Title: Timothy C. Heckmann v.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1996AP001942-BA
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 27, 1996

NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing 
and modification.  The final version will 
appear in the bound volume of the official 
reports. 
 
 
No. 96-1942-BA 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :               
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission of 
TIMOTHY C. HECKMANN. 
FILED 
 
DEC 27, 1996 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
Review of Board of Bar Examiners decision;  decision 
affirmed. 
PER CURIAM.   We review the decision of the Board of Bar 
Examiners (Board) declining to certify Timothy C. Heckmann’s 
satisfaction of the character and fitness requirement for 
admission to the practice of law in Wisconsin.
1 While asserting 
                                                          
 
1 SCR 40.06 provides, in pertinent part: Requirement as to 
character and fitness to practice law.  
(1) 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. 
(3) An applicant shall establish to the satisfaction of the 
board that the applicant satisfies the requirement set forth in 
sub. (1). The board shall certify to the supreme court the 
character and fitness of qualifying applicants. The board shall 
decline to certify the character and fitness of an applicant who 
knowingly makes a materially false statement of material fact or 
 
 
No.  96-1942-BA 
 
 
2
that the Board erred in finding that his conduct in the bar 
admission application process and in his application to law 
school and for bar admission in another jurisdiction, Mr. 
Heckmann conceded that the Board’s decision is proper. However, 
in his petition for review of that decision he asked that the 
court determine whether and under what conditions he again may 
apply for bar admission in this state.  
The seriousness of Mr. Heckmann’s conduct on which the 
Board’s decision was based, as it reflects on his possession of 
the character traits to be expected of persons admitted to the 
practice of law, warrant denying his admission at this time, but 
we permit him to reapply after two years, during which he may 
demonstrate that he has the necessary character and fitness for 
admission.  
Mr. Heckmann graduated from Hamline University School of Law 
in 1995 and was admitted to the Minnesota bar later that year. He 
applied for bar admission in Wisconsin and successfully wrote the 
bar examination in February, 1996.  
During the application process, the Board discovered that 
Mr. Heckmann had failed to set forth on his application several 
arrests and convictions when responding to a question asking for 
that information. Further investigation disclosed that he had 
made similar omissions on his two applications for law school 
admission and on his application for bar admission in Minnesota. 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
who fails to disclose a fact necessary to correct a 
misapprehension known by the applicant to have arisen in 
connection with his or her application.  
 
 
No.  96-1942-BA 
 
 
3
When informed by the Board of the omissions on his Wisconsin 
application, Mr. Heckmann provided information on some but not 
all of those arrests, convictions and a driver’s license 
suspension and incorrectly described the cause of the suspension.  
Between August, 1986 and May, 1989, Mr. Heckmann was 
arrested and convicted three times for underage drinking. In 
March, 1990, he was convicted of disturbing the peace and for 
speeding in December of 1992, following which his driver’s 
license was suspended. His license remained suspended when in 
December, 1993 he was convicted of driving without a valid 
license.  
When he applied for admission to law school in January, 
1990, Mr. Heckmann disclosed two of the three underage drinking 
convictions but did not disclose the third or his arrest for 
disturbing the peace. Mr. Heckmann elected not to enter law 
school at that time but reapplied in October, 1991. On his 
reapplication 
he 
disclosed 
all 
three 
underage 
drinking 
convictions but again did not disclose the arrest and conviction 
for disturbing the peace. He also failed to disclose a pending 
OMVWI charge when asked whether there were any criminal charges 
pending or expected to be brought against him.  
When the Board discovered Mr. Heckmann’s omissions on his 
law school application and brought that information to its 
attention, the law school commenced an investigation. The matter 
ultimately was settled in July, 1996. The law school agreed to 
recommend to the Minnesota lawyer discipline authorities and to 
the Wisconsin bar admission and discipline authorities that Mr. 
 
