Title: Daniel R. Hausserman v. BBE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2018AP000644-BA
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 28, 2018

2018 WI 115 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2018AP644-BA 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission of Daniel R. 
Hausserman: 
 
Daniel R. Hausserman, 
          Petitioner, 
     v. 
Board of Bar Examiners, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
BAR ADMISSION OF HAUSSERMAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 28, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
October 29, 2018 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the petitioner there, was an oral argument by Terry E. 
Johnson and Von Briesen & Roper, Milwaukee. 
 
For the Board of Bar Examiners, there was an oral argument 
by Jacquelynn B. Rothstein, Director & Legal Counsel.   
 
 
 
2018 WI 115
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2018AP644-BA 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission  
of Daniel R. Hausserman: 
 
Daniel R. Hausserman, 
 
          Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Board of Bar Examiners, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 28, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
Review of Board of Bar Examiners' decision.  Decision 
affirmed.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a review, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule (SCR) 40.08(7), of the final decision of the Board of 
Bar Examiners (Board) declining to certify that the petitioner, 
Daniel R. Hausserman, satisfied the character and fitness 
requirements for admission to the Wisconsin bar set forth in 
SCR 40.06(1).  The Board's decision was based primarily on 
Mr. Hausserman's conduct in 2015, and his failure to disclose 
certain matters on his bar application.   
No. 
2018AP644-BA   
 
2 
 
¶2 
After careful review, we agree that the record before 
us is insufficient to persuade us that Mr. Hausserman should be 
admitted to the practice of law at this time.  Accordingly, we 
affirm. 
¶3 
There are, essentially, two concerns here.  The most 
significant involves Mr. Hausserman's conduct over a period of 
approximately seven months during and after his final year of 
law school.  The other involves certain shortcomings with his 
application for admission to the Wisconsin bar. 
¶4 
The standards for evaluating whether an applicant 
should be admitted to the Wisconsin bar are well settled.  
Supreme Court Rule 40.06(1)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 SCR 40.06(3) 
and SCR 40.07.  The Appendix to SCR Ch. 40 contains the Board's 
rules that provide additional guidance to the Board and to 
applicants.   
                                                 
1 SCR 40.06(1) provides:  
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. 
No. 
2018AP644-BA   
 
3 
 
¶5 
Bar Admission Rule (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."  
¶6 
Bar Admission Rule 6.02 provides that in determining 
whether an applicant possesses the necessary character and 
fitness to practice law, there are 12 factors that are "cause 
for further inquiry."  Several of these factors are implicated 
here, including unlawful conduct, violation of an order of a 
court, denial of admission to the bar in another jurisdiction on 
character and fitness grounds, and concealment or nondisclosure 
of information during the bar application process.  See id. at 
BA 6.02(a), (c), (h), and (k). 
¶7 
Bar Admission Rule 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 
No. 
2018AP644-BA   
 
4 
 
(h) 
the 
materiality 
of 
any 
omissions 
or 
misrepresentations and 
(i) the number of incidents revealing deficiencies. 
SCR Ch. 40 App., BA 6.03.   
¶8 
When, as here, we review an adverse determination, the 
court adopts the Board's findings of fact that are not clearly 
erroneous.  In re Bar Admission of Rippl, 2002 WI 15, ¶16, 250 
Wis. 2d 519, 639 N.W.2d 553.  The court then determines, 
de novo, whether the Board's conclusions of law, based on the 
non-erroneous facts, are proper.  When conducting our de novo 
review, we, like the Board, use the guidelines established in 
BA 6.01-BA 6.03.   
¶9 
We have, as counsel for Mr. Hausserman urged, focused 
carefully on the facts of this record.  Mr. Hausserman attended 
Drake University Law School.  In February 2014, when he was 25 
and in law school, Mr. Hausserman met B.F., a Drake University 
undergraduate student, and they began dating.  The relationship 
was serious.  In December 2014 the relationship ended.  Some 
communication continued, however, and Mr. Hausserman thought the 
relationship would resume. 
¶10 On March 5, 2015, B.F. filed a complaint with Drake 
University 
stating 
that 
she 
was 
receiving 
unwanted 
communications from Mr. Hausserman.  Mr. Hausserman's actions 
between March and September 2015 are the primary reason his 
Wisconsin bar application was denied. 
¶11 On March 9, 2015, Drake University officials advised 
Mr. Hausserman of the complaint and directed him to cease any 
No. 
2018AP644-BA   
 
