Court Opinion

ID: 9389263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 13:10:25.970327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:26.129794
License: Public Domain

2023 WI 32

                  SUPREME COURT         OF   WISCONSIN
CASE NO.:              2022AP1916-D

COMPLETE TITLE:        In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
                       Against Kevin R. Rosin, Attorney at Law:

                       Office of Lawyer Regulation,
                                 Complainant,
                            v.
                       Kevin R. Rosin,
                                 Respondent.

                            DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ROSIN

OPINION FILED:         April 25, 2023
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
   COURT:
   COUNTY:
   JUDGE:

JUSTICES:
Per Curiam.
NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:
                                                                     2023 WI 32
                                                             NOTICE
                                               This opinion is subject to further
                                               editing and modification.   The final
                                               version will appear in the bound
                                               volume of the official reports.
No.   2022AP1916-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN                         :            IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against

Kevin R. Rosin, Attorney at Law:

                                                                  FILED
Office of Lawyer Regulation,                                 APR 25, 2023
             Complainant,                                       Sheila T. Reiff
                                                             Clerk of Supreme Court
      v.

Kevin R. Rosin,

             Respondent.

      ATTORNEY    disciplinary   proceeding.           Attorney’s        license

suspended.

      ¶1     PER CURIAM.     We review a stipulation filed by the

Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Kevin R. Rosin

pursuant to SCR 22.12.1     In the stipulation, Attorney Rosin does

      1   SCR 22.12 provides as follows:

                                                                   (continued)
                                                                 2022AP1916-D

not   contest     that   he   committed     two    acts     of   professional

misconduct as alleged by the OLR in its complaint against him.

Attorney Rosin also does not contest that a one-year suspension

of his Wisconsin law license is appropriate discipline for his

misconduct.

      ¶2   Upon    careful    review   of   the   matter,   we   approve   the

stipulation and suspend Attorney Rosin’s law license for one

     (1) The director may file with the complaint a stipulation
of the director and the respondent to the facts, conclusions of
law regarding misconduct, and discipline to be imposed, together
with a memorandum in support of the stipulation. The respondent
may file a response to the director’s memorandum within 14 days
of the date of filing of the stipulation. The supreme court may
consider the complaint and stipulation without the appointment
of a referee, in which case the supreme court may approve the
stipulation, reject the stipulation, or direct the parties to
consider specific modifications to the stipulation.

     (2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, it shall
adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law and impose the
stipulated discipline.

     (3) If the supreme court rejects a stipulation, a referee
shall be appointed and the matter shall proceed as a complaint
filed without a stipulation.

     (3m) If the supreme court directs the parties to consider
specific modifications to the stipulation, the parties may,
within 20 days of the date of the order, file a revised
stipulation, in which case the supreme court may approve the
revised stipulation, adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions
of law, and impose the stipulated discipline. If the parties do
not file a revised stipulation within 20 days of the date of the
order, a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall proceed
as a complaint filed without a stipulation.

     (4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court has no
evidentiary value and is without prejudice to the respondent’s
defense of the proceeding or the prosecution of the complaint.

                                       2
                                                                              2022AP1916-D

year.     We do not order any restitution, as none was requested by

the OLR.       Because this matter has been resolved by a stipulation

under    SCR    22.12      without      the   need    for      the   appointment        of   a

referee, we impose no costs on Attorney Rosin.

    ¶3         The facts of this disciplinary matter, as stipulated

by Attorney Rosin, are as follows.                    Attorney Rosin was admitted

to the practice of law in Wisconsin in May 2004.                              He does not

have an address on file with the State Bar of Wisconsin.                                   The

most recent address known to the OLR is in Cedarburg, Wisconsin.

Attorney       Rosin       has    not    previously           been     the     subject       of

professional discipline.

    ¶4         At the time of the events giving rise to this matter,

Attorney Rosin was a lawyer at an intellectual property law firm

located    in       Illinois     (hereafter,      “the      firm”).          The   terms     of

Attorney Rosin’s employment at the firm required him to provide

and bill all legal and patent-related services through the firm.

    ¶5         On    May   3,    2021,   Attorney      Rosin     formed       a    Wisconsin

limited    liability         company     dedicated       to    providing       patent      law
services (hereafter, “the Wisconsin LLC”).                           He did not inform

anyone    at    the     firm     that    he   had     formed     the     Wisconsin       LLC.

Attorney       Rosin       understood     that       forming     the     Wisconsin         LLC

violated the terms of his employment with the firm.

    ¶6         On approximately May 6, 2021, Attorney Rosin solicited

one of the firm’s clients, C.G.J., to become a client of the

Wisconsin LLC.         On May 10, 2021, C.G.J. hired Attorney Rosin to

perform    patent-related           services        through      the    Wisconsin        LLC.
Attorney Rosin did not advise C.G.J. to terminate the firm’s
                                              3
                                                                           2022AP1916-D

representation of him, or tell anyone at the firm that he was

providing services to C.G.J. outside of the firm.

