2016 WI 39

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2015AP1393-BA

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of the Bar Admission 

of Joshua E. Jarrett

Joshua E. Jarrett,

 Petitioner,

 v.

Board of Bar Examiners,

 Respondent.

BAR ADMISSION OF JARRETT

OPINION FILED: May 18, 2016

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: February 24, 2016 

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED: PROSSER, J. concurs, joined by BRADLEY, A.W., J. 

and BRADLEY, R.G., J.

DISSENTED: ROGGENSACK, C. J. dissents, joined by ZIEGLER, 

J. and GABLEMAN, J.

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:

For the petitioner, there were briefs by Joshua E. Jarrett.

For the Board of Bar Examiners, there was a brief by 

Jacquelynn B. Rothstein, Director & Legal Counsel.
2016 WI 39

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2015AP1393-BA

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of the Bar Admission 

of Joshua E. Jarrett

Joshua E. Jarrett,

 Petitioner,

 v.

Board of Bar Examiners,

 Respondent.

FILED

MAY 18, 2016

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

REVIEW of Board of Bar Examiners decision. Decision 

reversed and remanded. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. This is a review, pursuant to SCR 

40.08(7), of the final decision of the Board of Bar Examiners 

(Board) declining to certify that the petitioner, Joshua E. 

Jarrett, has satisfied the character and fitness requirements 

for admission to the Wisconsin bar set forth in SCR 40.06(1). 

The Board's refusal to certify that Mr. Jarrett satisfied the 

character and fitness requirements for admission to the 
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

2

Wisconsin bar was based primarily on Mr. Jarrett's conduct 

following his second year in law school, when he committed 

academic misconduct by misrepresenting law school grades and 

information to a prospective employer. After careful review, we 

reverse and remand the matter to the Board for further 

proceedings.

¶2 We appreciate the Board's concern regarding this 

candidate, and we appreciate the thorough investigation the 

Board conducted into Mr. Jarrett's background and past conduct. 

Mr. Jarrett's academic misconduct raised a significant question 

about his fitness to practice law. The duty to examine an 

applicant's qualifications for bar admission rests initially on 

the Board, and this court relies heavily on the Board's 

investigation and evaluation. In the final analysis, however, 

this court retains supervisory authority and has the ultimate 

responsibility for regulating admission to the Wisconsin bar. 

See In re Bar Admission of Rippl, 2002 WI 15, ¶3, 250 Wis. 2d 

519, 639 N.W.2d 553, and In re Bar Admission of Vanderperren, 

2003 WI 37, ¶2, 261 Wis. 2d 150, 661 N.W.2d 27.

¶3 While we understand the Board's decision, we conclude 

that the incidents the Board relied upon, while troubling, are 

sufficiently offset by evidence of rehabilitation to warrant our 

conclusion that Mr. Jarrett may be admitted to the practice of 
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

3

law in this state, albeit with conditions. Accordingly, we 

reverse.

¶4 Mr. Jarrett grew up in Georgia. He attended Albany 

State University, majoring in Criminal Justice and graduating in 

2009. He participated in a prestigious summer internship with 

the U.S. Department of State in Washington D.C., and then 

returned to Georgia to become a police officer. After serving 

successfully as a police officer for a year, Mr. Jarrett applied 

and was accepted at the University of Wisconsin Law School.

¶5 Mr. Jarrett started law school in the fall of 2011. 

As a first-year law student, Mr. Jarrett was accepted into the 

Wisconsin Innocence Project criminal appeals clinic where he 

performed well.

¶6 In 2012, Mr. Jarrett committed the misconduct that 

eventually gave rise to this proceeding. The Board would later 

make the following factual findings regarding the incident:

2. In the Summer of 2012 and as part of the 

summer employment procurement process for law 

students, Mr. Jarrett submitted a resume and an 

unofficial transcript to the University of Wisconsin 

Law School office responsible for on-campus 

interviews. Through that process, Mr. Jarrett sought 

employment with the New York City Law Department for 

the Summer of 2013. 

3. The resume and unofficial transcript that 

Jarrett submitted to the New York City Law Department 

were both false. The resume contained two falsehoods. 

