Reinstatement Follows Fitness Stipulation
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has reinstated an attorney with the following disciplinary history
Attorney Rosin was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin in May 2004. His disciplinary history consists of a one-year license suspension, effective May 25, 2023 (see In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Rosin, 2023 WI 32, 407 Wis. 2d 1, 988 N.W.2d 681 (“Rosin I”)), and a six-month suspension imposed consecutively to the discipline ordered in Rosin I (see In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Rosin, 2024 WI 29, 412 Wis. 2d 448, 8 N.W.3d 452 (“Rosin II”)). In Rosin I, we held that Attorney Rosin violated SCR 20:8.4(c)3 and the standard of conduct set forth in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shea, 190 Wis. 2d 560, 527 N.W.2d 314 (1995),4 actionable via SCR 20:8.4(f), by forming a Wisconsin limited liability company dedicated to providing patent law services in violation of the terms of his employment as an attorney at an intellectual property law 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. See Rosin I, 407 Wis. 2d 1. In Rosin II, we held that Attorney Rosin violated these same professional standards by engaging in conduct that allowed two firms to believe he was a full-time and exclusive employee of each firm for about a two week period; failing to tell either firm of his simultaneous employment by both firms; and/or misleading one or both firms as to the simultaneous employment. See Rosin II, 412 Wis. 2d 448.
The Office of Legal Regulation had stipulated to his present fitness
On February 24, 2025, the OLR filed a memorandum in support of the stipulation confirming that Attorney Rosin has satisfactorily complied with the terms of the suspension order and that the OLR did not identify any potentially adverse material issue during its investigation of Attorney Rosin’s reinstatement petition.
(Mike Frisch)