Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kevin R. Rosin

2023 WI 32SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2022AP1916-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Kevin R. Rosin, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Kevin R. Rosin,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ROSIN
OPINION FILED: April 25, 2023
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
Per Curiam.
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2023 WI 32NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2022AP1916-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Kevin R. Rosin, Attorney at Law:
FILED
Office of Lawyer Regulation, APR 25, 2023
Complainant, Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Supreme Court
v.
Kevin R. Rosin,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney’s license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a stipulation filed by the
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Kevin R. Rosin
pursuant to SCR 22.12.1 In the stipulation, Attorney Rosin does
1 SCR 22.12 provides as follows:
(continued)
2022AP1916-D
not contest that he committed two acts of professional
misconduct as alleged by the OLR in its complaint against him.
Attorney Rosin also does not contest that a one-year suspension
of his Wisconsin law license is appropriate discipline for his
misconduct.
¶2 Upon careful review of the matter, we approve the
stipulation and suspend Attorney Rosin’s law license for one
(1) The director may file with the complaint a stipulation
of the director and the respondent to the facts, conclusions of
law regarding misconduct, and discipline to be imposed, together
with a memorandum in support of the stipulation. The respondent
may file a response to the director’s memorandum within 14 days
of the date of filing of the stipulation. The supreme court may
consider the complaint and stipulation without the appointment
of a referee, in which case the supreme court may approve the
stipulation, reject the stipulation, or direct the parties to
consider specific modifications to the stipulation.
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, it shall
adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law and impose the
stipulated discipline.
(3) If the supreme court rejects a stipulation, a referee
shall be appointed and the matter shall proceed as a complaint
filed without a stipulation.
(3m) If the supreme court directs the parties to consider
specific modifications to the stipulation, the parties may,
within 20 days of the date of the order, file a revised
stipulation, in which case the supreme court may approve the
revised stipulation, adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions
of law, and impose the stipulated discipline. If the parties do
not file a revised stipulation within 20 days of the date of the
order, a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall proceed
as a complaint filed without a stipulation.
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court has no
evidentiary value and is without prejudice to the respondent’s
defense of the proceeding or the prosecution of the complaint.
2
2022AP1916-D
year. We do not order any restitution, as none was requested by
the OLR. Because this matter has been resolved by a stipulation
under SCR 22.12 without the need for the appointment of a
referee, we impose no costs on Attorney Rosin.
¶3 The facts of this disciplinary matter, as stipulated
by Attorney Rosin, are as follows. Attorney Rosin was admitted
to the practice of law in Wisconsin in May 2004. He does not
have an address on file with the State Bar of Wisconsin. The
most recent address known to the OLR is in Cedarburg, Wisconsin.
Attorney Rosin has not previously been the subject of
professional discipline.
¶4 At the time of the events giving rise to this matter,
Attorney Rosin was a lawyer at an intellectual property law firm
located in Illinois (hereafter, “the firm”). The terms of
Attorney Rosin’s employment at the firm required him to provide
and bill all legal and patent-related services through the firm.
¶5 On May 3, 2021, Attorney Rosin formed a Wisconsin
limited liability company dedicated to providing patent law
services (hereafter, “the Wisconsin LLC”). He did not inform
anyone at the firm that he had formed the Wisconsin LLC.
Attorney Rosin understood that forming the Wisconsin LLC
violated the terms of his employment with the firm.
¶6 On approximately May 6, 2021, Attorney Rosin solicited
one of the firm’s clients, C.G.J., to become a client of the
Wisconsin LLC. On May 10, 2021, C.G.J. hired Attorney Rosin to
perform patent-related services through the Wisconsin LLC.
Attorney Rosin did not advise C.G.J. to terminate the firm’s
3
2022AP1916-D
representation of him, or tell anyone at the firm that he was
providing services to C.G.J. outside of the firm.
¶7 Attorney Rosin provided patent-related services to
C.G.J. through the Wisconsin LLC between May 10, 2021 and
November 2021. C.G.J. paid the Wisconsin LLC $82,501 for those
services. Attorney Rosin did not report or remit any of the
fees to the firm upon their receipt.
