Hausserman v. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs (In re Hausserman)
| Decision Date | 28 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 2018AP644-BA,2018AP644-BA |
| Citation | 385 Wis.2d 70,921 N.W.2d 211,2018 WI 115 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF the Bar ADMISSION OF Daniel R. HAUSSERMAN: Daniel R. Hausserman, Petitioner, v. Board of Bar Examiners, Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the petitioner there, was an oral argument by Terry E. Johnson and Von Briesen & Roper, Milwaukee.
For the Board of Bar Examiners, there was an oral argument by Jacquelynn B. Rothstein, Director & Legal Counsel.
¶ 1 This is a review, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 40.08(7), of the final decision of the Board of Bar Examiners (Board) declining to certify that the petitioner, Daniel R. Hausserman, satisfied the character and fitness requirements for admission to the Wisconsin bar set forth in SCR 40.06(1). The Board's decision was based primarily on Mr. Hausserman's conduct in 2015, and his failure to disclose certain matters on his bar application.
¶ 2 After careful review, we agree that the record before us is insufficient to persuade us that Mr. Hausserman should be admitted to the practice of law at this time. Accordingly, we affirm.
¶ 3 There are, essentially, two concerns here. The most significant involves Mr. Hausserman's conduct over a period of approximately seven months during and after his final year of law school. The other involves certain shortcomings with his application for admission to the Wisconsin bar.
¶ 4 The standards for evaluating whether an applicant should be admitted to the Wisconsin bar are well settled. Supreme Court Rule 40.06(1)1 requires that applicants for bar admission establish good moral character and fitness to practice law. The burden rests with the applicant to establish character and fitness to the satisfaction of the Board. See SCR 40.06(3) and SCR 40.07. The Appendix to SCR Ch. 40 contains the Board's rules that provide additional guidance to the Board and to applicants.
¶ 5 Bar Admission Rule (BA) 6.01 provides that "[a] lawyer should be one whose record of conduct justifies the trust of clients, adversaries, courts and others with respect to the professional duties owed to them." That same section notes that "[a] record manifesting a deficiency in the honesty, diligence or reliability of an applicant may constitute a basis for denial of admission."
¶ 6 Bar Admission Rule 6.02 provides that in determining whether an applicant possesses the necessary character and fitness to practice law, there are 12 factors that are "cause for further inquiry." Several of these factors are implicated here, including unlawful conduct, violation of an order of a court, denial of admission to the bar in another jurisdiction on character and fitness grounds, and concealment or nondisclosure of information during the bar application process. See id. at BA 6.02(a), (c), (h), and (k).
¶ 7 Bar Admission Rule 6.03 provides that in assigning weight and significance to the applicant's prior conduct, the following factors are to be considered:
¶ 8 When, as here, we review an adverse determination, the court adopts the Board's findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. In re Bar Admission of Rippl, 2002 WI 15, ¶ 16, 250 Wis. 2d 519, 639 N.W.2d 553. The court then determines, de novo, whether the Board's conclusions of law, based on the non-erroneous facts, are proper. When conducting our de novo review, we, like the Board, use the guidelines established in BA 6.01 - BA 6.03.
¶ 9 We have, as counsel for Mr. Hausserman urged, focused carefully on the facts of this record. Mr. Hausserman attended Drake University Law School. In February 2014, when he was 25 and in law school, Mr. Hausserman met B.F., a Drake University undergraduate student, and they began dating. The relationship was serious. In December 2014 the relationship ended. Some communication continued, however, and Mr. Hausserman thought the relationship would resume.
¶ 10 On March 5, 2015, B.F. filed a complaint with Drake University stating that she was receiving unwanted communications from Mr. Hausserman. Mr. Hausserman's actions between March and September 2015 are the primary reason his Wisconsin bar application was denied.
¶ 11 On March 9, 2015, Drake University officials advised Mr. Hausserman of the complaint and directed him to cease any further contact with B.F. Within two weeks Mr. Hausserman had contacted B.F. by email at least twice. On March 27, 2015, Mr. Hausserman sent B.F. three more emails and had called her.
¶ 12 On March 30, 2015, Drake University again directed Mr. Hausserman to have no contact with B.F. On April 2, 2015, following a meeting between University officials and Mr. Hausserman, the University sent a letter to Mr. Hausserman stating that he had violated the harassment provision of the school's code of conduct. Mr. Hausserman was barred from campus except for his academic classes.