5 
 
further contact with B.F.  Within two weeks Mr. Hausserman had 
contacted B.F. by email at least twice.  On March 27, 2015, 
Mr. Hausserman sent B.F. three more emails and had called her.   
¶12 On March 30, 2015, Drake University again directed 
Mr. Hausserman to have no contact with B.F.  On April 2, 2015, 
following 
a 
meeting 
between 
University 
officials 
and 
Mr. Hausserman, the University sent a letter to Mr. Hausserman 
stating that he had violated the harassment provision of the 
school's code of conduct.  Mr. Hausserman was barred from campus 
except for his academic classes. 
¶13 On April 15, 2015, Mr. Hausserman sent B.F. another 
email which began: "I am aware this is in violation of the no 
communication/contact order and places me at risk of certain 
arrest."  Two days later and in an apparent attempt to reach 
B.F., Mr. Hausserman sent a text message to her mother, also in 
violation 
of 
Drake 
University's 
no-contact 
directive.  
Thereafter, Mr. Hausserman was banned from the University except 
for completing his final exams and attending his graduation 
ceremony.  He was advised that after his law school graduation, 
he would be barred indefinitely from the university campus. 
¶14 On 
May 
16, 
2015, 
hours 
after 
his 
law 
school 
graduation, Mr. Hausserman left B.F. a telephone message.  B.F. 
contacted the City of Des Moines Police Department.  
¶15 A 
few 
days 
later, 
the 
police 
spoke 
with 
Mr. Hausserman, 
who 
said 
that 
he 
thought 
his 
graduation 
terminated the restrictions on communicating with B.F.  The 
police told him to cease all contact with B.F. and warned him 
No. 
2018AP644-BA   
 
6 
 
that if he violated that directive he would be criminally 
charged.  Approximately one week later, B.F. contacted the City 
of 
Des Moines 
Police 
Department 
again, 
to 
report 
that 
Mr. Hausserman had sent her several more text messages.  
¶16 On May 28, 2015, Mr. Hausserman was criminally charged 
in Iowa with Harassment in the Third Degree.  He pled guilty in 
June of 2015 and received a deferred judgment, was placed on 
probation for 12 months, and ordered to have no contact with 
B.F.  
¶17 Meanwhile, Mr. Hausserman had graduated and applied 
for admission to the Iowa bar.  At that time, however, the 
aforementioned criminal charges were pending against him and, 
following a hearing, the Iowa Board of Law Examiners (Iowa 
Board) concluded, on June 17, 2015, that Mr. Hausserman had not 
met his burden of demonstrating his character and fitness for 
admission to the Iowa bar.  He was not permitted to take the 
Iowa Bar Exam.  The Iowa Board apparently indicated that 
Mr. Hausserman might be permitted to sit for the Iowa Bar Exam 
in the future, when he could demonstrate that his harassment of 
B.F. had truly ended.  A behavioral health evaluation was 
recommended.  In its June 17, 2015 decision, the Iowa Board 
stated:  
An objective observer might find the above course of 
events would have sent a crystal-clear message for Mr. 
Hausserman to leave [B.F.] alone.  Instead, Mr. 
Hausserman relentlessly continued contacting [B.F.] 
(and in one instance, her parents) in violation of the 
no contact orders.  The board also notes that a good 
deal of this conduct occurred just before, and even 
No. 
2018AP644-BA   
 