      ¶7     Attorney        Rosin    provided    patent-related           services    to

C.G.J.     through     the    Wisconsin    LLC    between      May    10,     2021    and

November 2021.        C.G.J. paid the Wisconsin LLC $82,501 for those

services.      Attorney Rosin did not report or remit any of the

fees to the firm upon their receipt.

      ¶8     In addition, on October 21, 2021, Attorney Rosin spoke

with a representative of a company that was not a client of the

firm.       Attorney      Rosin      proposed    that    the    company       hire    the

Wisconsin LLC to provide intellectual property and/or patent-

related services, and he sent the company a proposed engagement

letter for hiring the Wisconsin LLC.                   The company chose not to

retain the Wisconsin LLC’s services.

      ¶9     On November 30, 2021, the founding partners of the

firm asked Attorney Rosin about information they had received

that he was operating the Wisconsin LLC and doing work for at

least one firm client outside of the firm.                     Attorney Rosin told
the   partners     that      he   had   done    some    minimal   consulting         work

independently of the firm for one client, but he denied having

filed patent applications for the client.                      Shortly thereafter,

the     partners      obtained       additional    information            showing    that

Attorney Rosin had filed several patent applications through the

Wisconsin LLC while employed by the firm.                       The partners then

asked      Attorney    Rosin      additional      questions,         at     which    time

Attorney Rosin admitted that he had filed patent applications
for C.G.J. through the Wisconsin LLC while employed by the firm.
                                           4
                                                                  2022AP1916-D

    ¶10     On December 2 and 3, 2021, Attorney Rosin provided the

founding partners of the firm with records showing the work he

had done through the Wisconsin LLC while employed by the firm.

On December 3, 2021, Attorney Rosin sent the firm a check for

$36,914.80, which represented what the firm would have collected

under Attorney Rosin’s compensation formula if the work he had

performed    and    billed   through       the   Wisconsin   LLC    had    been

performed and billed through the firm.

    ¶11     The    above-described   conduct      by   Attorney    Rosin   gave

rise to the two misconduct claims that the OLR brought against

Attorney Rosin in its complaint, which it filed on November 7,

2022.

    Count 1: By forming [the Wisconsin LLC] to advance his
    own financial interests while employed by the firm;
    soliciting a firm client and providing services to
    that client outside the firm; billing, collecting and
    retaining for himself legal fees that should have been
    billed through the firm; soliciting another potential
    client to provide services outside the firm; and
    making misrepresentations to the firm when initially
    confronted with questions about his actions, in each
    instance, [Attorney] Rosin violated SCR 20:8.4(c).[2]

    Count 2: By forming [the Wisconsin LLC] to advance his
    own financial interests while employed by the firm;
    soliciting a firm client and providing services to
    that client outside the firm; billing, collecting and
    retaining for himself legal fees that should have been
    billed through the firm; soliciting another potential
    client to provide services outside the firm; and
    making misrepresentations to the firm when initially

    2  SCR 20:8.4 (c) provides: “It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation.”

                                       5
                                                                            2022AP1916-D

       confronted with questions about his actions, in each
       instance, [Attorney] Rosin breached his fiduciary duty
       to his firm and his duty of honesty in his
       professional dealings with his firm, in violation of
       the standard of conduct set forth in [In re]
       Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shea, 190 Wis. 2d
       560, [527 N.W.2d 314 (1995),3 actionable via] SCR
       20:8.4(f).[4]
       ¶12       Attorney Rosin did not file an answer to the OLR’s

complaint.            On January 24, 2023, however, the OLR and Attorney

Rosin filed a stipulation whereby Attorney Rosin stipulated to

all of the facts alleged and to the two counts of misconduct set

forth in the complaint.

       ¶13       In    the    stipulation,     Attorney    Rosin      states   that    the

stipulation did not result from bargaining, and that he does not

contest         the   facts    and   misconduct       alleged    by   the   OLR   or   the

discipline sought by the OLR.                      Attorney Rosin further states

that       he   fully       understands   the      misconduct    allegations;      fully

understands           the    ramifications      should    this     court    impose     the

stipulated level of discipline; fully understands his right to

contest this matter; and fully understands his right to consult

with counsel.              Attorney Rosin represents that his entry into the

stipulation           is    made   knowingly    and    voluntarily,     and    that    his

       In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shea, 190 Wis. 2d
       3

560, 527 N.W.2d 314 (1995) holds that an attorney has a
fiduciary duty and a duty of honesty in the attorney's
professional dealings with the attorney's law firm.

       SCR 20:8.4(f) provides: “It is professional misconduct for
       4

a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court
order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of
lawyers.”

                                               6
                                                                        2022AP1916-D

entry    into    the    stipulation     represents       his     decision      not    to

contest the misconduct alleged in the complaint or the level and

type of discipline sought by the OLR.

