Title: Edward Littlejohn v. Board of Bar Examiners
Citation: 2003 WI 36
Docket Number: 2002AP002599-BA
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 13, 2003

2003 WI 36 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-2599-BA 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission of Edward 
Littlejohn: 
 
Edward Littlejohn,  
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
Board of Bar Examiners,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
BAR ADMISSION OF LITTLEJOHN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 13, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
March 6, 2003   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the petitioner there were briefs by Thomas J. Basting, 
Sr. and Brennan Steil Basting & MacDougall, S.C., Janesville, 
and oral argument by Thomas J. Basting, Sr. 
 
For the respondent the cause was argued by Thomas J. 
Balistreri, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief 
was James E. Doyle, attorney general. 
 
 
2003 WI 36 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-2599-BA  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of the Bar Admission 
of Edward Littlejohn: 
 
Edward Littlejohn,  
 
          Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Board of Bar Examiners,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 13, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of Board of Bar Examiners' decision.  Decision 
affirmed.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a review, pursuant to SCR 
40.08(5),1 of the final decision of the Board of Bar Examiners 
(BBE) 
declining 
to 
certify 
that 
the 
petitioner, 
Edward 
Littlejohn, Jr., has satisfied the character and fitness 
requirements for admission to the Wisconsin bar set forth in SCR 
                                                 
1 SCR 40.08(5) provides: "[a] petition to the supreme court 
for review of an adverse determination of the board under this 
rule shall be filed with the clerk within 30 days of the date on 
which the written notice thereof was mailed to the applicant." 
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
2 
 
40.06(1).2  The BBE's final decision dated August 28, 2002, was 
consistent with its earlier "Intent to Deny" letter sent to 
Littlejohn explaining why it was declining to certify him for 
admission to the Wisconsin bar.  The BBE's refusal to certify 
that Littlejohn satisfied the character and fitness requirements 
for admission to the Wisconsin bar was based primarily on 
Littlejohn's conduct and actions during the 24 years he was 
licensed to practice dentistry in the state of Minnesota.  
During that time Littlejohn was the subject of more than 25 
complaints filed with the Minnesota Board of Dentistry.  That 
board in September of 1997, based on Littlejohn’s stipulation, 
suspended Littlejohn's dental license; after a suspension of 
eight months, Littlejohn was reinstated to the practice of 
dentistry in Minnesota in June of 1998 upon certain conditions.   
¶2 
Littlejohn, 
however, 
did 
not 
resume 
his 
dental 
practice; instead, following his May 1999 graduation from the 
William Mitchell College of Law in Minnesota with a J.D. degree, 
and his successful completion in July 1999 of the Minnesota bar 
exam, he applied for admission to the bar in Minnesota.  The 
                                                 
2 SCR 40.06(1) provides: 
(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. 
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
3 
 
Minnesota Board of Law Examiners initially declined to recommend 
his admission to the bar of that state based on that board's 
character and fitness investigation; however, Littlejohn was 
allowed to reapply for admission in Minnesota after a year.  
Littlejohn filed his new application for admission to the 
Minnesota 
bar 
on 
July 
13, 
2001, 
and 
after 
a 
further 
investigation into his character and fitness, he was then 
admitted to practice law in Minnesota on October 23, 2001.  
Littlejohn was also admitted to practice in the Ho-Chunk Nation, 
where he was previously employed as a paralegal and is now 
currently employed as a tribal attorney.   
¶3 
Littlejohn applied for admission to the Wisconsin bar 
on April 26, 2001.  He passed the Wisconsin bar exam in July of 
2001. 
 