 
No.  96-1942-BA 
 
 
4
Heckmann be placed under probationary supervision or be subject 
to license suspension but not be barred permanently from seeking 
bar admission here.  
On his application for Wisconsin admission in November, 
1995, Mr. Heckmann did not disclose his three underage drinking 
convictions and his disturbing the peace conviction. He also 
failed to disclose his 1992 speeding conviction, the resulting 
suspension of his driver’s license, and his 1993 conviction of 
driving without a valid license. When the Board called those 
omissions to his attention, Mr. Heckmann amended his application 
by affidavit setting forth the convictions previously omitted. 
Subsequently, in March, 1996, in response to the Board’s request 
for a copy of his driving record, he submitted an affidavit 
further amending his admission application, asserting that the 
license suspension not previously disclosed was the result of 
“clerical error,” when in fact it was for his failure to pay the 
fine imposed on his speeding conviction.  
Although not part of the Board’s findings, Mr. Heckmann’s 
conduct in respect to his Minnesota bar admission is included in 
the record of this proceeding. When applying for bar admission in 
Minnesota in 1995, Mr. Heckmann acknowledged all of his 
convictions 
and 
the 
driver’s 
license 
suspension 
but 
misrepresented that the suspension was the result of an 
“administrative error” that led to his personal check for the 
speeding fine not being received until May, 1993. He asserted, 
“Speeding ticket was promptly paid when error was discovered and 
license 
reinstated.” 
In 
fact, 
however, 
there 
was 
no 
 
 
No.  96-1942-BA 
 
 
5
“administrative error”; Mr. Heckmann was arrested in Wisconsin in 
May, 1993 for driving without a valid operator’s license, as the 
prior suspension had continued because of his failure to pay the 
speeding fine. When the prosecutor refused to drop the charge, 
Mr. Heckmann was convicted and paid the fine in December, 1993. 
He did not include the operating without a license arrest on his 
Minnesota application.  
When informed by the Board of Mr. Heckmann’s conduct in the 
law school and Wisconsin bar admission applications, the 
Minnesota lawyer disciplinary authorities filed a petition 
alleging his professional misconduct in those matters and seeking 
appropriate discipline. While the instant review proceeding has 
been pending, Mr. Heckmann stipulated in October, 1996 to an 
indefinite suspension of his license to practice law in Minnesota 
and the prohibition of his application for reinstatement until 
the earlier of his admission to the Wisconsin bar or five years 
from the date of the order of the Minnesota  Supreme Court 
suspending his license there.  
In this review, Mr. Heckmann conceded that he failed to 
establish to the satisfaction of the Board that he possesses the 
requisite character and fitness to be admitted to the practice of 
law in Wisconsin at this time, but he contested the Board’s 
finding that his false statements of material fact by omission on 
his Wisconsin bar admission application and on his law school 
applications had been made knowingly. He insisted that the 
evidence supports a finding only that he was negligent and 
careless, that his omissions were isolated and the result of 
 
 
No.  96-1942-BA 
 
 
6
haste in completing the applications. That conduct, he asserted, 
does not reflect adversely on his ethical and legal abilities.  
Contrary to those contentions, there is ample evidence in 
the record to support the Board’s finding that Mr. Heckmann’s 
repeated failures to disclose arrests, convictions and a driver’s 
license suspension were intentional. Although he included a copy 
of his record of convictions with his Minnesota bar admission 
application in 1995, on which he had disclosed all of his 
convictions and the license suspension, Mr. Heckmann did not 
provide that record with his Wisconsin application. The Board 
obtained it, however, in the course of its request for unrelated 
additional information. Moreover, even when ultimately disclosing 
that his driver’s license had been suspended, Mr. Heckmann 
mischaracterized it as a “clerical error,” when in fact it 
resulted from his not having paid the fine imposed for a speeding 
conviction.  
In addition, while denying that his failure to disclose his 
OMVWI offense of his law school application was intentional, Mr. 
Heckmann acknowledged in the stipulation by which the matter with 
the law school was settled that he had falsified by omission his 
two law school applications as set forth in the law school’s 
complaint. Each of the two counts in that complaint had alleged 
that he “knowingly” falsified by omission his response to 
questions on the law school application.  
The Board’s finding that Mr. Heckmann knowingly made 
materially false statements of fact on his Wisconsin bar 
admission application is not clearly erroneous, and we adopt it. 
 
