Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin
Headline: Wisconsin Supreme Court Suspends Lawyer for 60 Days for Misconduct
Citation: 2025 WI 18
Brief at a Glance
Wisconsin lawyer Kevin R. Rosin suspended for 60 days for failing to represent clients diligently and engaging in dishonest conduct.
- Always document communications with your attorney.
- If you suspect your attorney is being dishonest or negligent, report them to the Office of Lawyer Regulation.
- Understand your attorney's duty to keep you informed about your case.
Case Summary
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin, decided by Wisconsin Supreme Court on May 27, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed a lawyer's conduct after he was found to have engaged in professional misconduct by failing to adequately represent his clients and engaging in dishonest conduct. The court reasoned that the lawyer's actions, including misrepresenting facts to the court and failing to communicate with clients, violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct. Ultimately, the court suspended the lawyer's license to practice law for 60 days. The court held: The court held that the lawyer's failure to adequately represent his clients, including missing deadlines and failing to communicate, constituted professional misconduct under the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct.. The court found that the lawyer's misrepresentation of facts to the court and his clients, as well as his failure to be truthful in his dealings, violated rules regarding honesty and candor.. The court determined that the lawyer's pattern of neglect and dishonesty warranted a significant disciplinary sanction.. While the referee recommended a 60-day suspension, the court modified the discipline, imposing a 60-day suspension but stayed the suspension and placed the lawyer on probation for one year, subject to conditions.. The court emphasized the importance of attorney diligence and honesty in maintaining public trust in the legal profession.. This case underscores the Wisconsin Supreme Court's commitment to upholding professional standards for attorneys. It serves as a reminder to legal practitioners of the serious consequences of neglecting client duties and engaging in dishonest conduct, reinforcing the importance of diligence and candor in all legal matters.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
A Wisconsin lawyer, Kevin R. Rosin, had his license suspended for 60 days because he didn't properly represent his clients. This included lying to a court and not keeping his clients informed about their cases. The court found these actions violated professional conduct rules for lawyers.
For Legal Practitioners
The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the referee's findings of misconduct against Kevin R. Rosin, including violations of Rules 1.3(a), 1.3(b), 1.4(a)(2), and 8.4(c). The court imposed a 60-day license suspension, emphasizing the importance of candor toward the tribunal and diligent client communication.
For Law Students
This case illustrates the application of Wisconsin's Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically concerning candor to the tribunal (Rule 1.3(a)), diligence and communication (Rules 1.3(b) & 1.4(a)(2)), and honesty (Rule 8.4(c)). The court's de novo review of legal conclusions and clear and satisfactory evidence standard for proof are key procedural aspects.
Newsroom Summary
A Wisconsin attorney, Kevin R. Rosin, will be unable to practice law for 60 days following a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling. The court found Rosin engaged in professional misconduct, including misrepresenting facts to a court and failing to communicate with clients.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The court held that the lawyer's failure to adequately represent his clients, including missing deadlines and failing to communicate, constituted professional misconduct under the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct.
- The court found that the lawyer's misrepresentation of facts to the court and his clients, as well as his failure to be truthful in his dealings, violated rules regarding honesty and candor.
- The court determined that the lawyer's pattern of neglect and dishonesty warranted a significant disciplinary sanction.
- While the referee recommended a 60-day suspension, the court modified the discipline, imposing a 60-day suspension but stayed the suspension and placed the lawyer on probation for one year, subject to conditions.
- The court emphasized the importance of attorney diligence and honesty in maintaining public trust in the legal profession.
Key Takeaways
- Always document communications with your attorney.
- If you suspect your attorney is being dishonest or negligent, report them to the Office of Lawyer Regulation.
- Understand your attorney's duty to keep you informed about your case.
- Be aware of the rules governing attorney conduct in your state.
- Seek a second opinion if you have serious doubts about your attorney's representation.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
De novo review is applied to the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the referee in attorney disciplinary proceedings. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviews the referee's findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard and conclusions of law de novo.