After 
conducting 
its 
own 
character 
and 
fitness 
investigation, 
the 
BBE, 
however, 
refused 
to 
certify 
his 
eligibility on character and fitness grounds finding that:  
(1) Littlejohn misrepresented his appearance as a 
speaker at a national dental conference in 1984; 
(2) he was the subject of more than twenty-five 
complaints regarding his practice of dentistry in 
Minnesota; 
(3) he was suspended from the practice of dentistry 
in that state as the result of nine complaints of 
professional misconduct, to which he stipulated; 
those 
complaints 
included 
allegations 
of 
inadequate infection control, fraud, delivery of 
unnecessary dental services and practices beyond 
the scope of his dental license;  
(4) his explanations before the Wisconsin board for 
his misconduct as a dentist showed no remorse and 
attempted to shift the blame for his problems to 
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
4 
 
a 
"turf 
war" 
between 
him 
and 
the 
dental 
establishment in Minnesota;  
(5) although he claimed remorse, at the same time he 
also claimed innocence of the acts for which he 
said he was remorseful;  
(6) he subsequently recanted his stipulation with the 
Minnesota Board of Dentistry, asserting that 30 
to 40 percent of that board's allegations were 
false or misleading; 
(7) his explanation showed no admission of negligence 
or expression of remorse for the injuries he had 
caused his dental patients; and 
(8) he had delayed for more than five years in 
satisfying four civil judgments——unconnected with 
his 
dental 
practice——that 
had 
been 
obtained 
against him. 
¶4 
Based on those specific findings, the BBE concluded 
that Littlejohn's conduct in misrepresenting his appearance at 
the national dental convention, his conduct resulting in the 
suspension of his license to practice dentistry, his abjuration 
of the stipulation of misconduct he had entered into with the 
Minnesota dentistry board and his delay in satisfying several 
civil 
judgments, 
precluded 
the 
BBE 
from 
certifying 
that 
Littlejohn had satisfied his burden to prove that he has the 
character and fitness necessary to practice law in Wisconsin.   
¶5 
On this review Littlejohn contends that many of the 
findings of fact made by the BBE are clearly erroneous and 
therefore should be rejected by this court.  See In re Bar 
Admission of Rusch, 171 Wis. 2d 523, 528-29, 492 N.W.2d 153 
(1992).  Furthermore, he contends that this court must, after 
its de novo review, determine whether the BBE's conclusions of 
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
5 
 
law based on the facts which are not clearly erroneous are 
"proper."  See In re Bar Admission of Rippl, 2002 WI 15, ¶16, 
250 Wis. 2d 519, 529-30, 639 N.W.2d 553; In re Bar Admission of 
Crowe, 141 Wis. 2d 230, 232, 414 N.W.2d 41 (1987).   
¶6 
Specifically, Littlejohn contends that it was clearly 
erroneous for the BBE to either neglect or refuse to consider 
the findings and conclusions of the Minnesota Board of Law 
Examiners——especially since the Minnesota board had only a few 
months earlier admitted him to practice in that state after 
conducting its second investigation into his character and 
fitness and into the same facts considered and relied upon by 
the BBE in refusing to certify his character and fitness for 
admission in Wisconsin.  According to Littlejohn the BBE's 
findings of fact are clearly erroneous and its ultimate 
conclusions of law are not proper.  Thus, he asks this court, 
after its own de novo review, to either order his admission, 
impose 
conditions 
upon 
his 
admission, 
or 
allow 
him 
to 
immediately apply for admission to the Wisconsin bar without 
being required to retake the Wisconsin bar exam.  
¶7 
When this court reviews an adverse determination of 
the BBE pursuant to SCR 40.08(5), it adopts the BBE's findings 
of fact if they are not clearly erroneous.  Then this court 
determines whether the BBE's conclusions of law based on those 
facts are proper.  This court retains the ultimate authority to 
determine who should be admitted to the bar of this state; while 
the BBE's experience in administering the bar admission rules is 
appreciated, 
this 
court 
is 
obligated 
to 
make 
its 
legal 
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
6 
 
determinations de novo.  Bar Admission of Rippl, 2002 WI 15, 
¶¶3, 16.  
¶8 
After our de novo examination of the issues in this 
matter we conclude that the BBE's decision declining to certify 
Littlejohn's character and fitness for purposes of bar admission 
in this state was correct and we adopt it.  In its initial 
"Intent to Deny" letter echoed in its subsequent factual 
findings and conclusions, the BBE was troubled by Littlejohn's 
conduct as a dentist in Minnesota which ultimately resulted in 
his suspension from the practice of dentistry in that state.  We 
agree with the BBE that that behavior, coupled with some of 
Littlejohn's other relevant conduct during that same period, 
demonstrates that he does not possess the appropriate character 
and fitness to be admitted 
to practice 
in 
this 
state.  
Specifically, we find that his conduct during the time he 
practiced dentistry in Minnesota was relevant and supported the 
BBE adverse determination under BA 6.02(d), (f), (g), and (l).3  
                                                 
