 

recommendations are not on par with the highly persuasive 

recommendations submitted on behalf of Nichols, Rippl, and 

Jarrett.

¶38 We are satisfied that the Board considered all 

relevant facets of Mr. Hausserman's application including the 

seriousness of Mr. Hausserman's conduct, his lack of candor in 

the admission process, and lack of evidence of his 

rehabilitation. In re Bar Admission of Saganski, 226 

Wis. 2d 678, 595 N.W.2d 631 (1999). The evidence supports the 

Board's determination that Mr. Hausserman omitted material 

information from his application by initially failing to advise 

the Board of the B.F. incident in law school. It also supports 

the Board's conclusion that Mr. Hausserman sought to minimize 

his concerning conduct, by submitting incomplete and/or flippant 

disclosures.

¶39 The record before us contains several factors that are 

a cause for concern as set forth in BA 6.02 and BA 6.03, 

particularly the existence of unlawful conduct (BA 6.02(a)), 

concealment and nondisclosure of information on his bar 

application (BA 6.02(c)), violation of a court order 
No. 2018AP644-BA 

16

(BA 6.02(h)), and denial of admission in Iowa on character and 

fitness grounds (BA 6.02(k)). We have considered these factors 

with reference to the recency of the conduct (BA 6.03(b)), the

seriousness of the conduct (BA 6.03(d)), evidence of 

rehabilitation (BA 6.03(f)), the applicant's candor in the 

admissions process (BA 6.03(g)), and the material nature of the 

omissions (BA 6.03(h)), and we are not persuaded that

Mr. Hausserman can be safely admitted to the practice of law, 

even with the cautionary imposition of certain conditions. 

¶40 We thus determine that the Board properly concluded,

on the basis of facts that have not been shown to be clearly 

erroneous, that Mr. Hausserman failed to meet his burden under 

SCR 40.07 to establish the requisite moral character and fitness 

to practice law "to assure to a reasonable degree of certainty 

the integrity and the competence of services performed for 

clients and the maintenance of high standards in the 

administration of justice." Accordingly, we affirm the Board's 

decision declining to certify Mr. Hausserman for admission to 

the Wisconsin bar.

¶41 In closing, we observe that nothing in SCR 40.04 or 

elsewhere in SCR Ch. 40 precludes Mr. Hausserman from again 

seeking admission to this bar when he believes he can 

demonstrate his character and fitness to the satisfaction of the 

Board and this court. See Saganski, 226 Wis. 2d 678, 680; In re

Bar Admission of Radtke, 230 Wis. 2d 254, 268-69, 601 N.W.2d 642 

(1999). 
No. 2018AP644-BA 

17

¶42 IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Board of Bar 

Examiners declining to certify that Daniel R. Hausserman has 

satisfied the requirements for admission to the practice of law 

in Wisconsin is affirmed.

¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the documents submitted under 

seal are deemed confidential, and will be maintained under seal 

until further order of the court.
No. 2018AP644-BA 

1