Licensed In 15 Jurisdictions
The Minnesota Supreme Court has imposed reciprocal disbarment in the wake of a Virginia license revocation
Rosenberg has had law licenses for nearly sixty years in various jurisdictions without any disciplinary issues. He was admitted to practice in Minnesota in 2016. His license in Minnesota became inactive in 2022 and his status is currently listed as “voluntarily restricted” and “retired.” Before this disciplinary action, Rosenberg was licensed to practice law in 15 jurisdictions: Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
In 2014, Rosenberg opened a law practice in Virginia that specialized in high-volume, low-cost real estate deeds. He was not licensed, nor did he have authorization to practice, in Virginia. There was no Virginia-licensed attorney in Rosenberg’s firm from 2014 to 2021. Instead, the name of a Virginia lawyer who was not affiliated with Rosenberg’s firm, B. Wesley Barger, Jr., was put on the prepared deeds in exchange for a $300 monthly retainer fee. Barger rarely reviewed the deeds. Rosenberg estimates his firm produced 2,000–2,200 deeds per year, meaning he generated more than 14,000 real estate deeds from 2014 to 2021.
In June 2020, a Virginia-licensed attorney filed a complaint against Rosenberg after noticing a deed he had prepared contained several errors, was the wrong type of deed, and had not been reviewed by a Virginia-licensed attorney. The Virginia Bar (Bar) launched a disciplinary investigation.1 During this investigation, Bar counsel issued two subpoenas. Rosenberg failed to comply with either. Instead, Rosenberg produced an untimely written proffer in response to each, which the Bar accepted. Rosenberg also sat for an interview with an investigator, but he refused to provide names of his clients or details of his agreements with other entities. The Bar determined Rosenberg’s failure to provide necessary information and comply with the investigation violated Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct (VRPC) 8.1(c) and (d).
The Bar further determined that Rosenberg’s production of real estate deeds in Virginia without a license constituted the unauthorized practice of law in violation of VRPC 5.5(c) and (d). As part of the investigation, the Bar reviewed a random sample of seven of Rosenberg’s deeds. All of them had grammatical errors, while a few contained substantive mistakes. Rosenberg disclosed that his firm’s deeds were pre-drafted by a separate law firm in India. Rosenberg prevented the investigator from examining a second random sample. The Bar determined that Rosenberg’s failure to properly review and prepare the deeds violated VRPC 1.1 (competence) and 1.3 (diligence).
He had consented to revocation in Virginia.
Rosenberg’s misconduct occurred over many years and affected thousands of clients. His process of having non-Virginia lawyers prepare Virginia deeds with little or no review posed risks to the clients who requested the deeds and others who may rely on their accuracy in the future. Rosenberg, who obtained law licenses in 15 other jurisdictions, willfully chose not to obtain a Virginia law license, and has offered no legal authority or explanation as to why he did not need a Virginia law license to practice as he did. And he refused to cooperate with the Bar, impeding an effective investigation. Based on our review of Rosenberg’s misconduct and our past cases, we cannot say that disbarment is substantially different from the discipline warranted in Minnesota.
(Mike Frisch)