¶8 In addition, on October 21, 2021, Attorney Rosin spoke
with a representative of a company that was not a client of the
firm. Attorney Rosin proposed that the company hire the
Wisconsin LLC to provide intellectual property and/or patent-
related services, and he sent the company a proposed engagement
letter for hiring the Wisconsin LLC. The company chose not to
retain the Wisconsin LLC’s services.
¶9 On November 30, 2021, the founding partners of the
firm asked Attorney Rosin about information they had received
that he was operating the Wisconsin LLC and doing work for at
least one firm client outside of the firm. Attorney Rosin told
the partners that he had done some minimal consulting work
independently of the firm for one client, but he denied having
filed patent applications for the client. Shortly thereafter,
the partners obtained additional information showing that
Attorney Rosin had filed several patent applications through the
Wisconsin LLC while employed by the firm. The partners then
asked Attorney Rosin additional questions, at which time
Attorney Rosin admitted that he had filed patent applications
for C.G.J. through the Wisconsin LLC while employed by the firm.
4
2022AP1916-D
¶10 On December 2 and 3, 2021, Attorney Rosin provided the
founding partners of the firm with records showing the work he
had done through the Wisconsin LLC while employed by the firm.
On December 3, 2021, Attorney Rosin sent the firm a check for
$36,914.80, which represented what the firm would have collected
under Attorney Rosin’s compensation formula if the work he had
performed and billed through the Wisconsin LLC had been
performed and billed through the firm.
¶11 The above-described conduct by Attorney Rosin gave
rise to the two misconduct claims that the OLR brought against
Attorney Rosin in its complaint, which it filed on November 7,
2022.
Count 1: By forming [the Wisconsin LLC] to advance his
own financial interests while employed by the firm;
soliciting a firm client and providing services to
that client outside the firm; billing, collecting and
retaining for himself legal fees that should have been
billed through the firm; soliciting another potential
client to provide services outside the firm; and
making misrepresentations to the firm when initially
confronted with questions about his actions, in each
instance, [Attorney] Rosin violated SCR 20:8.4(c).[2]
Count 2: By forming [the Wisconsin LLC] to advance his
own financial interests while employed by the firm;
soliciting a firm client and providing services to
that client outside the firm; billing, collecting and
retaining for himself legal fees that should have been
billed through the firm; soliciting another potential
client to provide services outside the firm; and
making misrepresentations to the firm when initially
2 SCR 20:8.4 (c) provides: “It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation.”
5
2022AP1916-D
confronted with questions about his actions, in each
instance, [Attorney] Rosin breached his fiduciary duty
to his firm and his duty of honesty in his
professional dealings with his firm, in violation of
the standard of conduct set forth in [In re]
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shea, 190 Wis. 2d
560, [527 N.W.2d 314 (1995),3 actionable via] SCR
20:8.4(f).[4]
¶12 Attorney Rosin did not file an answer to the OLR’s
complaint. On January 24, 2023, however, the OLR and Attorney
Rosin filed a stipulation whereby Attorney Rosin stipulated to
all of the facts alleged and to the two counts of misconduct set
forth in the complaint.
¶13 In the stipulation, Attorney Rosin states that the
stipulation did not result from bargaining, and that he does not
contest the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR or the
discipline sought by the OLR. Attorney Rosin further states
that he fully understands the misconduct allegations; fully
understands the ramifications should this court impose the
stipulated level of discipline; fully understands his right to
contest this matter; and fully understands his right to consult
with counsel. Attorney Rosin represents that his entry into the
stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily, and that his
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shea, 190 Wis. 2d
3
560, 527 N.W.2d 314 (1995) holds that an attorney has a
fiduciary duty and a duty of honesty in the attorney's
professional dealings with the attorney's law firm.
SCR 20:8.4(f) provides: “It is professional misconduct for
4
a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court
order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of
lawyers.”
6
2022AP1916-D
entry into the stipulation represents his decision not to
contest the misconduct alleged in the complaint or the level and
type of discipline sought by the OLR.