7 
 
after, he filed his bar application.  Mr. Hausserman 
continued to pursue this course of aberrant behavior 
come what may.  Mr. Hausserman did acknowledge the 
criminal prosecution had gotten his attention, but he 
evinced no hint of remorse at the board interview and 
certainly did not suggest the course of conduct had 
come to an end.  
(R. at 51). 
¶18 In late September 2015, B.F. reported to police that 
she had received a Snapchat friend request from Mr. Hausserman. 
Following an interview with police, Mr. Hausserman admitted that 
he had contacted B.F. again because he had reason to believe she 
was involved in derogatory internet postings about him, and he 
wanted to discuss that with her.  He acknowledged this action 
violated the terms of his deferred judgment.  He was arrested 
and his home searched.  He was found to be in possession of four 
firearms, two of which were loaded, in violation of his deferred 
prosecution agreement.2  
¶19 Mr. Hausserman was found in contempt of court, 
sentenced to 30 days in jail, given a year of probation and 
supervision, and ordered to complete a mental health assessment.  
The mental health evaluation revealed no drug or alcohol issues, 
but recommended that Mr. Hausserman undergo treatment to address 
                                                 
2 Mr. Hausserman explained at his Board hearing that he is a 
sportsman, purchased the guns legally, and practices at a gun 
range. 
No. 
2018AP644-BA   
 
8 
 
his behavior.3  The record indicates that Mr. Hausserman has not 
attempted any further contact with B.F. since September 2015.  
¶20 In November 2015, Mr. Hausserman first applied for 
admission to the Wisconsin bar.  Some delays that are not 
relevant followed.  In February 2017 he passed the Wisconsin Bar 
Exam.  On September 19, 2017, the Board informed Mr. Hausserman 
that his bar application was "at risk" of denial for failing to 
establish his good moral character and fitness within the 
meaning of SCR 40.06(1) and BA 6.01.  SCR 40.08(1).  The Board's 
concerns were not based solely on his conduct with B.F.  The 
Board also expressed concern about inadequate disclosures on his 
Wisconsin bar application.  
¶21 When 
Mr. 
Hausserman 
first 
applied 
to 
take 
the 
Wisconsin Bar Exam in November 2015, he responded affirmatively 
to Question 20 which asks, in part, whether the applicant has 
been disciplined or placed on probation by a law school.  
Mr. Hausserman explained that he had been placed on academic 
probation for one semester.  He failed to disclose the 
restrictions Drake University imposed on him related to B.F.4  
                                                 
3 Mr. Hausserman has cited cost as a barrier to seeking 
counseling as well as concerns that it might be perceived as 
something undertaken merely to bolster his bar application. 
4 By correspondence dated January 16, 2016, the Board directed Mr. Hausserman to 
amend his application and explain why he failed to reveal his misconduct with B.F.  Mr. 
Hausserman did not file the requested amendment, but did include information about B.F. on a 
subsequent bar application.   
 
No. 
2018AP644-BA   
 
9 
 
¶22 When asked to explain his harassment conviction, 
Mr. Hausserman's answer was this: "[B.F.] made a criminal 
complaint against me.  The complaint was based on text messages 
received from my number and emails received from my [email] 
address."   
¶23 Mr. Hausserman disclosed an underage drinking ticket 
from 2007 and a 2012 citation for failing to have proof of 
automobile 
insurance 
in 
connection 
with 
a 
traffic 
stop.  
However, the Board was troubled by his description of these 
events.  He explained the ticket this way:  while at a Badger 
football game he was "grabbed by police because he had one foot 
on the sidewalk."  He explained the traffic citation like this:  
he was driving his father's car and was pulled over because 
"police don't like young kids driving nice cars." 
¶24 Mr. Hausserman failed to report an incident from 2003 
(when he was 15) in which he and a friend were cited for 
destroying a mailbox.  He had reported the incident on his law 
school application.   
¶25 Upon receipt of the Board's intent to deny letter, 
Mr. Hausserman exercised his right to request a hearing, which 
the Board conducted on January 19, 2018.  Mr. Hausserman 
appeared by counsel and testified.  On March 7, 2018, the Board 
issued an adverse decision concluding that Mr. Hausserman had 
failed to establish good moral character and fitness to practice 
law in Wisconsin under SCR 40.06(1) and (3).   
¶26 Mr. Hausserman seeks this court's review.  This court 
retains 
supervisory 
authority 
and 
has 
the 
ultimate 
No. 
2018AP644-BA   
 