3 BA 6.02 appended to Chapter 40 of the Wisconsin Supreme 
Court Rules relating to bar admission, identifies relevant 
conduct as follows: 
BA 6.02 Relevant Conduct. The revelation or discovery 
of any of the following should be treated as cause for 
further inquiry before the Board decides whether the 
applicant possesses the character and fitness to 
practice law: 
 . . . . 
(d) acts involving dishonesty or misrepresentation 
 . . . . 
(f) neglect of financial responsibilities  
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
7 
 
We find that many, if not all, of the reasons Littlejohn's 
dental license was suspended can reasonably be related to this 
court's character and fitness standard set out in footnote 3.  
Those reasons referenced Littlejohn’s actions as a dentist 
involving dishonesty or misrepresentation, neglect of financial 
responsibilities, 
and 
neglect 
of 
professional 
obligations.  
Those various acts of misconduct justified the dentistry board’s 
suspension of his dental license and likewise justify the BBE 
recommendation and our conclusion not to admit Littlejohn to the 
practice of law in this state.  
¶9 
When Littlejohn entered into the stipulation and order 
with the Minnesota Board of Dentistry on August 21, 1997, he 
admitted that the facts and conduct specified in a ten-count 
complaint against him filed by that board constituted violations 
of certain Minnesota statutes and rules.4 
¶10 The conduct Littlejohn stipulated to and which formed 
the basis for the dentistry board's complaint and the subsequent 
order suspending his dental license included: 
                                                                                                                                                             
(g) neglect of professional obligations 
 . . . . 
(l) disciplinary 
action 
by 
a 
lawyer 
disciplinary 
agency or other professional disciplinary agency of 
any jurisdiction. 
4 Specifically, Littlejohn stipulated that his conduct as 
alleged in the dentistry board complaint violated Minnesota 
statute § 150A.08.  That statute provides that the dental board 
may suspend a license to practice dentistry upon " . . . fraud 
or 
deception 
in 
connection 
with 
the 
practice 
of 
dentistry . . . ."  (Emphasis added.) 
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
8 
 
 
• Failure to cooperate with the Board of Dentistry, its 
agents, and those working on behalf of the board, 
including 
failure 
to 
produce 
requested 
records, 
refusing to answer questions during interviews, and 
otherwise failing to cooperate with the Board of 
Dentistry's 
investigation 
of 
allegations 
of 
professional misconduct by Littlejohn.  
 
• Provision of substandard dental implant treatment to 
patients. 
 
• Failure 
to 
provide 
appropriate 
prosthodontic 
and 
diagnostic care to patients. 
 
• Failure to provide appropriate endodontic treatment to 
patients.  
 
• Failure to appropriately place restorations.  
 
• Failure 
to 
use 
anesthetics 
and 
sedatives 
appropriately. 
 
• Failure to make or maintain adequate patient records. 
 
• Practiced beyond the legal scope of license as a 
dentist 
by 
providing 
non-dental 
diagnoses 
and/or 
treatment to patients including injecting substances 
in the nose of one patient and the knee of another 
patient and diagnosing dairy allergies for one or more 
patients. 
 
• Failure to maintain adequate safety and sanitary 
conditions for dental office by failure to comply with 
current infection control guidelines. 
 