Procedural Posture
The case reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court on a petition for review of a referee's findings and recommendations regarding attorney misconduct. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint against Kevin R. Rosin, alleging violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof in attorney disciplinary proceedings rests with the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), which must prove professional misconduct by clear and satisfactory evidence. The standard requires more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than beyond a reasonable doubt.
Legal Tests Applied
Violation of Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys
Elements: Duty of Candor Toward the Tribunal (Rule 1.3(a)) · Duty of Diligence and Communication (Rule 1.3(b) and Rule 1.4(a)(2)) · Duty of Honesty and Fairness (Rule 8.4(c))
The court found that Rosin violated Rule 1.3(a) by misrepresenting facts to the court in a probate matter. He violated Rule 1.3(b) and 1.4(a)(2) by failing to diligently pursue client matters and communicate with clients. His dishonest conduct, including misrepresentations, violated Rule 8.4(c).
Statutory References
| Wis. SCR 20:1.3(a) | Candor Toward the Tribunal — This rule prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or failing to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal. |
| Wis. SCR 20:1.3(b) | Diligence — This rule requires a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. |
| Wis. SCR 20:1.4(a)(2) | Communication — This rule requires a lawyer to reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished and to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter. |
| Wis. SCR 20:8.4(c) | Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation — This rule prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. |
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
A lawyer shall not make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal.
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
A lawyer shall reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished, keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and promptly comply with any reasonable request for information.
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
Remedies
Suspension of license to practice law for 60 days.
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- Always document communications with your attorney.
- If you suspect your attorney is being dishonest or negligent, report them to the Office of Lawyer Regulation.
- Understand your attorney's duty to keep you informed about your case.
- Be aware of the rules governing attorney conduct in your state.
- Seek a second opinion if you have serious doubts about your attorney's representation.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You hired a lawyer for a probate case, but they haven't updated you on the progress in months and you suspect they might have misled the court about certain facts.
Your Rights: You have the right to be kept informed about your case and to have your lawyer act diligently and honestly on your behalf. You have the right to report attorney misconduct.
What To Do: Gather all communication records and evidence of the lawyer's actions. Contact the Office of Lawyer Regulation in Wisconsin to file a grievance.
Scenario: Your attorney missed a crucial deadline in your case and is now making excuses, failing to explain the situation clearly.
Your Rights: You have the right to expect your attorney to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, and to be kept reasonably informed about the status of your matter.
What To Do: Document all communications and the missed deadline. Consider seeking a second opinion from another attorney and formally complain to the state bar or disciplinary board if the conduct is egregious.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal for my lawyer to lie to the court in Wisconsin?
No. It is professional misconduct for a lawyer in Wisconsin to knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal, or to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
This applies to all attorneys licensed to practice in Wisconsin.
Can my lawyer be disciplined for not returning my calls in Wisconsin?
Yes. Lawyers in Wisconsin have a duty to reasonably consult with their clients and keep them reasonably informed about the status of their matter, and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Failure to do so can be grounds for discipline.
This applies to all attorneys licensed to practice in Wisconsin.
Practical Implications
For Clients of Kevin R. Rosin
Clients who were inadequately represented by Kevin R. Rosin may have grounds to seek recourse or may have already suffered harm due to his misconduct. The 60-day suspension provides a period for clients to find new counsel.
For Attorneys in Wisconsin
This ruling serves as a reminder of the strict ethical obligations attorneys have regarding candor to the court, diligence, and communication with clients. Violations can lead to significant disciplinary actions, including license suspension.
For The Public
The ruling reinforces public trust in the legal profession by demonstrating that the Wisconsin Supreme Court takes attorney misconduct seriously and enforces ethical standards to protect clients and the integrity of the justice system.
Related Legal Concepts
Frequently Asked Questions (31)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (6)
Q: What is Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin about?
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin is a case decided by Wisconsin Supreme Court on May 27, 2025.
Q: What court decided Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin?
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin was decided by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which is part of the WI state court system. This is a state supreme court.
