Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin M. Kelsay
Citation: 2004 WI 22
Docket Number: 1988AP002087-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: March 16, 2004

2004 WI 22 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
88-2087-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kevin M. Kelsay, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board  
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Kevin M. Kelsay,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
REINSTATEMENT OF KELSAY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 16, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
ROGGENSACK, J., dissents.  
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2004 WI 22 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This order is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
 
 
 
No.  88-2087-D  
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kevin M. Kelsay, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board  
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Kevin M. Kelsay,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 16, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
Attorney Kevin M. Kelsay was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1984.  On June 4, 1990, his license to practice law 
in Wisconsin was suspended for three years for professional 
misconduct. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kelsay, 155 Wis. 2d 
480, 455 N.W.2d 871 (1990).  On June 3, 2002, Attorney Kelsay 
filed a petition for reinstatement.  However, on August 23, 
2002, while the reinstatement proceeding was pending, the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a new complaint against 
Attorney Kelsay, alleging he had engaged in the practice of law 
while his license was under suspension in violation of SCR 
20:5.5(a) and SCR 22.26(2). The petition for reinstatement was 
stayed pending resolution of this complaint. 
 
No. 88-2087-D   
 
2 
On November 12, 2003, this court suspended Attorney 
Kelsay’s license for an additional period of six months, in 
connection with findings he had engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kelsay, 2003 
WI 141.  
 
On December 22, 2003, the referee issued the report and 
recommendation on the reinstatement petition.  The referee 
recommended the petition be denied.  Neither Attorney Kelsay nor 
the OLR appealed this recommendation on the merits, however 
Attorney Kelsay has filed a letter objecting to the OLR’s 
statement of costs associated with the reinstatement proceeding, 
which total $20,317.81. 
 
 We adopt the referee’s report and recommendation and agree 
that Attorney Kelsay’s petition for reinstatement should be 
denied.   He has failed to establish the requirements for 
reinstatement set forth in SCR 22.29.  As the referee cogently 
stated: 
 
. . . Mr. Kelsay’s continuing pattern of conduct 
in the matters discussed above, which span the 
entire 
time 
since 
he 
was 
eligible 
for 
reinstatement 
demonstrate 
that 
Mr. 
Kelsay’s 
petition for reinstatement should be denied.  Mr. 
Kelsay has not been entirely honest in his 
dealings with others, he has demonstrated a 
willingness to file frivolous claims on several 
occasions, he has engaged in the practice of law 
on at least two occasions, and has generally 
acted in a manner that is not befitting a member 
of the Wisconsin Bar.  For these reasons, I 
recommend 
that 
Mr. 
Kelsay’s 
petition 
for 
reinstatement be denied. 
 
Report and recommendation at 20-21. 
  
Attorney Kelsay objects to the assessment of costs against 
him on the grounds that he lacks the financial resources to pay 
the costs.  He has also questioned the OLR’s authority to impose 
costs in this proceeding.  This court may assess costs in 
reinstatement proceedings where the respondent has been denied 
reinstatement. See SCR 22.24; In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Eisenberg, 122 Wis.2d 627, 632, 363 N.W.2d 430 (1985). 
Attorney Kelsay has not made specific objections regarding the 
costs assessed in this proceeding.  Therefore, OLR's request for 
costs in the amount of $20,317.81 incurred in this reinstatement 
No. 88-2087-D   
 
3 
proceeding is granted. To the extent that Attorney Kelsay 
demonstrates that he is unable to pay the costs imposed upon 
him, 
that 
will 
be 
considered 
in 
future 
reinstatement 
proceedings.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Harman, 2003 WI 45, 261 Wis. 2d 322, 661 N.W.2d 403. 
 
IT 
IS 
ORDERED 
that 
Attorney 
Kelsay’s 
petition 
for 
reinstatement is denied; 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Kelsay’s objection to 
the OLR’s statement of costs is denied; 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of 
this order, Attorney Kevin Kelsay shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this reinstatement proceeding. If 
the costs are not paid within the time specified, and absent a 
showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within 
that time, the license of Kevin Kelsay to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
 
Roggensack J., dissenting as to the imposition of costs. 
 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
No. 88-2087-D   
 
4