Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Aaron J. Rollins
Citation: 2012 WI 48
Docket Number: 2011AP000778-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 9, 2012

2012 WI 48 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP778-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Aaron J. Rollins, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Aaron J. Rollins, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ROLLINS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 9, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., dissents.    
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
    2012 WI 48 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP778-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Aaron J. Rollins, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Aaron J. Rollins, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 9, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee, Timothy L. Vocke, that Attorney Aaron J. Rollins' 
license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 60 days 
for professional misconduct.  That misconduct consists of 
committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on his 
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other 
respects; failing to notify the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) and the Clerk of the Wisconsin Supreme Court of his 
 
 
              No.  2011AP778-D 
 
 
2
California misdemeanor conviction for one count of grand theft; 
and failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigative inquiry 
regarding 
his 
California 
conviction. 
 
The 
referee 
also 
recommended that Attorney Rollins be required to pay the costs 
of the proceeding, which total $1,597.81 as of October 14, 2011. 
¶2 
We determine that the seriousness of Attorney Rollins' 
professional misconduct warrants a suspension of his license to 
practice law for 60 days. 
¶3 
Attorney Rollins was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2001.  Attorney Rollins has not previously been the 
subject of an attorney disciplinary proceeding.  However, his 
license to practice law has been administratively suspended for 
failing to pay bar dues and assessments and for failing to 
comply with continuing legal education reporting requirements.  
His license remains administratively suspended.  He did not 
answer or otherwise appear in this disciplinary proceeding, and 
the referee made findings of fact and conclusions of law in 
response to the OLR's motion for default judgment. 
¶4 
The OLR's complaint alleged that on February 26, 2010, 
Attorney Rollins entered a no contest plea to one count of grand 
theft as a misdemeanor in violation of Section 487(a) of the 
California Penal Code.  The Los Angeles County Superior Court 
sentenced Attorney Rollins to serve 24 months on summary 
probation, with conditions that included:  (a) serving one day 
in the Los Angeles County jail; (b) paying court costs totaling 
$95; (c) paying restitution in the amount of $100; and (d) 
performing 100 hours of community service.  Attorney Rollins did 
 
 
              No.  2011AP778-D 
 
 
3
not notify the Clerk of the Wisconsin Supreme Court or the OLR 
of his conviction. 
¶5 
By letter of March 22, 2010, the OLR notified Attorney 
Rollins of its receipt of information concerning his California 
criminal conviction, and requested that Attorney Rollins provide 
a written response to the OLR no later than April 14, 2010.  
Attorney Rollins failed to respond.  The postal service returned 
the OLR's March 22, 2010 letter, marked "Return to Sender" and 
"Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward." 
¶6 
In an e-mailed letter dated April 19, 2010, the OLR 
notified 
Attorney 
Rollins 
of 
its 
receipt 
of 
information 
concerning his criminal conviction in California and requested 
that he provide a written response to the OLR no later than 
May 10, 2010.  The e-mail was not returned to the OLR as 
undeliverable.  Attorney Rollins failed to respond.   
¶7 
The OLR asked the State Bar of California Office of 
Enforcement 
(CA-OE) 
for 
assistance 
in 
personally 
serving 
authenticated copies of a complaint and order to answer on 
Attorney Rollins.  Investigators from the CA-OE tried, without 
success, to personally serve Attorney Rollins at the last 
address Attorney Rollins had furnished to the State Bar of 
Wisconsin.   
¶8 
On July 5, 2011, after learning that the CA-OE 
investigators' service attempts had failed, the OLR sent 
authenticated copies of the complaint and order to answer to 
Attorney Rollins via both first-class and certified mail.  
Attorney Rollins did not file an answer.  On August 18, 2011, 
 
 
              No.  2011AP778-D 
 
 
4
OLR's counsel filed a motion for default judgment and supporting 
affidavit.1 
¶9 
The referee held a telephone scheduling conference on 
August 24, 2011.  The referee had previously notified Attorney 
Rollins of the time and date of the scheduling conference via 
e-mail sent to Attorney Rollins' last known e-mail address on 
file with the State Bar of Wisconsin.  Attorney Rollins did not 
appear at the scheduling conference. 
¶10 On September 13, 2011, the referee conducted a hearing 
on the OLR's motion for default judgment.  Attorney Rollins did 
not appear at the hearing. 
¶11 The referee concluded that by engaging in conduct 
resulting in a misdemeanor conviction for one count of grand 
theft contrary to Section 487(a) of the California Penal Code, 
Attorney Rollins violated SCR 20:8.4(b).2 
                                                 
1 OLR's counsel supplemented the information provided in the 
OLR's default judgment motion by way of a March 26, 2012 
response 
to this 
court's order to show cause why this 
disciplinary proceeding should not be dismissed for failure to 
serve the complaint and order to answer consistent with 
SCR 22.13(1).  The OLR's March 26, 2012 filing satisfied the 
order to show cause because it contained affidavits of non-
service from investigators at the CA-OE describing unsuccessful 
efforts to personally serve Attorney Rollins with the complaint 
and order to answer before the OLR effected service through 
certified mail.  See SCR 22.13(1).  
2 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects; . . . ." 
 
 
              No.  2011AP778-D 
 
 
5
¶12 The referee also concluded that by failing to report 
his California criminal conviction to the OLR and the Clerk of 
the 
Wisconsin 
Supreme 
Court, 
Attorney 
Rollins 
violated 
SCR 21.15(5),3 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).4 
¶13 The referee also concluded that by failing to provide 
a written response to the OLR's investigative inquiry regarding 
his conviction, and by failing to fully and fairly disclose the 
facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct, 
Attorney Rollins violated SCR 22.03(2).5 
                                                 
3 SCR 21.15(5) provides: 
An attorney found guilty or convicted of any 
crime on or after July 1, 2002, shall notify in 
writing the office of lawyer regulation and the clerk 
of the Supreme Court within 5 days after the finding 
or conviction, whichever first occurs.  The notice 
shall include the identity of the attorney, the date 
of finding or conviction, the offenses, and the 
jurisdiction.  An attorney's failure to notify the 
office of lawyer regulation and clerk of the supreme 
court of being found guilty or his or her conviction 
is misconduct. 
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; . . . ." 
5 SCR 22.03(2) states: 
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the respondent of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise.  The 
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 
request for a written response.  The director may 
allow additional time to respond.  Following receipt   
(continued)      
 
 
              No.  2011AP778-D 
 
 
6
¶14 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
set forth in the referee's report and recommendation.  Attorney 
Rollins' misconduct with respect to his California criminal 
conviction, his failure to notify the OLR and the clerk of this 
court of that conviction, and his failure to cooperate with the 
OLR's investigation are serious failings warranting a suspension 
of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  A 60-day 
suspension of his law license is appropriate discipline for his 
professional misconduct. 
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Aaron J. Rollins to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ordered that to the extent he has not 
already done so, Aaron J. Rollins comply with the provisions of 
SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Aaron J. Rollins shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs 
are not paid within the time specified and Aaron J. Rollins has 
not entered into a payment plan approved by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation, then the Office of Lawyer Regulation is authorized 
                                                                                                                                                             
of the response, the director may conduct further 
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
 
 
              No.  2011AP778-D 
 
 
7
to move this court for a further suspension of the license of 
Aaron J. Rollins to practice law in Wisconsin. 
 
 
              No.  2011AP778-D 
 
 
1
¶18 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (dissenting).  I think a 
60-day suspension is inadequate.