10 
 
responsibility for regulatory admission to the Wisconsin bar.  
Rippl, 250 Wis. 2d 519.  Mr. Hausserman argues that he has met 
his burden of producing information sufficient to affirmatively 
demonstrate his present character and fitness appropriate for 
bar admission.  BA 6.01.  He asks this court to reverse the 
Board's adverse decision and permit him to become a member of 
the Wisconsin bar.  He indicates that he would accept conditions 
that this court might impose on his law practice.5  
                                                 
5 The parties both noted that the Board declined to offer 
Mr. Hausserman conditional admission pursuant to SCR 40.075(1). 
We accept the Board's determination that conditional admission 
pursuant to SCR 40.075(1) was not appropriate here.  
There is a difference between "conditional admission" and 
"admission with conditions." "Conditional admission" is an 
option set forth in SCR 40.075 that the Board may offer to 
certain applicants.  This option requires the applicant enter a 
contract in which the applicant agrees to abide by certain 
conditions during the initial years of law practice.  For 
example, an applicant with a record of substance abuse who can 
document ongoing recovery might agree to maintain sobriety and 
submit to random chemical testing for a period of time. 
Conditional admission is confidential.  If the applicant 
successfully completes the terms of the contract, the conditions 
expire.  
"Admission with conditions" may occur if the Board renders 
an adverse determination and the applicant seeks supreme court 
review.  If this court determines that the applicant has 
sufficiently satisfied character and fitness requirements, this 
court may order the Board to certify the applicant for 
admission.  The court may also impose certain conditions on the 
applicant's practice of law, typically for a limited period of 
time.  These conditions are imposed by the court, as opposed to 
the Board, and are a matter of public record.  See, e.g., In re 
Bar Admission of Jarrett, 2016 WI 39, 368 Wis. 2d 567, 879 
N.W.2d 116. 
No. 
2018AP644-BA   
 
11 
 
¶27 The Board maintains that Mr. Hausserman's defiance of 
law school officials, the police, and a court order reflects a 
repeated and blatant disregard for authority and the rule of law 
that should preclude his admission to practice law.  Although 
Mr. Hausserman took issue with the Board's characterization of 
certain matters at oral argument, the underlying facts are not 
really in dispute.  Mr. Hausserman says that what occurred in 
2015 was a brief, unfortunate, emotional episode in his life 
that is not likely to recur and does not adversely reflect on 
his ability to practice law.  He emphasizes that his record 
reflects no issues with honesty, probity, or truthfulness.  He 
suggests that however wrongful his behavior with B.F. may have 
been, it involved motivations and circumstances "which are 
entirely unrelated to the practice of law."   
¶28 Mr. Hausserman acknowledges that he could have been 
more forthcoming on his bar application, but says he thought the 
Board had received all of the information because he had 
supplied his entire student record.  He disputes the Board's 
conclusion with respect to character, arguing that while that is 
no excuse for the mistakes he made, the circumstances underlying 
Mr. Hausserman's behavior should have been considered in 
assessing whether his conduct bears on his character and fitness 
to practice law.  He argues that the Board did not give weight 
to Mr. Hausserman's explanation for his actions.   
¶29 Mr. Hausserman argues that the Board's conclusion of 
law 
is 
not 
supported 
by 
the 
record 
and, 
moreover, 
is 
inconsistent with this court's resolution of other bar admission 
No. 
2018AP644-BA   
 
12 
 
cases.  Mr. Hausserman correctly reminds this court that we 
have, on occasion, overruled the Board and admitted certain 
applicants despite troubling conduct. 
¶30 We have carefully reviewed the facts of these unique 
cases and have concluded that, on the record before us, 
Mr. Hausserman cannot be admitted to their ranks.   
¶31 The facts of these cases vary greatly.  One applicant 
had been convicted of theft in college and also admitted taking 
personal items from an employer.  She had multiple unpaid 
traffic tickets and an ordinance citation for disorderly conduct 
that occurred during her third year of law school.  Rippl, 250 
Wis. 2d 519. 
 