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
9 
 
• Unprofessional conduct and provision of unnecessary 
services 
to patients, and 
alteration 
of records 
relating to payment for services rendered.5 
¶11 The record before this court reveals that when 
Littlejohn applied for admission to the bar in Minnesota he 
answered 
"yes" to 
the question of 
whether 
he 
had 
been 
disciplined as a member of any other profession.  In the 
narrative he attached to the Minnesota bar application he 
explained that his professional opinions and office policies 
with respect to the use of mercury in dental fillings was part 
of the basis for the dentistry board’s complaint against him. 
¶12 The Minnesota Board of Law Examiner’s investigative 
memorandum, prepared after Littlejohn’s first bar admission 
application had been filed in that state, described Littlejohn’s 
dispute with the dentistry board over this issue as follows: 
                                                 
5 The factual underpinnings for that final count in the 
dentistry board's complaint included Littlejohn's inappropriate 
billing of a patient's insurance company for the removal of a 
nonodontogenic cyst and using a specific code number for the 
service to support the bill even though the patient's treatment 
record indicated another type of service had been provided.  
Also, the dentistry board asserted, and Littlejohn stipulated, 
that he had altered a patient's treatment record at the 
patient's request so that she could claim IRS credit for 
services he had provided.   
Littlejohn subsequently explained that using the wrong code 
number when billing for the removal of a cyst was simply a 
mistake.  He also claimed that he had nothing to do with 
changing dates on the patient's treatment record and that that 
had been done without his knowledge by one of his dental office 
employees who was subsequently discharged.   
  
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
10 
 
 . . . the use of liquid mercury in dental fillings is 
far and away the norm.  In fact, there are very few 
practitioners in the United States who do not use 
mercury. 
 
Dr. 
Littlejohn 
was 
one 
of 
those 
practitioners.  According to [an assistant attorney 
general in Minnesota], it was not uncommon for Dr. 
Littlejohn to convince patients who had liquid mercury 
in dental fillings that this was a hazard to their 
health and those fillings should be removed and he 
should 
replace 
those 
fillings 
with 
implants.  
Obviously, 
this is 
an 
extremely 
complicated and 
expensive 
procedure 
and 
very profitable 
for Dr. 
Littlejohn.  In the process, as indicated in the 
stipulation, many patients suffered adverse effects.  
Complaints from these patients caused the Board of 
Dentistry to begin the investigation that resulted in 
Dr. Littlejohn's suspension . . . . 
¶13 This theme was echoed by Assistant Attorney General 
Thomas Balistreri in oral argument before this court on March 6, 
2003.  In response to a question about what activities by 
Littlejohn as a dentist, beyond fraudulent billing, related to 
his character and fitness to practice law, Assistant Attorney 
General Balistreri responded as follows: 
 . . . the way he was fraudulent is this . . . .   He 
had patients who had perfectly good silver mercury 
amalgam fillings in their teeth . . . .  There is a 
debate in the dental community over whether silver 
amalgam fillings are safe.  Most dentists would say 
they are.  Some dentists say they are not.  But the 
point 
is . . . if 
you’re 
going 
to . . . say 
that 
silver amalgam filling is unsafe and needs to be 
replaced, what do you do to replace it?  You drill the 
old filling out and put in a non-metallic plastic 
filling . . . .  Well, that’s not what Dr. Littlejohn 
did . . . he didn’t just replace the filling.  He took 
out the whole tooth, a perfectly good tooth and 
replaced it with a dental implant which costs big 
bucks.  That’s a rip-off.  That’s fraud.  He told 
these people they needed these dental implants when 
they didn’t need dental implants.  And on top of it, 
not only did he put in dental implants that these 
patients didn’t need, but he did it badly . . . .   
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
11 
 