¶ 13 On April 15, 2015, Mr. Hausserman sent B.F. another email which began: "I am aware this is in violation of the no communication/contact order and places me at risk of certain arrest." Two days later and in an apparent attempt to reach B.F., Mr. Hausserman sent a text message to her mother, also in violation of Drake University's no-contact directive. Thereafter, Mr. Hausserman was banned from the University except for completing his final exams and attending his graduation ceremony.
He was advised that after his law school graduation, he would be barred indefinitely from the university campus.
¶ 14 On May 16, 2015, hours after his law school graduation, Mr. Hausserman left B.F. a telephone message. B.F. contacted the City of Des Moines Police Department.
¶ 15 A few days later, the police spoke with Mr. Hausserman, who said that he thought his graduation terminated the restrictions on communicating with B.F. The police told him to cease all contact with B.F. and warned him that if he violated that directive he would be criminally charged. Approximately one week later, B.F. contacted the City of Des Moines Police Department again, to report that Mr. Hausserman had sent her several more text messages.
¶ 16 On May 28, 2015, Mr. Hausserman was criminally charged in Iowa with Harassment in the Third Degree. He pled guilty in June of 2015 and received a deferred judgment, was placed on probation for 12 months, and ordered to have no contact with B.F.
¶ 17 Meanwhile, Mr. Hausserman had graduated and applied for admission to the Iowa bar. At that time, however, the aforementioned criminal charges were pending against him and, following a hearing, the Iowa Board of Law Examiners (Iowa Board) concluded, on June 17, 2015, that Mr. Hausserman had not met his burden of demonstrating his character and fitness for admission to the Iowa bar. He was not permitted to take the Iowa Bar Exam. The Iowa Board apparently indicated that Mr. Hausserman might be permitted to sit for the Iowa Bar Exam in the future, when he could demonstrate that his harassment of B.F. had truly ended. A behavioral health evaluation was recommended. In its June 17, 2015 decision, the Iowa Board stated:
An objective observer might find the above course of events would have sent a crystal-clear message for Mr. Hausserman to leave [B.F.] alone. Instead, Mr. Hausserman relentlessly continued contacting [B.F.] (and in one instance, her parents) in violation of the no contact orders. The board also notes that a good deal of this conduct occurred just before, and even after, he filed his bar application. Mr. Hausserman continued to pursue this course of aberrant behavior come what may. Mr. Hausserman did acknowledge the criminal prosecution had gotten his attention, but he evinced no hint of remorse at the board interview and certainly did not suggest the course of conduct had come to an end.
(R. at 51).
¶ 18 In late September 2015, B.F. reported to police that she had received a Snapchat friend request from Mr. Hausserman. Following an interview with police, Mr. Hausserman admitted that he had contacted B.F. again because he had reason to believe she was involved in derogatory internet postings about him, and he wanted to discuss that with her. He acknowledged this action violated the terms of his deferred judgment. He was arrested and his home searched. He was found to be in possession of four firearms, two of which were loaded, in violation of his deferred prosecution agreement.2
¶ 19 Mr. Hausserman was found in contempt of court, sentenced to 30 days in jail, given a year of probation and supervision, and ordered to complete a mental health assessment. The mental health evaluation revealed no drug or alcohol issues, but recommended that Mr. Hausserman undergo treatment to address his behavior.3 The record indicates that Mr. Hausserman has not attempted any further contact with B.F. since September 2015.
¶ 20 In November 2015, Mr. Hausserman first applied for admission to the Wisconsin bar. Some delays that are not relevant followed. In February 2017 he passed the Wisconsin Bar Exam. On September 19, 2017, the Board informed Mr. Hausserman that his bar application was "at risk" of denial for failing to establish his good moral character and fitness within the meaning of SCR 40.06(1) and BA 6.01. SCR 40.08(1). The Board's concerns were not based solely on his conduct with B.F. The Board also expressed concern about inadequate disclosures on his Wisconsin bar application.
¶ 21 When Mr. Hausserman first applied to take the Wisconsin Bar Exam in November 2015, he responded affirmatively to Question 20 which asks, in part, whether the applicant has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hammer v. Bd. of Bar Examiners (In re Bar Admission of David E. Hammer)
...applicants who are able to meet character and fitness requirements are considered for conditional admission. See, e.g., In re Bar Admission of Hausserman, 2018 WI 115, ¶26, fn. 5, 385 Wis. 2d 70, 921 N.W.2d 211 ; In re Bar Admission of Jarrett, 2016 WI 39, ¶35, fn. 3, 368 Wis. 2d 567, 879 N......