It showed Mr. Jarrett's grade point average (GPA) to 

be 2.75, when it was actually 2.72. It also listed

him as a staff member of the Wisconsin Law Review, 
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

4

when, in fact, he was not a member. The unofficial 

transcript listed three false grades for his 

coursework. It indicated that he had "B" grades, 

when, in fact, he had "B-" grades for all three 

courses.

4. Thereafter, Mr. Jarrett sent an e-mail to the 

New York City Law Department. In it, he explained 

that the deadline date for the submission of his 

employment materials was the same date upon which he 

had been informed that he had not been chosen for Law

Review. 

5. Determined to be "completely forthright" with 

the New York City Law Department, Mr. Jarrett attached 

an updated resume and unofficial transcript to the email noting that all the other information was current 

and valid. However, Mr. Jarrett did not correct the 

other falsehoods, namely the inflated grades and GPA. 

Instead, this version of his transcript noted his GPA 

as a 3.0, not the inflated 2.75 or the actual 2.72.

6. In that same e-mail to the New York City Law 

Department, he continued to report incorrect grades. 

Two grades were inflated from "B-'s" to "B's." Two 

others were similarly inflated; one from a B- to a B+ 

and the other from a B to a B+.

7. A hearing regarding Mr. Jarrett's alleged 

misconduct was held on September 7, 2012, before the 

Academic Misconduct Hearing Committee of the 

University of Wisconsin (Committee). On September 17, 

2012, the Committee issued a written decision and 

determined that Mr. Jarrett admitted to having 

embellished his academic documents on two separate

occasions. 

8. The Committee further found that although 

Mr. Jarrett had admitted to violating the University 

of Wisconsin's academic code of conduct by forging or 

falsifying academic documents or records, the 

seriousness of that offense did not seem to 

immediately resonate with Mr. Jarrett. The Committee 
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

5

also sanctioned Mr. Jarrett by placing him on two 

semesters of disciplinary probation.1

9. In his application for admission to the 

Wisconsin bar, Mr. Jarrett admitted to inflating his 

grades and misrepresenting his position on the 

Wisconsin Law Review.

10. Mr. Jarrett did not disclose the actual 

truth to the New York City Law Department about being 

on Law Review, his grades, or his GPA. 

11. Mr. Jarrett repeatedly cited feeling 

enormous pressure as the primary reason for engaging 

in his wrongful conduct. 

12. Mr. Jarrett admitted that at the time of his 

wrongful conduct he did not believe that he would get 

caught for providing false information to the New York 

City Law Department or that anyone would check to see 

whether he was actually on Law Review. 

¶7 Meanwhile, Mr. Jarrett's law school studies continued. 

He continued to perform well working for the Wisconsin Innocence 

Project, joined the University of Wisconsin Law School Moot 

Court Board, competed in two moot court competitions, coached a 

moot court team, participated in a Volunteer Income Tax 

Assistance Clinic, held an unpaid summer law clerk position with 

the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, and worked as an academic 

advisor at a private student housing facility.

 

1 In addition to placing Mr. Jarrett on academic probation 

for two semesters, the Committee also required Mr. Jarrett 

obtain the latest issue of Wisconsin Lawyer magazine, read the 

pages pertaining to attorney conduct, and schedule a meeting 

with the Law School Dean to discuss what he had read. Mr. 

Jarrett satisfied these requirements.
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

6

¶8 In December 2013, as a third-year law student 

anticipating graduation, Mr. Jarrett applied for admission to 

the Wisconsin State Bar under the diploma privilege, SCR 40.03. 

In his bar application, Mr. Jarrett disclosed having inflated 

his grades and misrepresenting his position on the Wisconsin Law 

Review in his bar application. Mr. Jarrett failed to report 

several traffic citations that he had received between 2009 and 

2013. 

¶9 In January 2014, a Board investigator contacted Mr. 

Jarrett regarding his failure to disclose the traffic citations. 

Mr. Jarrett replied in writing that he "legitimately forgot" and 

filed an addendum regarding the citations. 

¶10 On August 5, 2014, the Board informed Mr. Jarrett, 

consistent with SCR 40.08(1), that his bar admission application 

was "at risk of being denied" on character and fitness grounds. 

Mr. Jarrett formally contested the Board's preliminary adverse 

determination and requested a hearing before the Board. 

¶11 The Board conducted a hearing on December 8, 2014, at 

which Mr. Jarrett appeared. Following the hearing Mr. Jarrett

filed some additional documents in support of his application. 

