Fast And Loose

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ordered a six-month suspension of an attorney whose one-year suspension just concluded

Upon careful review of the matter, we approve the stipulation and suspend Attorney Rosin’s law license for six months, imposed consecutively to his recently expired suspension. Although we do not order restitution, we condition the reinstatement of Attorney Rosin’s law license on his satisfaction of a judgment entered in his former law firm’s civil lawsuit against him in connection with the misconduct described below.

Respondent had been employed at two intellectual property law firms

Neither Firm 1 nor Firm 2 would have authorized Attorney Rosin to violate the firms’ respective policies against outside employment to be simultaneously employed by both firms. In addition, both firms were concerned that simultaneous employment, like Attorney Rosin’s, would prevent them from conducting adequate conflicts checks. For its part, Firm 1’s conflicts check procedures required its staff to screen for conflicts not only by client, but by the subject matter of the representation or patent. Attorney Rosin could not have effectively performed such a conflicts check himself because he would not have known the subject matter of all representations and all patents for clients of Firm 1, especially clients and matters for which other employees of Firm 1 were responsible, which could include hundreds of patent applications for some clients.

This matter came to light when the one-year suspension went public

When the attorney-owner of Firm 1 read Rosin I, he realized that Attorney Rosin had been simultaneously employed by both Firm 1 and Firm 2 in December 2020. The attorney-owner then filed the grievance with the OLR that gave rise to the two misconduct claims that the OLR brought against Attorney Rosin in its complaint, which it filed on January 30, 2024.

He stipulated to the misconduct

The facts and law readily support this requested discipline. Today is the second time in roughly the past year that we must consider suspending Attorney Rosin for playing fast and loose with the truth of the circumstances of his employment. As in Rosin I, these actions were transparently unprofessional——the most basic ethical duty of an attorney is to act with honesty, and simultaneously working for and collecting pay from two unsuspecting law firms that had prohibited outside employment, as Attorney Rosin did here, is patently dishonest. Had we been aware when deciding Rosin I of the misconduct now considered, we are confident we would have imposed an even longer suspension; thus, a consecutively imposed suspension is in order.

Reinstatement condition

We do not order restitution; as mentioned above, the OLR has not requested it, and Attorney Rosin has been obligated through a civil judgment to repay the funds he owes to Firm 1. However, we deem it appropriate to require, as a condition of reinstatement of his Wisconsin law license, that Attorney Rosin satisfy this judgment.

(Mike Frisch)