Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jenelle Glasbrenner
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2006 WI 35 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: OF WISCONSIN 2003AP2647-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jenelle Glasbrenner, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Jenelle Glasbrenner, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GLASBRENNER OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: May 2, 2006 SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: CROOKS, J., did not participate. 2006 WI 35 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2003AP2647-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jenelle Glasbrenner, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, MAY 2, 2006 v. Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Supreme Court Jenelle Glasbrenner, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Reinstatement granted upon conditions. ¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a referee's report recommending that Jenelle Glasbrenner's license to practice law in Wisconsin be reinstated. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) have both joined in that favorable recommendation. ¶2 We conclusions adopt of law the and referee's conclude findings that Attorney of fact and Glasbrenner's license to practice law should be reinstated upon the conditions No. recommended by the referee. We further 2003AP2647-D direct Attorney Glasbrenner to pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding, which total $2168.55 as of March 3, 2006. ¶3 Attorney Glasbrenner was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1999. license to misconduct On April 22, 2005, this court suspended her practice law for six consisting of over months billing the for professional Office of the Wisconsin State Public Defender (SPD) for work she had performed for them. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Glasbrenner, 2005 WI 50, 280 Wis. 2d 37, 695 N.W.2d 291. ¶4 Attorney Glasbrenner now seeks license to practice law in Wisconsin. was appointed referee in the matter reinstatement of her Judith Sperling-Newton and hearing on the reinstatement petition. conducted a formal The referee filed her report and recommendation on February 13, 2006, and recommended that this court grant the petition for reinstatement. As noted above, the OLR and the BBE have both joined in that favorable recommendation. ¶5 SCR 22.31(1) provides the reinstatement of a law license. of demonstrating "by standard to be met for The petitioner has the burden clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence" that the lawyer has the moral character to practice law, that the lawyer's resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental justice or lawyer has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of the suspension. In subversive of the to public the administration interest, and that of the addition, SCR 22.29(4) sets forth related requirements that a 2 No. petition for reinstatement must show. 2003AP2647-D All of these additional requirements are effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1).1 ¶6 The Glasbrenner including referee had met repaying in all the this of SPD case the for concluded criteria the for amounts that reinstatement, over paying the costs of the disciplinary proceeding. concluded that demonstrating should be Attorney that her reinstated. Glasbrenner license The to met practice referee billed and The referee her law Attorney burden in specifically of Wisconsin found that Attorney Glasbrenner was genuinely remorseful about her conduct and that she did not appear to be making excuses or avoiding responsibility for her actions. The referee also noted that Attorney Glasbrenner sought an attorney mentor to assist her in complying with the rules of professional conduct and that she 1 SCR 22.31(1) provides: Reinstatement hearing. (1) The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all of the following: (a) That he or she has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin. (b) That his or her resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest. (c) That his or her representations in the petition, including the representations required by SCR 22.29(4)(a) to (m) and 22.29(5), are substantiated. (d) That he or she has complied fully with the terms of the order of suspension or revocation and with the requirements of SCR 22.26. 3 No. 2003AP2647-D has said she intends to continue using the attorney mentor if her license to practice is reinstated. ¶7 license The to referee recommended practice conditions: law (1) that be that Attorney reinstated she keep Glasbrenner's with the formal, following accurate, and contemporaneous accounting of her time to be entered into her law firm's billing authority, for two system; years and (2) that following the her OLR have reinstatement, the to supervise her in this regard and to require that she report to the OLR as requested with respect to her billing practices. ¶8 After careful review of the record we agree that Attorney Glasbrenner has established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence necessary for that she has reinstatement. satisfied all Accordingly, the we criteria adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and we accept the referee's recommendation to reinstate Attorney Glasbrenner's license to practice law in Wisconsin, subject to the conditions recommended by the referee. We further direct Attorney Glasbrenner to pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding. ¶9 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of the license of Jenelle Glasbrenner to practice law in Wisconsin is granted, effective the date of this order. ¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the reinstatement of Attorney Glasbrenner's license to practice law be subject to the following conditions: (1) that she keep formal, accurate, and contemporaneous accounting of her time to be entered into her law firm's billing system; and 4 (2) that the OLR have the No. authority, for two years following her 2003AP2647-D reinstatement, to supervise her in this regard and to require that she report to the OLR as requested with respect to her billing practices. ¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within six months of the date of this order Jenelle Glasbrenner pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. If the costs are not paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to this court of her inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of Jenelle Glasbrenner to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of the court. ¶12 N. PATRICK CROOKS, J., did not participate. 5 No. 1 2003AP2647-D
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