On April 10, 2015, the Board issued an adverse decision making 

the findings set forth above, as well as the following findings:

13. During his hearing before the Wisconsin 

Board of Bar Examiners, Mr. Jarrett presented 

inconsistent and sometimes contradictory statements 

regarding his efforts to obtain summer employment with 

the New York City Law Department, and about the extent 

to which he notified the New York City Law Department 

regarding the falsehoods presented to them. He also 
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

7

minimized the significance of the misconduct in which 

he had engaged. 

14. Mr. Jarrett's conduct in connection with his 

efforts to secure summer employment with the New York 

City Law Department was both dishonest and deceptive. 

Such conduct demonstrates that Mr. Jarrett is not 

honest, diligent, or reliable. 

15. Mr. Jarrett also failed to report three 

speeding tickets on his bar application. The speeding 

infractions occurred in 2009, 2011, and 2014. Mr. 

Jarrett explained that the reason he failed to report 

those citations was because he forgot about them. The 

Board did not find Mr. Jarrett's explanation regarding 

why he failed to report those tickets to be credible. 

16. In 2006, Mr. Jarrett was arrested in Albany, 

Georgia, on a bench warrant because of his failure to 

appear for two speeding tickets. As a result of his 

nonappearance, he spent two days in jail. 

17. Following the receipt of his Georgia 

speeding tickets, Mr. Jarrett claimed that he tried 

contacting the local traffic department and the court 

to change the date of his appearance because it 

conflicted with his college exam schedule. However, 

Mr. Jarrett admitted that he never wrote a letter or 

sent an e-mail in which he notified the court that he 

had a conflict on the scheduled date of his 

appearance. 

18. The Board did not find Mr. Jarrett's 

explanations about his misconduct or his omissions on 

his bar application to be plausible or believable. As 

a result, the Board did not find Mr. Jarrett to be a 

credible witness. 

¶12 Based on its findings, the Board determined that Mr. 

Jarrett failed to establish good moral character and fitness to 

practice law in Wisconsin under SCR 40.06(1) and (3), 

concluding:

Taken as a whole, Mr. Jarrett's conduct suggests a 

pattern of behavior that is both dishonest and 

deceptive. He has not been forthright but has instead 
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

8

engaged in conduct that demonstrates that he is not 

honest, diligent, or reliable. Throughout these 

proceedings, Mr. Jarrett has consistently tried to 

minimize the gravity of his offenses.

¶13 Mr. Jarrett unsuccessfully sought review of the 

Board's adverse determination pursuant to SCR 40.08(6). He now 

seeks this court's review.

¶14 Mr. Jarrett contends that the Board's findings are 

clearly erroneous and should be rejected by this court. See In 

re Bar Admission of Rusch, 171 Wis. 2d 523, 528-29, 492 N.W.2d 

153 (1992). Furthermore, he contends that the legal conclusions 

reached by the Board are not supported by the record evidence, 

and that this court must, after its de novo review, reject the 

Board's conclusions of law. See Rippl, 250 Wis. 2d 519, ¶16; In 

re Bar Admission of Crowe, 141 Wis. 2d 230, 232, 414 N.W.2d 41 

(1987). Mr. Jarrett also challenges the Board's decision 

declining to offer him conditional bar admission pursuant to SCR 

§ 40.075(1). He references numerous, positive character 

references and hours of volunteer service. In sum, he maintains 

that he has met his burden of producing information sufficient 

to affirmatively demonstrate his present character and fitness. 

He asks this court to order his immediate admission, order the 

Board to conditionally admit him, or allow him to immediately 

re-apply for admission to the Wisconsin bar without being 

required to take the Wisconsin bar exam.

¶15 When this court reviews an adverse determination of 

the Board pursuant to SCR 40.08(7), we adopt the Board's 

findings of fact if they are not clearly erroneous. In the 
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

9

Matter of the Bar Admission of Vanderperren, 2003 WI 37, ¶20, 

261 Wis. 2d 150, 661 N.W.2d 27. We then determine if the Board's 

conclusions of law based on those facts are proper. Id. This 

court retains the ultimate authority to determine who should be 

admitted to the bar of this state. While the Board's experience 

in administering the bar admission rules is appreciated, this 

court is obligated to make its legal determinations de novo. 