Q: When was Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin decided?
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin was decided on May 27, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin?
The citation for Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin is 2025 WI 18. Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What kind of misconduct did Kevin R. Rosin engage in?
Kevin R. Rosin engaged in professional misconduct by failing to adequately represent his clients, misrepresenting facts to the court, and failing to communicate with his clients about their cases.
Q: What was the outcome for Kevin R. Rosin?
The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Kevin R. Rosin's license to practice law for 60 days.
Legal Analysis (11)
Q: Is Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin published?
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What was the ruling in Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin. Key holdings: The court held that the lawyer's failure to adequately represent his clients, including missing deadlines and failing to communicate, constituted professional misconduct under the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct.; The court found that the lawyer's misrepresentation of facts to the court and his clients, as well as his failure to be truthful in his dealings, violated rules regarding honesty and candor.; The court determined that the lawyer's pattern of neglect and dishonesty warranted a significant disciplinary sanction.; While the referee recommended a 60-day suspension, the court modified the discipline, imposing a 60-day suspension but stayed the suspension and placed the lawyer on probation for one year, subject to conditions.; The court emphasized the importance of attorney diligence and honesty in maintaining public trust in the legal profession..
Q: Why is Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin important?
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin has an impact score of 25/100, indicating limited broader impact. This case underscores the Wisconsin Supreme Court's commitment to upholding professional standards for attorneys. It serves as a reminder to legal practitioners of the serious consequences of neglecting client duties and engaging in dishonest conduct, reinforcing the importance of diligence and candor in all legal matters.
Q: What precedent does Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin set?
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the lawyer's failure to adequately represent his clients, including missing deadlines and failing to communicate, constituted professional misconduct under the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct. (2) The court found that the lawyer's misrepresentation of facts to the court and his clients, as well as his failure to be truthful in his dealings, violated rules regarding honesty and candor. (3) The court determined that the lawyer's pattern of neglect and dishonesty warranted a significant disciplinary sanction. (4) While the referee recommended a 60-day suspension, the court modified the discipline, imposing a 60-day suspension but stayed the suspension and placed the lawyer on probation for one year, subject to conditions. (5) The court emphasized the importance of attorney diligence and honesty in maintaining public trust in the legal profession.
Q: What are the key holdings in Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin?
1. The court held that the lawyer's failure to adequately represent his clients, including missing deadlines and failing to communicate, constituted professional misconduct under the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct. 2. The court found that the lawyer's misrepresentation of facts to the court and his clients, as well as his failure to be truthful in his dealings, violated rules regarding honesty and candor. 3. The court determined that the lawyer's pattern of neglect and dishonesty warranted a significant disciplinary sanction. 4. While the referee recommended a 60-day suspension, the court modified the discipline, imposing a 60-day suspension but stayed the suspension and placed the lawyer on probation for one year, subject to conditions. 5. The court emphasized the importance of attorney diligence and honesty in maintaining public trust in the legal profession.
Q: Which specific rules did Rosin violate?
Rosin violated Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules (SCR) 20:1.3(a) (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 20:1.3(b) (Diligence), 20:1.4(a)(2) (Communication), and 20:8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation).
Q: What is the standard of review for attorney discipline cases in Wisconsin?
The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviews a referee's findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard and conclusions of law de novo.
Q: What is the burden of proof for the Office of Lawyer Regulation?
The OLR must prove professional misconduct by clear and satisfactory evidence, which is a standard higher than a preponderance of the evidence but lower than beyond a reasonable doubt.
Q: What does 'candor toward the tribunal' mean?
It means a lawyer must not knowingly make false statements of fact or law to a court and must correct any false statements previously made.
Q: What does 'diligence and communication' require of a lawyer?
Lawyers must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing clients and keep them reasonably informed about the status of their matters.
Q: What constitutes 'dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation' for a lawyer?
This includes engaging in conduct that is dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful, or involves misrepresentation, such as lying to a court or client.
Practical Implications (5)
Q: How does Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin affect me?