Her 
eventual 
admission 
by 
this 
court 
was 
predicated on evidence that she had undergone treatment for 
depression, demonstrated an excellent work ethic, offered 
glowing recommendations, undertaken extensive community service, 
and more than four years had passed since she had first sought 
admission to the bar.  Id. at ¶¶33-38. 
¶32 Another applicant failed to disclose that she had been 
involved with a series of alcohol-related incidents in college, 
including argumentative run-ins with police and university 
authorities.  In re Bar Admission of Vanderperren, 2003 WI 37, 
261 Wis. 2d 150, 661 N.W.2d 27.  We admitted her after she had, 
sua sponte, corrected omissions on her law school application, 
undergone an AODA evaluation, produced reports showing that 
alcohol was not a continuing problem and she was "in full 
remission," had been admitted to practice law in Minnesota, and 
some five years had elapsed since her last problematic incident. 
No. 
2018AP644-BA   
 
13 
 
¶33 Another applicant had been charged with inappropriate 
sexual contact with two women that occurred at a social 
gathering with colleagues from work.  He was acquitted, but 
agreed to resign from his employment with the police department. 
In re Bar Admission of Anderson, 2006 WI 57, ¶26, 290 
Wis. 2d 722, 715 N.W.2d 586.  The court admitted him, noting 
that he had voluntarily undergone an alcohol assessment, sought 
counseling, and worked, all before attending law school, and his 
record had been unblemished for some six years when he sought 
admission to the bar.  
¶34 Another applicant committed academic misconduct during 
and after his first year in law school, falsifying a resume and 
inflating his grades, then failed to disclose several serious 
traffic infractions on his bar application.  In re Bar Admission 
of Jarrett, 2016 WI 39, 368 Wis. 2d 567, 879 N.W.2d 116.  We 
admitted him, with conditions, noting that he had completed 
unpaid legal internships and meaningful legal volunteer work 
serving 
economically 
challenged 
clients, 
offered 
glowing 
recommendations that emphasized his work ethic, judgment, and 
his compassion, and nearly four years had elapsed since his 
academic misconduct. 
¶35 Most recently, we admitted an applicant who had 
submitted a heavily plagiarized paper in law school, failed a 
required Professional Responsibility class, and failed to report 
three underage drinking citations on his law school application.  
In re Bar Admission of Nichols, 2017 WI 55, 375 Wis. 2d 439, 895 
N.W.2d 831.  We admitted him, with conditions, influenced by the 
No. 
2018AP644-BA   
 
14 
 
fact that employers who work closely with him speak highly of 
him as an individual, and of his work ethic.  We were strongly 
influenced by the fact that the professor of the class in which 
the applicant committed academic misconduct supported his 
admission to the bar, noting that the applicant had been 
"forthright 
in 
acknowledging 
his 
errors 
and 
accepting 
responsibility."  Approximately three years had elapsed between 
the academic misconduct and his admission. 
¶36 Crucial to these decisions are several common factors 
that are not present in the record before us.  These factors 
include excellent character references, particularly from people 
who are aware of the troubling conduct compromising the 
application.  These cases also include some affirmative evidence 
of rehabilitation.  In some cases, where mental health or 
substance abuse issues may have been causally related to the 
underlying conduct, and the applicant provided evidence of 
having sought and pursued counseling or treatment.  In other 
cases the applicant has demonstrated an interest in and 
commitment to the community, through the investment of time 
which also speaks to character.  And, a critical factor is the 
passage of time.  As time passes with no concerning conduct, we 
are increasingly likely to be persuaded that the applicant has 
addressed whatever concerns initially precluded admission. 
¶37 As of the date of oral argument, three years have 
elapsed since the last incident involving B.F. and there is no 
evidence of any other concerning conduct during this period.  
This reflects favorably on Mr. Hausserman.  However, given the 
No. 
2018AP644-BA   
 
