Title: BAPR v. Jane A. Edgar
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1999AP000062-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 8, 2016

2016 WI 60 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jane A. Edgar, Attorney at Law: 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,   
 
 
Complainant,   
 
 
v. 
 
Jane A. Edgar,   
 
 
Respondent-Appellant.  
  
 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jane A. Edgar, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,   
 
 
Complainant,   
 
 
v. 
 
Jane A. Edgar,   
 
 
Respondent-Appellant.   
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 8, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:     
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 60
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jane A. Edgar, Attorney at Law: 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,   
 
 
Complainant,   
 
 
v. 
 
Jane A. Edgar,   
 
 
Respondent-Appellant.  
  
FILED 
 
JUL 8, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jane A. Edgar, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,   
 
 
Complainant,   
 
 
v. 
 
Jane A. Edgar,   
 
 
Respondent-Appellant.   
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
reinstatement 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
reinstated with conditions.   
 
No. 
1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
2 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report filed by Referee 
Jonathan V. Goodman, recommending that the court reinstate the 
license of Jane A. Edgar to practice law in Wisconsin with 
conditions. Upon careful review of the matter, we agree that 
Attorney Edgar's license should be reinstated, with conditions. 
We further agree that Attorney Edgar should be required to pay 
the full costs of this proceeding, which are $2,575.60 as of 
April 4, 2016.  
¶2 
Attorney Edgar was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin on June 17, 1985.  On March 22, 1999, the Court 
suspended her license to practice law for two years for 
misconduct 
consisting 
of 
conversion 
of 
funds, 
improperly 
commingling funds, and falsely certifying that she had a trust 
account and maintained proper trust account and bank records. 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Edgar, 230 Wis. 2d 205, 601 
N.W.2d 284 (1999).   
¶3 
In 
2003, 
Edgar's 
license 
was 
suspended 
for 
an 
additional year, retroactive to March 22, 2001, for misconduct 
consisting of multiple violations of failing to take reasonably 
practicable steps to protect her clients' interests; failing to 
keep clients reasonably informed or to comply with clients' 
requests for information; failing to act with reasonable 
diligence; and failing to cooperate with OLR's grievance 
investigations. She also failed to render a full accounting in 
connection with an advanced fee; practiced law while under 
administrative suspension; and failed to obtain a written 
No. 
1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
3 
 
conflict waiver. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Edgar, 2003 WI 
49, 261 Wis. 2d 413, 661 N.W.2d 817.  
¶4 
On September 20, 2010, Attorney Edgar unsuccessfully 
sought reinstatement of her Wisconsin law license. Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Edgar, 2012 WI 19, 338 Wis. 2d 729, 809 
N.W.2d 524.  
¶5 
On June 22, 2015, Attorney Edgar filed a new petition 
seeking reinstatement of her law license. On December 29, 2015, 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a response stating 
it does not oppose her reinstatement but recommending a lawyer 
oversee her practice for a period of two years.  The referee 
conducted a public hearing on February 10, 2016. The referee 
filed 
his 
report 
and 
recommendation 
on 
March 
15, 
2016, 
recommending reinstatement, with one year of monitoring by an 
attorney.  
¶6 
Supreme 
Court 
Rule 
(SCR) 
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 to 
these requirements, SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m) provides additional 
requirements that a petition for reinstatement must show.  All 
of these additional requirements are effectively incorporated 
into SCR 22.31(1).  
No. 
1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
4 
 
¶7 
When we review a referee's report and recommendation, 
we will adopt the referee's findings of fact unless they are 
clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, 
¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  
¶8 
We conclude that the referee's findings support a 
determination that Attorney Edgar has met her burden to 
establish by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that 
she has met all of the standards required for reinstatement of 
her license to practice law in Wisconsin. The referee found that 
Attorney Edgar has not practiced law during the period of her 
suspension; that she has complied fully with the terms of the 
order of suspension and will continue to do so until her license 
is reinstated; and that she has maintained competence and 
learning in the law.  If reinstated, Attorney Edgar intends to 
serve as a guardian ad litem in Children's Court. 
¶9 
The record further supports the referee's conclusion 
that Attorney Edgar's conduct since her suspension has been 
exemplary 
and 
above 
reproach; 
that 
she 
has 
a 
proper 
understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are 
imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with 
those standards; that she 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 
No. 
1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
5 
 
of the courts; and that she has fully complied with the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26.  
¶10 In assessing Attorney Edgar's moral character and 
whether her resumption of the practice of law would be 
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of 
the public interest, the referee was impressed by the testimony 
of the Dean and Rector of All Saints Cathedral, who testified in 
support of Attorney Edgar's character. The referee noted 
Attorney Edgar was "very contrite" in acknowledging her past 
professional misconduct and observed that Attorney Edgar's 
suspension has resulted in significant economic and social 
hardship to her.  
¶11 The OLR also acknowledges that Attorney Edgar has 
expressed "deep regret" for her misconduct. Attorney Edgar has 
satisfied the costs imposed on her in connection with her 1999 
disciplinary case, paid full restitution to former clients as 
required by her 2003 suspension order, and has paid the costs 
associated with her first attempt at reinstatement. And, 
significantly, Attorney Edgar has addressed mental health issues 
that previously compromised her ability to function as a lawyer.  
Consequently, 
many 
of 
the 
conditions 
imposed 
in 
prior 
disciplinary proceedings are no longer warranted.   
¶12 The OLR recommended that Attorney Edgar be monitored 
by an attorney, approved by the OLR, for a period of two years 
following her reinstatement, to assist her transition back into 
the practice of law.  The referee opined, without elaboration, 
that a single year would be sufficient. 
No. 
1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
6 
 
¶13 Upon careful review of the matter, we agree that 
Attorney Edgar's license should be reinstated, subject to 
monitoring by an attorney. We agree with the OLR that a period 
of two years is appropriate to better ensure a smooth transition 
as Attorney Edger resumes the practice of law. 
¶14 It is this court's general practice to assess the full 
costs of a proceeding against a respondent. See SCR 22.24(1m). 
We follow that general practice here.  
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jane A. Edgar to 
practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date of 
this order.  
¶16 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
as 
a 
condition 
of 
reinstatement of Jane A. Edgar's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, she shall be monitored by an attorney, approved by 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation, for a period of two years 
following reinstatement.   
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Jane A. Edgar shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $2,575.60 as 
of the date of this order.   
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
1999AP62-D & 2002AP2962-D   
 
 
 
1