Rippl, 250 Wis. 2d 519, ¶¶13, 16. 

¶16 We reject Mr. Jarrett's assertion that the Board's 

findings are clearly erroneous. Mr. Jarrett disputes the Board's 

factual finding that "[Mr.] Jarrett exhibited a lack of 

candor/credibility in applying for admission," a finding Mr. 

Jarrett describes as "patently untrue." He disputes the Board's 

finding that he minimized the significance of his conduct, 

stating that the Board read too much into the UW misconduct 

decision and asserting that the "record shows that [Mr. Jarrett] 

realized his actions were significant, wrong, unethical, and 

would impact his character and fitness." Mr. Jarrett disputes 

the Board's finding that he willfully failed to report the 

speeding tickets in his initial bar application. He maintains 

that he "legitimately forgot" and notes that he answered "yes"

to Question 21(a) in his bar application which asks if the 

applicant has ever been arrested, charged, or issued civil 

citations and adds that he "took corrective steps by providing 

the Board with separate addenda explaining the circumstances how 

he forgot to list them." He thus asserts that he "did not fail 
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

10

to disclose the fact that he had received multiple speeding 

tickets and took action to inform the Board." 

¶17 The Board stands by its finding that Mr. Jarrett was 

not credible at the hearing before the Board and when claiming 

he forgot about the three separate speeding violations from 

Georgia, Kentucky, and Wisconsin that he received in 2009, 2011, 

and 2013. The Board reminds the court that the 2013 speeding 

violation occurred in Madison three months prior to Mr. Jarrett

filing his bar application with the Board. The Board concedes 

that each ticket, standing alone, was not overly concerning, but

finds that failing to include all three was "careless at best 

and deliberately deceptive at worst." The Board maintains that 

Mr. Jarrett has consistently minimized the seriousness of his 

behavior by glossing over both the recency and the gravity of 

his conduct, pointing not only to statements from the 2012

academic misconduct proceeding but also statements at the 

hearing before the Board.

¶18 The Board's factual findings essentially derive from 

the undisputed underlying academic misconduct proceeding and 

from its own credibility determinations at the Board hearing. We 

are disinclined to second guess credibility determinations made 

by factfinders. Nothing in this record suggests that it was 

clearly erroneous for the Board to reject Mr. Jarrett's claim 

that he forgot to disclose traffic citations, particularly when 

his application was already at-risk for his admitted academic 

misconduct. The other factual findings, particularly those based 
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

11

on the Board's credibility determination, also have sufficient 

support and are not clearly erroneous.2

¶19 We next evaluate the Board's decision not to certify 

Mr. Jarrett's character and fitness.

¶20 The standards for evaluating an applicant's admission 

to the Wisconsin bar are well settled. SCR 40.06(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 SCRs 40.06(3) and 40.07. The Appendix to SCR 

Ch. 40 contains the Board's rules that provide additional 

guidance to the Board and to applicants. 

¶21 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."

¶22 BA 6.02 provides that in determining whether an 

applicant possesses the necessary character and fitness to 

practice law, 12 factors "should be treated as cause for further 

inquiry." BA 6.02 (Relevant Conduct or Condition). As 

 

2 Mr. Jarrett identifies one factual inaccuracy in the 

Board's decision. The Board's underlying decision states that 

Jarrett received a speeding citation in 2014. However, the last 

traffic citation Mr. Jarrett received occurred in 2013. This 

error is not material to the Board's decision.
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

12

relevant, these factors include a person's unlawful conduct, 

academic misconduct, false statements by the applicant, 

including concealment or nondisclosure, and acts involving 

dishonesty or misrepresentation. See id. 

¶23 BA 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;

(h) the materiality of any omissions or misrepresentations; 

and

(i) the number of incidents revealing deficiencies.

See SCR 40 app., BA 6.03. 

¶24 The crux of this appeal is whether Mr. Jarrett's 

conduct and actions, taken as a whole, establish that he has the 

requisite character and fitness for admission to the bar. When 

conducting our de novo review, we, like the Board, use the 

guidelines established in BA 6.02 and BA 6.03. 

