Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mark E. Robinson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2006 WI 124 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: OF WISCONSIN 2004AP1238-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mark E. Robinson, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Mark E. Robinson, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ROBINSON OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: November 10, 2006 2006 WI 124 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2004AP1238-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mark E. Robinson, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, NOV 10, 2006 v. Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Supreme Court Mark E. Robinson, Respondent. ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. ¶1 PER CURIAM. We review Reinstatement granted. a referee's report recommending that Mark E. Robinson'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 adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and conclude that Attorney Robinson's license to practice law should be reinstated. We further direct No. Attorney Robinson to pay the costs of the 2004AP1238-D reinstatement proceeding, which total $4151.02 as of September 7, 2006. ¶3 Attorney Robinson Wisconsin in 1991. license months to for conduct was admitted to practice law in On June 24, 2005, this court suspended his practice law, professional effective misconduct involving August 6, consisting dishonesty, of fraud, misrepresentation; representing a representation be limited may 2005, materially for engaging six in deceit, or where the client by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests; violating or attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or knowingly assisting or inducing another to do so; and communicating about the subject of the representation of a client with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer, without the consent of the other lawyer. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Robinson, 2005 WI 88, 282 Wis. 2d 216, 700 N.W.2d 757. ¶4 license Attorney to Robinson practice law in now seeks Wisconsin. reinstatement John R. of his Decker was appointed referee in the matter and conducted a formal hearing on the reinstatement petition. The referee filed his report and recommendation on August 18, 2006. As noted above, the OLR and the BBE have both joined in that favorable recommendation. ¶5 SCR 22.31(1) provides reinstatement of a law license. of demonstrating "by clear, the standard to be met for The petitioner has the burden satisfactory, and convincing evidence" that the lawyer has the moral character to practice 2 No. 2004AP1238-D 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 the public administration interest, and that of the addition, SCR 22.29(4) sets forth related requirements that a petition for reinstatement must show. All of these additional requirements are effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1).1 ¶6 The referee in this case concluded that Attorney Robinson had met all of the criteria for reinstatement and that he had met his burden of demonstrating that his practice law in Wisconsin should be reinstated. license to The referee specifically found that Attorney Robinson has fully acknowledged his misconduct. 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. ¶7 After review of the record we agree 2004AP1238-D that Attorney Robinson has established by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he has satisfied all the criteria necessary for reinstatement. fact and Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of conclusions recommendation to of law reinstate practice law in Wisconsin. and we Attorney accept the Robinson's referee's license to We further direct Attorney Robinson to pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding. ¶8 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of the license of Mark E. Robinson to practice law in Wisconsin is granted, effective the date of this order. ¶9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within six months of the date of this order Mark E. Robinson 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 his inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of Mark E. Robinson to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of the court. 4 No. 1 2004AP1238-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.
