Court Opinion

ID: 9853836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:56:06.443325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:10.105991
License: Public Domain

DAVID T. PROSSER, J.

{dissenting).

¶ 41. The petitioner is a qualified attorney who was admitted to *265practice in Michigan in 1973. If he had applied for admission in 1999 when he moved to Wisconsin, he would have been eligible for admission under SCR 40.05, based on his corporate practice in Michigan. Although he neglected to seek admission at that time, he nonetheless engaged in corporate practice in Wisconsin from 1999 to 2003, and the court indicates that he is not precluded from continuing such practice now. Majority op., ¶ 33.
¶ 42. Inasmuch as the petitioner could have been admitted without a problem in the past and may continue corporate practice without admission in the future, I see no sensible reason why we should not admit him to the bar and subject him to Wisconsin membership dues, Wisconsin continuing legal education requirements, and Wisconsin discipline. The court has the power to admit Mr. Mostkoff and I would do so. His admission could be conditioned on any reasonable requirement that reinforces the integrity of our rules on reciprocity and education.