 
No.  96-1942-BA 
 
 
7
The facts establishing Mr. Heckmann’s pattern of inaccurate 
responses to the Board and to the law school, as well as to the 
Minnesota 
bar 
admission 
authorities, 
support 
the 
Board’s 
conclusion that Mr. Heckmann has demonstrated that he lacks the 
integrity and candor required of persons admitted to practice law 
in this state. Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s decision 
declining to certify Mr. Heckmann’s satisfaction of the character 
and fitness requirement for bar admission.  
In determining whether or when to permit Mr. Heckmann to 
reapply for bar admission, we consider the seriousness of the 
conduct that led to the denial of his application. The degree of 
seriousness is reflected in the discipline imposed on him by the 
Minnesota Supreme Court, which suspended his license to practice 
law there for an indefinite period, denying him the opportunity 
to apply for reinstatement of that license for a period of five 
years or until admitted to practice in Wisconsin, if sooner. 
Also, before the matter with the law school was settled by 
agreement, the faculty member who had investigated the matter 
recommended that the school revoke the law degree it had 
conferred him.  
We previously denied bar admission to an applicant and 
prohibited her from reapplying for a period of one year for 
having omitted numerous traffic charges and for inaccuracies and 
discrepancies in her description of three criminal matters on her 
application. In Matter of Bar Admission of Gaylord, 155 Wis. 2d 
816, 456 N.W.2d 590 (1990). Mr. Heckmann’s conduct is more 
serious, as it demonstrates a pattern of omission of material 
 
 
No.  96-1942-BA 
 
 
8
fact and misrepresentation of facts disclosed not only on bar 
admission applications but also in his applications to be 
admitted to law school.  
We determine that a period of two years is needed for Mr. 
Heckmann to be able to demonstrate that he possesses the 
necessary honesty and trustworthiness to be licensed by this 
court to represent others in our legal system. In order that he 
not be barred from admission for failure to comply with our rule 
requiring admission within one year following certification of 
his successful completion of the Wisconsin bar examination, we 
extend the deadline for his actual admission for the period of 
time reasonably necessary to accommodate his reapplication, 
should he reapply.  
 
 
No.  96-1942-BA 
 
 
9
 
1 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
2 
 
3 
 
4 
 
5 
Case No.: 
 
96-1942-BA 
6 
 
7 
 
8 
Complete Title 
9 
of Case:  
 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission of: 
10 
 
 
 
Timothy C. Heckmann. 
11 
 
 
 
______________________________________ 
12 
 
13 
 
 
 
BAR ADMISSION OF HECKMANN 
14 
 
15 
 
16 
 
17 
Opinion Filed: 
 
December 27, 1996 
18 
Submitted on Briefs: 
December 5, 1996 
19 
Oral Argument:  
20 
 
21 
 
22 
 
23 
Source of APPEAL 
24 
 
COURT: 
 
25 
 
COUNTY: 
 
26 
 
JUDGE:  
 
27 
 
28 
 
29 
 
30 
JUSTICES: 
 
31 
 
Concurred: 
 
32 
 
Dissented: 
 
33 
 
Not Participating:  
34 
 
35 
 
36 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the petitioner the cause was submitted on the briefs of Timothy C. Heckmann, St. Paul, 
37 
MN. 
38 
 
39 
 
For the Board of Bar Examiners the cause was submitted on the brief of Steven E. Tinker, assistant attorney 
40 
general, with whom on the brief was James E. Doyle, attorney general. 
41 
 
42 
 
43 
 
 
44 
 
45