¶14 In its memorandum in support of the stipulation, the
OLR points to prior decisions in which this court imposed
significant suspensions for somewhat analogous conduct. See
Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 WI 39,
391 Wis. 2d 196, 942 N.W.2d 302 (imposing a six-month license
suspension on an attorney who converted at least $8,665 in funds
belonging to his law firm for his personal use by failing to
tender billed fees to the firm or by collecting money directly
from the client and writing-off his billable time; attorney had
no disciplinary history, cooperated with the OLR’s
investigation, and expressed sincere remorse); see also In Re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hotvedt, 2016 WI 93, 372 Wis.
2d 68, 888 N.W.2d 393 (imposing an 18-month license suspension
on an attorney who converted over $173,000 in funds belonging to
his law firm by writing-off fees owed to the firm, depositing
client fee payments directly into his own personal bank account
rather than depositing the fees into the firm account, and
establishing a consulting firm for the purpose of converting
client fees owed to the firm; attorney had no disciplinary
history but failed to cooperate with the OLR’s investigation);
see also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Koenig, 2015 WI
16, 361 Wis. 2d 16, 859 N.W.2d 105 (imposing a two-year license
suspension on an attorney who converted at least $39,920 in
funds belonging to his law firm by directly accepting payments
7
2022AP1916-D
for legal work from firm clients or other parties using firm
resources in 37 separate instances without notifying the firm of
such payments, and by periodically falsifying billing statements
that he submitted to the firm).
¶15 Although no two disciplinary cases are exactly alike,
Moodie, Hotvedt, and Koenig all establish that misappropriations
of law firm funds will trigger lengthy license suspensions. The
stipulated one-year suspension of Attorney Rosin’s law license
fits comfortably within this precedent. We note, too, that
according to the OLR’s memorandum in support of the stipulation,
Attorney Rosin has been subjected to other sanctions for his
misconduct: The Director of the Office of Enrollment and
Discipline of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO) entered into a settlement agreement with Attorney Rosin
related to the same misconduct whereby the USPTO publicly
reprimanded Attorney Rosin, ordered him to serve a two-year
probationary period, and ordered him to complete four hours of
continuing legal education primarily concerning ethics,
fiduciary duty, or a lawyer's duty of candor. If Attorney Rosin
fails to comply with the terms of the agreement or any of the
USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct during his two-year
probationary period, he faces a six-month suspension of his
license to practice before the USPTO.5 We are satisfied that,
5 We note that this matter is being presented to us as a de
novo disciplinary action, not as a reciprocal disciplinary
matter. As we explained in In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Strizic, 2015 WI 57, ¶18 n.2, 362 Wis. 2d 659, 864
N.W.2d 869, our rules do not require the OLR “to automatically
(continued)
8
2022AP1916-D
under the totality of the circumstances presented, this court’s
imposition of the stipulated one-year suspension of Attorney
Rosin’s Wisconsin law license will be sufficient to accomplish
the objectives of the lawyer disciplinary system.
¶16 Accordingly, we accept the stipulation and impose the
requested one-year suspension. We do not order restitution; as
mentioned above, the OLR has not requested it, and Attorney
Rosin has voluntarily made restitution of funds owed to the
firm. Because the stipulation was filed at the outset of this
proceeding, thereby avoiding litigation costs and the need to
appoint a referee, we impose no costs on Attorney Rosin.
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Kevin R. Rosin to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year,
effective May 25, 2023.
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kevin R. Rosin shall comply
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been
suspended.
invoke the reciprocal disciplinary system whenever an attorney
is publicly disciplined in another jurisdiction.” As relevant
here, SCR 22.22(2) states that upon receiving a certified copy
of a judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing
discipline for misconduct of an attorney admitted to the
practice of law in this state, the OLR director “may” file a
reciprocal discipline complaint. “The statement in SCR 22.22(2)
that the OLR director ‘may’ file a complaint demonstrates that
the director has discretion to file a reciprocal discipline
complaint, to file a de novo disciplinary action, or to take no
action at all.” Strizic, 362 Wis. 2d 659, ¶18 n.2. Here, the
OLR has elected to file a de novo disciplinary action.
9
2022AP1916-D
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See SCR
22.28(3).
10
No. 2022AP1916-D
1