¶14 Littlejohn's 
attorney 
did 
not 
respond 
to 
this 
description of Littlejohn’s behavior in his rebuttal argument.  
¶15 On this review Littlejohn asserts that many of the 
BBE's findings are clearly erroneous and not supported by the 
record.  For example, he contends that the BBE finding that he 
had misrepresented his appearance as a speaker at a national 
dental conference, which the BBE viewed as relevant conduct 
under 
BA 
6.02(d) 
as 
an 
act 
involving 
dishonesty 
or 
misrepresentation, is not supported by the record.  Littlejohn 
explains that 1984 situation and notes that it occurred almost 
20 years ago; in any event, he notes that the Minnesota 
dentistry 
board 
had 
cautioned 
him 
about 
his 
misleading 
statements concerning the conference as reported in a newspaper 
article at the time.  According to Littlejohn that newspaper 
article was wrong and, therefore, the BBE's finding that he had 
intentionally misrepresented his appearance at that national 
dental conference was clearly erroneous. 
¶16 Significantly, Littlejohn does not challenge the BBE's 
finding that he had been the subject of more than 25 complaints 
to the Minnesota dentistry board about his practice of dentistry 
in that state, and that he had been suspended from the practice 
of dentistry after he admitted to those complaints.  He does 
complain, however, that the BBE failed to acknowledge that the 
dentistry board subsequently reinstated Littlejohn's license 
upon his completion of the conditions that board had imposed.  
Moreover, Littlejohn contends that the BBE's findings are 
"amazingly silent" on any reference to the fact that the 
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
12 
 
Minnesota Board of Law Examiners, after fully and completely 
investigating and considering Littlejohn's prior history as a 
practicing 
dentist, 
ultimately 
certified 
Littlejohn 
for 
admission to the bar of Minnesota.   
¶17 Littlejohn also complains that the BBE in its findings 
referred to "letters of recommendation" he had appended to his 
Wisconsin application when what he had actually submitted with 
that application were affidavits from eight separate individuals 
attesting to his character and abilities.  He maintains that 
these affidavits were not letters of recommendation and that in 
any event, the BBE ignored them when considering Littlejohn's 
character and fitness.6 
                                                 
6 Two days before the oral argument in this matter the 
Executive Director of the BBE filed a motion to supplement the 
record before this court with an affidavit dated February 28, 
2003, from Leslie Parker Cohan, a tribal attorney with the Ho-
Chunk Nation Department of Justice.  In this affidavit Ms. Cohan 
contradicted her previous affidavit of January 23, 2002, which 
was one of the eight affidavits Littlejohn had appended to his 
bar application.  In her prior affidavit Ms. Cohan asserted that 
she had "no reservations" with respect to Littlejohn's character 
and fitness to practice law in this state.  In the new 
affidavit, however, Ms. Cohan asserted that her answer to the 
question of whether she would want Littlejohn to be a licensed 
attorney in the state of Wisconsin would now be a "resounding 
no."   
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
13 
 
¶18 Littlejohn also challenges the BBE's finding that he 
showed no remorse for his unprofessional acts as a dentist.  He 
insists that finding was clearly erroneous——especially the BBE's 
assertion that Littlejohn's "first" expression of remorse came 
at the hearing before the BBE on his petition for admission to 
the bar of this state.  According to Littlejohn some of the 
affidavits he attached to that petition reflected that he 
expressed "sincere remorse" for the prior incidents that led to 
the suspension of his dental license, yet, he believes the BBE 
ignored those affidavits.  Littlejohn contends that the BBE's 
finding that his "first expression of remorse came at [the] 
hearing" is not supported by the record and is therefore clearly 
erroneous.  
¶19 Littlejohn also explains his testimony before the BBE 
in which he asserted that he thought that 30 to 40 percent of 
                                                                                                                                                             
Because this new affidavit was filed only days before the 
scheduled oral argument in this matter, this court gave 
Littlejohn an opportunity to file a response addressing whether 
this court should accept this new affidavit.  In his response he 
objected to this court considering this new affidavit and 
suggested that to be fair, he should be given an opportunity to 
file a counter-affidavit.  Assistant Attorney General Balistreri 
filed a reply arguing that this court could properly consider 
Ms. Cohan’s new affidavit because it is relevant, withdraws Ms. 
Cohan's previous opinion, and therefore prevents the members of 
this court from being misled by a view that is no longer valid.  
Although the procedural appropriateness of this last minute 
filing of a new affidavit with this court is questionable, we 
need not resolve this procedural skirmish in the context of this 
case because we view this new affidavit as simply an affidavit 
withdrawing 
Ms. 
Cohan’s 
prior 
affidavit. 
 
