Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robinson (In re Robinson)

• Citation: 948 N.W.2d 898,394 Wis.2d 1,2020 WI 76
• Decision Date: 29 September 2020
• Docket Number: No. 2019AP1696-D,2019AP1696-D
• Parties: In the MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Jean M. ROBINSON, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Jean M. Robinson, Respondent.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

394 Wis.2d 1

948 N.W.2d 898

2020 WI 76

In the MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Jean M. ROBINSON, Attorney at Law:Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant,

v.Jean M. Robinson, Respondent.

No. 2019AP1696-D

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Opinion Filed: September 29, 2020

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Jean M. Robinson have filed a stipulation pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 that Attorney Robinson's license to practice law in Wisconsin should be suspended for a period of 18 months, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

¶2 After reviewing the matter, we approve the stipulation and impose the stipulated reciprocal discipline. In addition, we grant Attorney Robinson's unopposed motion to make the effective date of the Wisconsin suspension coterminous with the imposed date of suspension of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, i.e. June 3, 2019. The OLR did not request and we impose no restitution. Finally, because Attorney Robinson entered into a comprehensive stipulation prior to the appointment of a referee, we do not impose costs.

¶3 Attorney Robinson was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1985. She was admitted to practice law in the District of Columbia in 2004. Her professional disciplinary history in Wisconsin consists of a one-year suspension imposed in 1987. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Robinson, 140 Wis. 2d 538, 411 N.W.2d 137 (1987).

¶4 In 2008, Attorney Robinson obtained a corporate counsel certificate from the Virginia State Bar which enabled her to practice as in-house counsel for SourceAmerica, Inc., which is headquartered in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

¶5 On October 30, 2018, Attorney Robinson and the District of Columbia Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed an amended petition for negotiated discipline in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The petition stated that in the course of her attorney-client relationship with SourceAmerica, Attorney Robinson intentionally prejudiced her client by revealing client confidences or secrets and she acted with dishonesty by concealing her assistance to government agents from her client. The petition stated that Attorney Robinson was remorseful, had accepted responsibility for her misconduct, and admitted that her conduct violated the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. The petition also stated that Attorney Robinson had cooperated with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel during its investigation. In addition, the petition stated that although Attorney Robinson made disclosures in violation of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, those disclosures appear to have been largely grounded in a sincere belief that she was correcting what she perceived to be inappropriate conduct by certain SourceAmerica representatives, rather than out of any personal or pecuniary interest.

¶6 On May 2, 2019, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals suspended Attorney Robinson from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for 18 months, effective June 3, 2019. The court's order stated that Attorney Robinson's reinstatement is conditioned upon her demonstration of fitness to resume the practice of law.

¶7 On September 10, 2019, the OLR filed a disciplinary complaint alleging that Attorney Robinson should be subject to reciprocal discipline due to the suspension imposed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. On May 22, 2020, the OLR and Attorney Robinson entered into a stipulation whereby Attorney Robinson agreed that the facts alleged in the OLR's complaint supported the imposition of reciprocal discipline.

¶8 Under SCR 22.22(3), this court shall impose the identical discipline imposed in another jurisdiction, unless one or more of three exceptions apply. In the stipulation, Attorney Robinson states that she does not...