Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Daniel W. Morse
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2021 WI 17 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2016AP1288-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Daniel W. Morse, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant-Respondent, v. Daniel W. Morse, Respondent-Appellant. ATTORNEY MORSE REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS Reported at 386 Wis. 2d 654, 927 N.W.2d 543 PDC No: 2019 WI 53 - Published OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: Per Curiam. NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: March 2, 2021 2021 WI 17 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2016AP1288-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Daniel W. Morse, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant-Respondent, MAR 2, 2021 v. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court Daniel W. Morse, Respondent-Appellant. ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. ¶1 Robert PER Kinney We review report recommendation. from the court Referee No filed the by license of Daniel W. Morse to practice law in Wisconsin. been that filed the has recommending a reinstate appeal E. CURIAM. Reinstatement granted. referee's report and Accordingly, our review proceeds pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.33(3). Upon careful review of the matter, we adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree that Attorney reinstatement should be granted. also direct that the costs of Morse's petition for As is our normal custom, we the reinstatement proceeding, No. 2016AP1288-D which are $5,448.81 as of December 15, 2020, be paid by Attorney Morse. ¶2 Attorney Morse Wisconsin in 1979. was admitted and his suspended. practice law Pennsylvania He was disbarred in Florida in law license is administratively In 2019, Attorney Morse's Wisconsin law license was suspended for one year. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Morse, 2019 WI 53, 386 Wis. 2d 654, 927 N.W.2d 543. misconduct in that case related to an estate matter. Morse in Attorney Morse was also licensed to practice law in Florida and Pennsylvania. 2019, to failed to take steps to advance the The Attorney interests of the estate; failed to promptly deliver documents in his possession; failed to abide by a probate court order; and failed to keep in trust funds totaling over $25,000 belonging to the estate, instead paying those funds to his law firm and himself and using the funds to pay personal obligations. ¶3 Attorney Morse filed a petition for the reinstatement of his Wisconsin law license on April 6, 2020. held before the referee on October 13, 2020. A hearing was The referee issued his report and recommendation on November 24, 2020. found that Attorney reinstated; has suspension; has information about complied maintained with Morse: not not the law during members suspension terms competence to practiced given his desires and of of or the learning The referee have the his the public reinstatement; order in of the license period misleading has suspension; law by of fully has attending educational sessions; understands the gravity of his misconduct; 2 No. and has promptly made restitution. 2016AP1288-D The referee also found that Attorney Morse's conduct since the suspension has been exemplary and above reproach and that he has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed on members of the bar and will act in conformity with those standards. The referee found that Attorney Morse can be safely recommended to the legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence and in general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and an officer of the courts. ¶4 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) provides the standards to be met for reinstatement. Specifically, the petitioner must show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or she has the moral character to practice law, that his or her resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive to the public interest, and that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of the order of suspension. In addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c) incorporates the statements that a petition for reinstatement must contain petitioning pursuant attorney to SCR must 22.29(4)(a) demonstrate – (m). that Thus, the the required representations in the reinstatement petition are substantiated. ¶5 When reviewing referee reports in reinstatement proceedings, we utilize standards of review similar to those used for reviewing referee reports in disciplinary proceedings. We do not overturn a referee's findings of fact unless they are 3 No. clearly erroneous. 2016AP1288-D On the other hand, we review a referee's legal conclusions, including whether the attorney has in fact satisfied the criteria for reinstatement, on a de novo basis. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jennings, 2011 WI 45, ¶39, 334 Wis. 2d 335, 801 N.W.2d 304; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gral, 2010 WI 14, ¶22, 323 Wis. 2d 280, 779 N.W.2d 168. that In making his recommendation, the referee noted Attorney Morse has acknowledged his ethical violations. The referee said Attorney Morse is very knowledgeable about his specific area of practice, and if, in the future, an issue at the periphery of his knowledge arises, he has vowed that he will consult with other experienced professionals. making use of the expertise of these The referee said attorneys would be an invaluable resource for Attorney Morse. ¶6 Morse Upon has review established of by the record, clear, we agree satisfactory, that and Attorney convincing evidence that he has satisfied all of the criteria necessary for reinstatement. fact and Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of conclusions of law, and we accept the referee's recommendation that Attorney Morse's license to practice law in Wisconsin should be reinstated. also find it appropriate to As is our standard policy, we impose the full costs of this proceeding on Attorney Morse. ¶7 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Daniel W. Morse to practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective the date of this order. 4 No. ¶8 2016AP1288-D IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Daniel W. Morse shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation costs of this proceeding, which are $5,448.81 as of December 15, 2020. 5 No. 1 2016AP1288-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.