This case underscores the Wisconsin Supreme Court's commitment to upholding professional standards for attorneys. It serves as a reminder to legal practitioners of the serious consequences of neglecting client duties and engaging in dishonest conduct, reinforcing the importance of diligence and candor in all legal matters. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: What should I do if I believe my lawyer has acted unethically?
You should gather evidence of the misconduct and file a grievance with the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) in Wisconsin.
Q: How long is the suspension for Kevin R. Rosin?
Kevin R. Rosin's license to practice law was suspended for 60 days.
Q: Can a lawyer be disciplined for misrepresenting facts to a court?
Yes, misrepresenting facts to a court is a serious ethical violation and can lead to disciplinary action, including license suspension.
Q: What is the purpose of attorney disciplinary proceedings?
The purpose is to protect the public, maintain the integrity of the legal profession, and uphold the administration of justice by holding lawyers accountable for their ethical conduct.
Historical Context (2)
Q: When was this decision made?
The provided summary does not contain the specific date of the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision, but it reviews conduct that led to disciplinary action.
Q: Has Kevin R. Rosin faced disciplinary action before?
The provided summary does not specify if Kevin R. Rosin has a prior disciplinary history; it focuses on the current allegations and ruling.
Procedural Questions (4)
Q: What was the docket number in Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin?
The docket number for Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin is 2024AP000156-D. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin be appealed?
Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Q: What is a 'referee' in an attorney discipline case?
A referee is appointed by the court to hear the evidence presented by the Office of Lawyer Regulation and the attorney, make findings of fact, and recommend a course of action to the Supreme Court.
Q: How does the Wisconsin Supreme Court review a referee's decision?
The court reviews the referee's findings of fact for clear error and reviews the referee's conclusions of law de novo, meaning they examine them anew without deference.
Case Details
| Case Name | Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin |
| Citation | 2025 WI 18 |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
| Date Filed | 2025-05-27 |
| Docket Number | 2024AP000156-D |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | modified |
| Impact Score | 25 / 100 |
| Significance | This case underscores the Wisconsin Supreme Court's commitment to upholding professional standards for attorneys. It serves as a reminder to legal practitioners of the serious consequences of neglecting client duties and engaging in dishonest conduct, reinforcing the importance of diligence and candor in all legal matters. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Attorney professional responsibility, Rules of Professional Conduct, Duty of diligence, Duty of candor toward the tribunal, Duty of honesty in client communications, Attorney disciplinary proceedings |
| Jurisdiction | wi |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Attorney professional responsibility or from the Wisconsin Supreme Court:
-
Estate of Carol Lorbiecki v. Pabst Brewing Company
Sale of Alcohol to Minor Not Proximate Cause of Minor's Death in Car CrashWisconsin Supreme Court · 2026-04-15
-
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Osman A. Mirza
Wisconsin Supreme Court suspends lawyer's license for 60 days due to misconductWisconsin Supreme Court · 2026-04-15
-
Savannah Wren v. Columbia St. Mary's Hospital Milwaukee, Inc.
Wisconsin Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Malpractice Case for Deficient Expert AffidavitWisconsin Supreme Court · 2026-04-10
-
State v. K. R. C.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Minors Can Be Prosecuted for Possessing Child PornographyWisconsin Supreme Court · 2026-03-26
-
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Guy K. Fish
Attorney Guy K. Fish's Law License Suspended for 60 Days Due to Professional MisconductWisconsin Supreme Court · 2026-03-20
-
Heather Gudex v. Franklin Collection Service, Inc.
Appeals Court Revives Lawsuit Against Debt Collector for Misleading Letters on Time-Barred DebtWisconsin Supreme Court · 2026-03-04
-
State v. J. D. B.
Juvenile delinquency adjudication for felony does not count as felony conviction for firearm possession charge.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2026-02-25
-
State v. Andreas W. Rauch Sharak
Wisconsin Supreme Court finds "no-knock" warrant unjustified, suppresses evidenceWisconsin Supreme Court · 2026-02-24