The Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted a referee’s recommendation and reinstated an attorney who had been suspended for three years in the wake of a federal mail fraud conviction.  The court noted that the victim and his former law firm had vigorously opposed reinstatement. The court related the findings:

 Although the referee recommended that Attorney…’s license be reinstated, the referee identified several areas of concern.  First, the referee noted that Attorney…’s former law firm strongly opposes reinstatement.  Second, the referee commented that since Attorney…entered a guilty plea in the criminal case and he entered into a stipulation, resulting in the suspension of his law license in the attorney disciplinary case, there was never a trial or a hearing which examined his criminal conduct.  The referee said when he questioned Attorney…during the reinstatement hearing as to how he could claim he simply made errors in judgment and omission, as compared to undertaking deliberate actions for his own selfish financial purposes, his answers were ambiguous. 

The referee said while it was not his job to second-guess the resolution of the criminal case or the facts to which Attorney…stipulated which led to his three-year suspension, it was the referee’s opinion that Attorney..did much more than simply make errors in judgment or omission as he claims.  The referee said such an inquiry was relevant on the issue of Attorney…s fitness to be reinstated to the practice of law since it relates not only to his “understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar,” but it also bears upon whether he can “safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of the courts.” 

The referee said:

Given [his] exemplary conduct since his criminal activities, I do not believe any of the concerns I noted above rise to the level of preventing his reinstatement at this time.  Despite his criminal conduct, [he] has done everything possible since his criminal conduct became known to comply with all federal orders and judgments, and all Wisconsin Supreme Court rules.  In addition, as the federal court noted, [He] went beyond simply complying with court orders, given that he also affirmatively sought to cooperate in every manner possible with federal authorities.

[He] has repeatedly accepted full responsibility for his criminal activities.  While he is loath to characterize his criminal conduct as involving deliberate acts of a fraudulent nature, he has fulfilled all the obligations imposed on him by the federal court.  He has also fulfilled all the conditions precedent for reinstatement under Wisconsin Supreme Court rules.

In relation to the missed restitution payment, I note the substantial amounts he has already paid in restitution, fines and costs, at both the federal and state level.  I also note the current economy, given that [his] source of funds for most payments have been primarily from his personal real estate investments.  Bielinski Brothers [the victim] presumably has recourse under the civil settlement agreement if all payments are not ultimately made by [him].

Although we share some of the concerns raised by the referee, particularly MBF’s and the Bielinskis’ strong opposition to the reinstatement petition, there is no basis on which to find that the referee’s factual findings were clearly erroneous.  Since the referee’s conclusions of law flow from those factual findings, we agree that Attorney… should be reinstated to the practice of law in this state…