15 
 
severity of his misconduct, which includes violation of a court 
order, it is a relatively short period of time compared with the 
cases noted above.  Some additional unblemished time is 
warranted.  Mr. Hausserman offered two character references from 
people who speak well of him.  Again, this is commendable; 
however, there was some question as to whether these individuals 
were wholly informed of the matters of concern.  These 
recommendations are not on par with the highly persuasive 
recommendations submitted on behalf of Nichols, Rippl, and 
Jarrett. 
¶38 We are satisfied that the Board considered all 
relevant facets of Mr. Hausserman's application including the 
seriousness of Mr. Hausserman's conduct, his lack of candor in 
the 
admission 
process, 
and 
lack 
of 
evidence 
of 
his 
rehabilitation. 
In 
re 
Bar 
Admission 
of 
Saganski, 
226 
Wis. 2d 678, 595 N.W.2d 631 (1999).  The evidence supports the 
Board's determination that Mr. Hausserman omitted material 
information from his application by initially failing to advise 
the Board of the B.F. incident in law school.  It also supports 
the Board's conclusion that Mr. Hausserman sought to minimize 
his concerning conduct, by submitting incomplete and/or flippant 
disclosures. 
¶39 The record before us contains several factors that are 
a cause for concern as set forth in BA 6.02 and BA 6.03, 
particularly the existence of unlawful conduct (BA 6.02(a)), 
concealment 
and 
nondisclosure 
of 
information 
on 
his 
bar 
application 
(BA 
6.02(c)), 
violation 
of 
a 
court 
order 
No. 
2018AP644-BA   
 
16 
 
(BA 6.02(h)), and denial of admission in Iowa on character and 
fitness grounds (BA 6.02(k)).  We have considered these factors 
with reference to the recency of the conduct (BA 6.03(b)), the 
seriousness 
of 
the 
conduct 
(BA 
6.03(d)), 
evidence 
of 
rehabilitation (BA 6.03(f)), the applicant's candor in the 
admissions process (BA 6.03(g)), and the material nature of the 
omissions 
(BA 
6.03(h)), 
and 
we 
are 
not 
persuaded 
that 
Mr. Hausserman can be safely admitted to the practice of law, 
even with the cautionary imposition of certain conditions.   
¶40 We thus determine that the Board properly concluded, 
on the basis of facts that have not been shown to be clearly 
erroneous, that Mr. Hausserman failed to meet his burden under 
SCR 40.07 to establish the requisite moral character and fitness 
to practice law "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."  Accordingly, we affirm the Board's 
decision declining to certify Mr. Hausserman for admission to 
the Wisconsin bar. 
¶41 In closing, we observe that nothing in SCR 40.04 or 
elsewhere in SCR Ch. 40 precludes Mr. Hausserman from again 
seeking admission to this bar when he believes he can 
demonstrate his character and fitness to the satisfaction of the 
Board and this court.  See Saganski, 226 Wis. 2d 678, 680; In re 
Bar Admission of Radtke, 230 Wis. 2d 254, 268-69, 601 N.W.2d 642 
(1999).   
No. 
2018AP644-BA   
 
17 
 
¶42 IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Board of Bar 
Examiners declining to certify that Daniel R. Hausserman has 
satisfied the requirements for admission to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin is affirmed. 
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the documents submitted under 
seal are deemed confidential, and will be maintained under seal 
until further order of the court. 
 
No. 
2018AP644-BA   
 
 
 
1