Under 
these 
circumstances we give no weight to either affidavit. 
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
14 
 
the allegations made against him by the Minnesota Board of 
Dentistry's complaint were false or misleading and therefore 
defensible from his standpoint.  According to Littlejohn, he 
stipulated to that complaint because he thought that if he did 
not do so, his dental license would be revoked, not simply 
suspended.  Littlejohn maintains that he entered into that 
negotiated settlement with the dentistry board not necessarily 
because he had actually committed all the acts of misconduct as 
alleged by the dentistry board, but simply because he wanted to 
avoid a harsher penalty he feared would be imposed if he mounted 
a defense to the dentistry board’s complaint.   
¶20 On this review Littlejohn also explains circumstances 
surrounding several civil complaints that resulted in judgments 
against him between 1978 and 1994, a fact that the BBE noted in 
its findings.  However, according to Littlejohn, the BBE ignored 
the fact that those judgments had been satisfied and that he had 
fully explained each one of those incidents in his various 
submissions and testimony before the BBE.   
¶21 While Littlejohn vigorously presents these challenges 
to the BBE decision in this matter, the centerpiece of his 
arguments on this review is his claim that the BBE improperly 
ignored the fact that the Minnesota Board of Law Examiners had 
only months before investigated Littlejohn's character and 
fitness and admitted him to the bar in that state.  Littlejohn 
contends that the BBE ignored that determination as well as the 
Ho-Chunk Nation's subsequent decision admitting him to practice 
as a tribal attorney.  Littlejohn urges this court to hold that 
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
15 
 
when a board of bar examiners in a sister state has conducted a 
character and fitness investigation into the same facts being 
investigated by the BBE, the BBE must take into account the 
results of the investigation conducted in the other state.  
Furthermore, if the BBE's findings and conclusions differ from 
those results and conclusions of the other state, then, 
according to Littlejohn, the BBE should be required to express 
"its compelling reasons" for its disagreement.7 
¶22 In essence, Littlejohn is asking this court to create 
a rebuttable presumption and require the Wisconsin BBE to 
explain, on the record, its "compelling reasons" for rejecting a 
sister state's favorable determination of the applicant's quest 
to be admitted to the practice of law in the other state.  We 
decline to do so.  Although we respect the other state’s 
determination, we refuse to accord it any controlling weight 
here.  There is no presumption that an applicant for admission 
to the Wisconsin bar has the appropriate character and fitness 
                                                 
7 A similar argument was considered by this court in In re 
Bar Admission of Vanderperren, 2003 WI 37, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ 
N.W.2d ___, being released today.  In Vanderperren we agreed 
that if it is a relevant fact for the BBE to consider that an 
applicant has been denied admission in another state on 
character and fitness grounds, see BA 6.02(k), then the converse 
should also be true——i.e., that a successful application in 
another state should also be considered relevant by the 
Wisconsin BBE.  Id., ¶57.   
However, Littlejohn's arguments, as we understand them, go 
beyond Vanderperren; he would have us create a rebuttable 
presumption requiring the Wisconsin BBE to identify "compelling 
reasons" for rejecting another state's favorable decision on the 
applicant's petition to be admitted to practice in that state.   
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
16 
 
to be admitted.  Rather, as we said in In re Bar Admission of 
Rippl, 2002 WI 15, 250 Wis. 2d 519, ¶15, a candidate for 
admission to the bar of this state bears the burden of proof to 
establish his or her qualifications as set forth in SCR 40.02.  
The BBE’s job is to examine the qualifications of applicants and 
certify to this court those applicants whose character and 
fitness qualify them for admission to the Wisconsin bar.  Id., 
¶¶3, 15.  For those applicants who satisfy the BBE that they are 
fit to practice law, the BBE's determination is final.  Id., ¶3.  
Such 
applicants 
are 
then 
admitted 
to 
practice 
on 
the 
certification of the BBE alone without further review by this 
court.  Id. 
¶23 Under this procedural scenario there is no room for a 
presumption in favor of finding that an applicant possesses the 
requisite character and fitness simply because a sister state 
has already so determined.  It is entirely appropriate for the 
BBE to take into account the favorable decision made by the 
other state, but we see no reason to require the BBE to 
expressly discuss or reject the other state's determinations.  
While the other state’s decision may be a relevant factor, the 
BBE should be free to accord it whatever weight the BBE deems 
appropriate. 
¶24 Moreover, because the BBE's favorable determination 
that an applicant meets the character and fitness requirements 
is final and not reviewable by this court, any omission by the 
BBE to consider this type of relevant information is correctible 
by this court's independent, de novo review of an adverse 
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
17 
 