¶25 The Board was not persuaded that Mr. Jarrett's 

academic achievements and his various law-related experiences 

were sufficient to warrant certifying his character at this 
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

13

time. In response to Mr. Jarrett's explanation that he was under 

"immense pressure" to find a job for the summer which led him to 

make a "poor decision," the Board stated:

[A]t no point did Mr. Jarrett identify any such 

specific pressures that may have warranted such 

extreme behavior on his part. Presumably the vast 

majority of law students want or need summer 

employment. Ideally, they would prefer to be employed 

in law-related positions. But few, if any, resort to 

conduct similar to Mr. Jarrett's in order to obtain 

it. His explanation for engaging in conduct of this 

type primarily because he was under pressure is not 

convincing and rings hollow.

¶26 As the Board observed, whatever pressures Mr. Jarrett

felt while in law school "are not likely to appreciably diminish 

or disappear now that he has graduated."

¶27 Having reviewed the record and the Board's specific 

findings, we reject Mr. Jarrett's claim that, in making its 

decision, the Board focused solely on the 2012 incident. We are 

persuaded that the Board duly considered all facets of Mr. 

Jarrett's application, and its decision was not based solely or 

unduly on the 2012 misconduct. See Saganski v. Board of Bar 

Examiners, 226 Wis. 2d 678, 595 N.W.2d 631 (1999) (holding that 

it is sufficient that the Board consider those BA 6.03 factors 

that are applicable to the conduct of the applicant).

¶28 Mr. Jarrett argues that the BBE's adverse 

determination is inconsistent with this court's resolution of 

other bar admission cases. This court has, on several 

occasions, certified applicants to the bar despite an adverse 

determination from the BBE. 
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

14

¶29 In Anderson, the court deemed the applicant's

"extremely immature and troubling" behavior "sufficiently remote 

in time and not of sufficient gravity to warrant a conclusion 

that Mr. Anderson should be forever barred from admission to the 

practice of law in this state." In the Matter of the Bar 

Admission of Anderson, 2006 WI 57, ¶26, 290 Wis. 2d 722, 715 

N.W.2d 586. By the time of his bar application, Mr. Anderson's

record had been unblemished for several years. 

¶30 In Vanderperren, the Board's refusal to certify Ms. 

Vanderperren was based primarily on her "less than forthright 

and complete responses" to questions on her application for 

admission to Hamline University School of Law, and on her 

subsequent Wisconsin bar application. By the time this court 

considered her bar application, Ms. Vanderperren had been

admitted to practice law in Minnesota, had passed the Wisconsin 

bar exam, had voluntarily corrected her bar application, and 

several years had elapsed since her last reported incident 

involving excessive alcohol consumption. Vanderperren, 261 Wis. 

2d 150, ¶65; see also Rippl, 250 Wis. 2d 519, ¶3.

¶31 Mr. Jarrett reminds the court that here, "[m]ore than 

two years elapsed between the academic misconduct and the date 

of the Board's hearing, and more than three years have elapsed 

as of today." Indeed, as of the date of this court's decision, 

nearly four years have passed. Mr. Jarrett argues that now, 

sufficient time has passed and he should be admitted to practice

law.
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

15

¶32 The Board was right to be deeply concerned by Mr. 

Jarrett's dishonesty, which cannot fairly be characterized as 

"youthful excesses and mistakes" and is different from 

indiscretions arising from immature behavior coupled with 

situational or pervasive substance abuse that has since been 

addressed.

¶33 Still, a majority of this court has determined that 

denying Mr. Jarrett admission to the bar is simply too harsh a 

penalty under the circumstances presented. We appreciate the 

time-consuming and difficult job the Board performs in 

conducting its character and fitness investigations. Indeed, we 

find no fault with the Board's findings or reasoning in this 

case. The Board serves the critically important role as a 

gatekeeper to admission to the bar. Ultimately, however, we are

persuaded that, subject to the imposition of certain conditions, 

Mr. Jarrett may safely be admitted to the practice of law. 

¶34 While not excusing his actions, we are mindful that 

Mr. Jarrett has faced difficult family circumstances that 

imposed considerable pressure on him, both financial and 

otherwise. His goal of becoming a lawyer has now been delayed 

several years, and his prospect of ever obtaining bar admission 

has been uncertain. By his own admission, his actions in law 

school have caused him significant obstacles, embarrassment, and 

financial difficulties. 
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

16

¶35 In the nearly four years since his academic

misconduct, Mr. Jarrett has completed unpaid legal internships 

and meaningful legal volunteer work serving economically 

challenged clients, has mentored students, and currently works 

in a public trust position in Washington, D.C. Employers and 

professors who have worked closely with Mr. Jarrett speak highly 

of him as an individual, and of his sincere commitment to 

justice. The many letters reflect a consistent theme of 

admiration for Mr. Jarrett's work ethic, judgment, and his 

compassion. We therefore choose to exercise our prerogative and 

afford this applicant the benefit of the doubt.3

¶36 Accordingly, we direct the Board to certify Mr. 

