2021 WI 17

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2016AP1288-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Daniel W. Morse, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant-Respondent,

 v.

Daniel W. Morse,

 Respondent-Appellant.

ATTORNEY MORSE REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS

Reported at 386 Wis. 2d 654, 927 N.W.2d 543

PDC No: 2019 WI 53 - Published

OPINION FILED: March 2, 2021 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: 

COUNTY: 

JUDGE: 

JUSTICES:

Per Curiam.

NOT PARTICIPATING:

 

ATTORNEYS:
2021 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. 2016AP1288-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Daniel W. Morse, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant-Respondent,

 v.

Daniel W. Morse,

 Respondent-Appellant.

FILED

MAR 2, 2021

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed by Referee 

Robert E. Kinney recommending that the court reinstate the 

license of Daniel W. Morse to practice law in Wisconsin. No 

appeal has been filed from the referee's report and 

recommendation. Accordingly, our review proceeds pursuant to 

Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.33(3). Upon careful review of the 

matter, we adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions 

of law and agree that Attorney Morse's petition for 

reinstatement should be granted. As is our normal custom, we 

also direct that the costs of the reinstatement proceeding, 
No. 2016AP1288-D 

2

which are $5,448.81 as of December 15, 2020, be paid by Attorney 

Morse.

¶2 Attorney Morse was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1979. Attorney Morse was also licensed to practice 

law in Florida and Pennsylvania. He was disbarred in Florida in 

2019, and his Pennsylvania law license is administratively 

suspended. In 2019, Attorney Morse's Wisconsin law license was 

suspended for one year. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Morse, 2019 WI 53, 386 Wis. 2d 654, 927 N.W.2d 543. The 

misconduct in that case related to an estate matter. Attorney 

Morse failed to take steps to advance the interests of the 

estate; failed to promptly deliver documents in his possession; 

failed to abide by a probate court order; and failed to keep in 

trust funds totaling over $25,000 belonging to the estate, 

instead paying those funds to his law firm and himself and using 

the funds to pay personal obligations. 

¶3 Attorney Morse filed a petition for the reinstatement 

of his Wisconsin law license on April 6, 2020. A hearing was 

held before the referee on October 13, 2020. The referee issued 

his report and recommendation on November 24, 2020. The referee 

found that Attorney Morse: desires to have his license 

reinstated; has not practiced law during the period of 

suspension; has not given members of the public misleading 

information about his suspension or reinstatement; has fully 

complied with the terms of the order of suspension; has 

maintained competence and learning in the law by attending 

educational sessions; understands the gravity of his misconduct; 
No. 2016AP1288-D 

3

and has promptly made restitution. The referee also found that 

Attorney Morse's conduct since the suspension has been exemplary 

and above reproach and that he has a proper understanding of and 

attitude toward the standards that are imposed on members of the 

bar and will act in conformity with those standards. The 

referee found that Attorney Morse can be safely recommended to 

the legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit 

to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise 

act in matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in 

the administration of justice as a member of the bar and an 

officer of the courts.

¶4 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) provides the standards to 

be met for reinstatement. Specifically, the petitioner must 

show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or 

she has the moral character to practice law, that his or her 

resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the 

administration of justice or subversive to the public interest, 

and that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of 

the order of suspension. In addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c) 

incorporates the statements that a petition for reinstatement 

must contain pursuant to SCR 22.29(4)(a) – (m). Thus, the 

petitioning attorney must demonstrate that the required 

representations in the reinstatement petition are substantiated. 

¶5 When reviewing referee reports in reinstatement 

proceedings, we utilize standards of review similar to those 

used for reviewing referee reports in disciplinary proceedings. 

We do not overturn a referee's findings of fact unless they are 
No. 2016AP1288-D 

4

clearly erroneous. On the other hand, we review a referee's 

legal conclusions, including whether the attorney has in fact 

satisfied the criteria for reinstatement, on a de novo basis. 

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jennings, 2011 WI 45, 

¶39, 334 Wis. 2d 335, 801 N.W.2d 304; In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Gral, 2010 WI 14, ¶22, 323 Wis. 2d 280, 779 

N.W.2d 168. In making his recommendation, the referee noted 

that Attorney Morse has acknowledged his ethical violations. 

The referee said Attorney Morse is very knowledgeable about his 

specific area of practice, and if, in the future, an issue at 

the periphery of his knowledge arises, he has vowed that he will 

consult with other experienced professionals. The referee said 

making use of the expertise of these attorneys would be an 

invaluable resource for Attorney Morse.

¶6 Upon review of the record, we agree that Attorney 

Morse has established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 

evidence that he has satisfied all of the criteria necessary for 

reinstatement. Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of 

fact and conclusions of law, and we accept the referee's 

recommendation that Attorney Morse's license to practice law in 

Wisconsin should be reinstated. As is our standard policy, we 

also find it appropriate to impose the full costs of this 

proceeding on Attorney Morse.

¶7 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Daniel W. Morse to 

practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date of 

this order.
No. 2016AP1288-D 

5

¶8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 

of this order, Daniel W. Morse shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation costs of this proceeding, which are $5,448.81 as of 

December 15, 2020.
No. 2016AP1288-D 

1