determination by the BBE as in this case.  Thus, even if the BBE 
wholly ignored the Minnesota Board of Law Examiners' ultimately 
favorable determination of Littlejohn's character and fitness, 
we have considered that board’s decision on our review in this 
matter and we have drawn our own inferences from the undisputed 
documentary evidence.  See In re Bar Admission of Altshuler, 171 
Wis. 2d 1, 15-16 n.2, 490 N.W.2d 1 (1992) (Abrahamson, J. 
dissenting).  Based on our independent review of the record—— 
including 
Littlejohn’s 
favorable 
character 
and 
fitness 
evaluation made by the Minnesota Board of Law Examiners——we find 
that 
board's 
reasons for 
initially 
rejecting 
Littlejohn's 
application for admission to the bar of that state on character 
and fitness grounds to be more persuasive in this matter.  The 
undisputed——and 
in 
fact, 
stipulated——facts 
leading 
to 
Littlejohn’s dental license suspension inform our decision with 
respect to his character and fitness to practice law in this 
state.  We agree with the Minnesota Board of Law Examiner’s 
initial decision that Littlejohn’s professional misconduct as a 
dentist demonstrated his neglect of professional obligations, 
and 
constituted 
acts 
of 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation, any of which would be a sufficient reason to 
preclude a favorable finding regarding his character and 
fitness.  Littlejohn’s stipulation with the dentistry board 
established that his wide ranging dental malpractice endangered 
his 
patients; 
moreover, 
his 
admitted 
acts 
of 
fraud, 
misrepresentation, 
and 
performance 
of 
unnecessary 
dental 
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
18 
 
services 
demonstrate Littlejohn’s lack 
of 
the 
appropriate 
character and fitness to practice law in this state.   
¶25 The fact that the Minnesota Board of Law Examiners 
subsequently found Littlejohn possessed the requisite character 
and fitness to be admitted in that state does not mean that this 
court must follow suit.  We are especially troubled by 
Littlejohn’s obvious attempt in his application and testimony 
before the BBE to renounce his stipulation with the Minnesota 
Board of Dentistry.  While that may have been, as Littlejohn now 
claims, simply a negotiated agreement intended to minimize his 
penalty exposure before the dentistry board, we think it 
unseemly for him to now claim that 30 to 40 percent of the 
allegations made against him by the dentistry board were without 
foundation or were the result of his strained relations with the 
dental 
profession 
caused 
by 
differing 
opinions 
regarding 
appropriate treatment procedures.  The fact is that Littlejohn 
stipulated that he committed fraud, misrepresentation, and 
performed unnecessary dental services.  These admitted acts, we 
believe, reflect poorly on his character and fitness to practice 
law here and we decline to now excuse that behavior.  Despite 
the fact that the Minnesota Board of Law Examiners ultimately 
concluded that Littlejohn had been rehabilitated, we find 
insufficient evidence of such rehabilitation in this record.  
Accordingly, 
we 
affirm 
the 
BBE's 
determination 
and 
deny 
Littlejohn's application to be admitted to the practice of law 
in this state.  
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
19 
 
¶26 Because our conclusion is 
based 
on 
Littlejohn's 
stipulated 
dental 
professional 
misconduct, 
we 
deem 
it 
unnecessary to address Littlejohn's specific challenges to the 
other findings made by the BBE in this case.  Our independent de 
novo review of this record leads us to agree with the BBE's 
ultimate conclusion that Littlejohn does not possess the 
character and fitness to be admitted to practice of law in this 
state. 
¶27 IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Board of Bar 
Examiners is affirmed and the application of Edward Littlejohn 
to be admitted to the practice of law in this state is denied.
No. 
02-2599-BA   
 
 
 
1