Jarrett's admission to practice law in Wisconsin. Mr. Jarrett's

admission to the practice of law in Wisconsin is contingent on 

his compliance with certain requirements set forth in this order 

as well as certain conditions on his license to practice law. 

Specifically, we direct the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) to 

identify and appoint a practice monitor to serve as a mentor to 

Mr. Jarrett and to supervise and oversee Mr. Jarrett's practice 

of law and related professional activities for a period of two 

 

3 We accept the Board's determination that conditional 

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

This does not preclude this court from imposing its own 

conditions on Mr. Jarrett's license to practice law. 
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

17

years following the practice monitor's appointment. The 

practice monitor shall be licensed to practice law in Wisconsin 

and be located in the region of Mr. Jarrett's place of 

employment or residence. 

¶37 Upon Mr. Jarrett's admission to the practice of law in 

Wisconsin and his enrollment with the State Bar of Wisconsin 

pursuant to SCR 10.03(2), Mr. Jarrett is directed to initially 

elect inactive membership status. See SCR 10.03(3)(a). This 

will afford the OLR time to identify a practice monitor and will 

obviate the need for Mr. Jarrett to bear the costs and 

obligations of monitoring before he assumes the active practice 

of law.

¶37 When the OLR advises Mr. Jarrett that a practice 

monitor has been identified, Mr. Jarrett may, with written 

notice to the OLR, change his classification to active status by 

complying with SCR 10.03(3)(b)1. The formal appointment date of 

the monitor will be the date Mr. Jarrett elects active 

membership in the State Bar pursuant to SCR 10.03 (3)(b)1. 

¶38 We direct Mr. Jarrett to cooperate with the OLR, 

cooperate with his practice monitor, comply with all 

requirements imposed upon him by the OLR relating to his 

monitoring including executing, within five days of the date he 

elects active membership, a written monitoring agreement setting 

forth the terms of Mr. Jarrett's monitoring as determined by the 
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

18

practice monitor. Mr. Jarrett shall comply with all reasonable 

requests of his practice monitor4 and shall bear the reasonable 

costs of such monitoring.

¶39 Upon appointment, the monitor shall report to the OLR, 

in writing, on a quarterly basis. Within thirty days prior to 

the expiration of the two-year monitoring period, the OLR shall 

file a report in this court in which it shall recommend to the 

court that the conditions on Mr. Jarrett's admission be allowed 

to terminate or be extended.

¶40 Should Mr. Jarrett fail to make a good faith effort to 

satisfy these conditions, or should he commit misconduct during 

the monitoring period, his license to practice law may be 

suspended or revoked and he may be subject to other discipline 

pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys.

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

Examiners declining to certify that Joshua E. Jarrett has

satisfied the requirements for admission to the practice of law

in Wisconsin is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Board

for further action consistent with this order.

 

4 Lawyer monitoring often requires a lawyer to undergo an 

AODA (alcohol and other drug abuse) assessment and/or 

psychological evaluation. The record before this court is devoid 

of evidence suggesting these assessments are needed here. They 

should not be imposed absent evidence that would warrant such 

conditions. 
No. 2015AP1393-BA 

19

¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joshua E. Jarrett shall 

comply with the directives set forth in this order and shall, 

promptly upon receipt of this order, provide the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation with a copy of the entire record in this 

matter and authorize the OLR to share the record with the 

practice monitor. 

¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that subject to the required 

disclosures to the Office of Lawyer Regulation and practice 

monitor as set forth herein, the documents submitted under seal 

are deemed confidential, and will be maintained under seal until 

further order of the court.
No. 2015AP1393-BA.dtp

1

¶44 DAVID T. PROSSER, J. (concurring). This is an 

unusual and difficult case that has divided the court. I write 

separately to explain my thinking.