      ¶14   In its memorandum in support of the stipulation, the

OLR   points     to    prior   decisions      in   which    this      court    imposed

significant      suspensions     for   somewhat     analogous         conduct.       See

Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 WI 39,

391 Wis. 2d 196, 942 N.W.2d 302 (imposing a six-month license

suspension on an attorney who converted at least $8,665 in funds

belonging to his law firm for his personal use by failing to

tender billed fees to the firm or by collecting money directly

from the client and writing-off his billable time; attorney had

no      disciplinary       history,      cooperated            with      the     OLR’s

investigation, and expressed sincere remorse); see also In Re

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hotvedt, 2016 WI 93, 372 Wis.

2d 68, 888 N.W.2d 393 (imposing an 18-month license suspension

on an attorney who converted over $173,000 in funds belonging to

his law firm by writing-off fees owed to the firm, depositing
client fee payments directly into his own personal bank account

rather    than   depositing      the   fees    into   the      firm     account,     and

establishing a consulting firm for the purpose of converting

client    fees   owed    to    the   firm;    attorney     had     no   disciplinary

history but failed to cooperate with the OLR’s investigation);

see also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Koenig, 2015 WI

16, 361 Wis. 2d 16, 859 N.W.2d 105 (imposing a two-year license

suspension on an attorney who converted at least $39,920 in
funds belonging to his law firm by directly accepting payments
                                         7
                                                                                2022AP1916-D

for legal work from firm clients or other parties using firm

resources in 37 separate instances without notifying the firm of

such payments, and by periodically falsifying billing statements

that he submitted to the firm).

    ¶15     Although no two disciplinary cases are exactly alike,

Moodie, Hotvedt, and Koenig all establish that misappropriations

of law firm funds will trigger lengthy license suspensions.                                  The

stipulated one-year suspension of Attorney Rosin’s law license

fits comfortably within this precedent.                             We note, too, that

according to the OLR’s memorandum in support of the stipulation,

Attorney Rosin has been subjected to other sanctions for his

misconduct:           The    Director       of       the   Office      of    Enrollment      and

Discipline      of    the     United     States        Patent     and       Trademark    Office

(USPTO) entered into a settlement agreement with Attorney Rosin

related    to     the       same    misconduct         whereby      the      USPTO   publicly

reprimanded       Attorney         Rosin,   ordered        him    to    serve    a   two-year

probationary period, and ordered him to complete four hours of

continuing        legal        education         primarily          concerning          ethics,
fiduciary duty, or a lawyer's duty of candor.                            If Attorney Rosin

fails to comply with the terms of the agreement or any of the

USPTO     Rules       of     Professional            Conduct      during       his   two-year

probationary         period,       he   faces    a     six-month        suspension      of   his

license to practice before the USPTO.5                           We are satisfied that,

    5  We note that this matter is being presented to us as a de
novo disciplinary action, not as a reciprocal disciplinary
matter.    As we explained in In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Strizic, 2015 WI 57, ¶18 n.2, 362 Wis. 2d 659, 864
N.W.2d 869, our rules do not require the OLR “to automatically
                                                     (continued)
                                                 8
                                                               2022AP1916-D

under the totality of the circumstances presented, this court’s

imposition   of   the   stipulated   one-year     suspension   of   Attorney

Rosin’s Wisconsin law license will be sufficient to accomplish

the objectives of the lawyer disciplinary system.

    ¶16    Accordingly, we accept the stipulation and impose the

requested one-year suspension. We do not order restitution; as

mentioned above, the OLR has not requested it, and Attorney

Rosin has voluntarily made restitution of funds owed to the

firm.    Because the stipulation was filed at the outset of this

proceeding, thereby avoiding litigation costs and the need to

appoint a referee, we impose no costs on Attorney Rosin.

    ¶17    IT IS ORDERED that the license of Kevin R. Rosin to

practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year,

effective May 25, 2023.

    ¶18    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kevin R. Rosin shall comply

with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a

person   whose    license   to   practice   law   in   Wisconsin    has   been

suspended.

invoke the reciprocal disciplinary system whenever an attorney
is publicly disciplined in another jurisdiction.”     As relevant
here, SCR 22.22(2) states that upon receiving a certified copy
of a judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing
discipline for misconduct of an attorney admitted to the
practice of law in this state, the OLR director “may” file a
reciprocal discipline complaint. “The statement in SCR 22.22(2)
that the OLR director ‘may’ file a complaint demonstrates that
the director has discretion to file a reciprocal discipline
complaint, to file a de novo disciplinary action, or to take no
action at all.” Strizic, 362 Wis. 2d 659, ¶18 n.2. Here, the
OLR has elected to file a de novo disciplinary action.

                                     9
                                                          2022AP1916-D

    ¶19     IT   IS   FURTHER   ORDERED   that   compliance   with   all

conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See SCR

22.28(3).

                                   10
    No.   2022AP1916-D

1