¶45 The court finds no fault in the decision of the Board 

of Bar Examiners (Board) not to certify Joshua Jarrett 

unconditionally for membership in the Wisconsin bar. We also 

understand the Board's determination that Mr. Jarrett did not 

qualify for conditional admission under SCR 40.075 because 

"[o]nly an applicant whose record of conduct demonstrates 

documented ongoing recovery [from such problems as drug or 

alcohol dependency] and an ability to meet the competence and 

character and fitness requirements set forth in SCR 40.02 may be 

considered for conditional admission." SCR 40.075(1) (emphasis 

added). The Board reasoned that Mr. Jarrett did not meet the 

character and fitness requirements of the rule and that the rule 

has no provision for demonstrating the "ongoing recovery" of an 

applicant's character and fitness.

¶46 Admittedly, the Board did "not foreclose [Mr. Jarrett] 

from ever practicing law in Wisconsin." He could, the Board 

said, take a bar examination pursuant to SCR 40.04. But a 

majority of the court believes this option is not satisfactory 

on the facts of the case. 

¶47 Mr. Jarrett graduated from the University of Wisconsin 

Law School in mid-2014. He has been out of law school now for 

two years. He presently lives in Maryland and works in a nonlegal capacity in the District of Columbia. 

¶48 To take the Wisconsin bar exam, Mr. Jarrett would have 

to come to Wisconsin, and he would likely have to enroll in a 
No. 2015AP1393-BA.dtp

2

Wisconsin bar review course to prepare for the examination. 

Passing the exam would reaffirm his legal competence——which is 

not in dispute——but it would not necessarily enhance his 

"character and fitness" or assure that the Board would grant him 

certification.

¶49 As an alternative, Mr. Jarrett could take a bar exam 

in the District of Columbia, Maryland, or his home state of 

Georgia. Superficially, one of these options might appear more 

convenient, but they would all be time consuming and costly and 

would not assure his admission in one of those jurisdictions so 

long as the denial of his Wisconsin admission remained 

unchanged.

¶50 In my view, the fundamental question facing the court 

is whether it is possible to permit Mr. Jarrett to practice law 

now, under reasonable conditions, without depreciating the 

seriousness of his misconduct. If we answer this question 

"yes," we risk criticism that we have damaged the reputation and 

integrity of the legal profession. If we answer the question 

"no," however, we may be precluding Mr. Jarrett from ever 

practicing law.

¶51 There may be risks in our decision. But intelligent 

risk-taking often yields spectacular rewards. I believe Mr. 

Jarrett has the ability to be a superb attorney, and he has 

demonstrated the desire to serve others. This court expects Mr. 

Jarrett to vindicate the high hopes we have in him. It will 

surely remember if he does not.

¶52 Courts cannot succeed for long if they are unable to 

leaven justice with mercy. By fashioning a unique form of 
No. 2015AP1393-BA.dtp

3

conditional admission, we practice that principle in the present 

case.

¶53 For the reasons stated, I respectfully concur in the 

opinion of the court.

¶54 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 

BRADLEY and Justice REBECCA G. BRADLEY join this concurrence.
No. 2015AP1393-BA.pdr

1

¶55 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, C.J. (dissenting). I 

would affirm the final decision of the Board of Bar Examiners

(Board) declining to certify Joshua E. Jarrett's character and 

fitness for admission to the Wisconsin bar. I am persuaded by 

the Board's finding that Mr. Jarrett's conduct in connection 

with his efforts in 2012 to secure summer employment with the 

New York City Law Department was both dishonest and deceptive 

and that such conduct demonstrates that Mr. Jarrett has acted in 

a manner that is not honest, diligent, or reliable. Coupled 

with the Board's finding that Mr. Jarrett was not credible at 

the evidentiary hearing before the Board and when claiming he 

forgot to disclose three fairly recent separate speeding 

violations from Georgia, Kentucky, and Wisconsin, I conclude 

that there are simply too many incidents in which Mr. Jarrett 

considered the truth optional when it was not to his advantage.

¶56 Based on the record before this court, I am not 

persuaded that Mr. Jarrett has demonstrated the requisite moral 

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." SCR 40.06. I would affirm the 

Board's decision. 

¶57 I am authorized to state that Justices ANNETTE 

KINGSLAND ZIEGLER and MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN join this dissent.
No. 2015AP1393-BA.pdr

1