member bar in Wisconsin

2018In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jennings, 2011 WI 45, ¶39, 334 (g) The petitioner can safely be 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 as an officer of the courts. (h) The petitioner has fully complied with the requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. (j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license if reinstated. (k) A full description of all of the petitioner's business

2018In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jennings, 2011 WI 45, ¶39, 334 (g) The petitioner can safely be 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 as an officer of the courts. (h) The petitioner has fully complied with the requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. (j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license if reinstated. (k) A full description of all of the petitioner's business

2018We reach a different conclusion of law than the referee with respect to CL 9 (concluding that "Mandelman has therefore satisfied the requirements of SCR 22.29(4)(f)"); CL 10 (concluding that "Mandelman therefore satisfied the requirements of SCR 22.29(4)(g)"); CL 11 (concluding that "Mandelman has satisfied the requirements of SCR 22.31(1)(a) and (b)"). 13 No. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D Penn, 2002 WI 5, ¶8 , 249 Wis. 2d 667 , 638 N.W.2d 287 , this court held: [T]he referee conducting a hearing on the petition for reinstatement must engage in a full and unrestricted eval

2018We reach a different conclusion of law than the referee with respect to CL 9 (concluding that "Mandelman has therefore satisfied the requirements of SCR 22.29(4)(f)"); CL 10 (concluding that "Mandelman therefore satisfied the requirements of SCR 22.29(4)(g)"); CL 11 (concluding that "Mandelman has satisfied the requirements of SCR 22.31(1)(a) and (b)"). 13 No. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D Penn, 2002 WI 5, ¶8 , 249 Wis. 2d 667 , 638 N.W.2d 287 , this court held: [T]he referee conducting a hearing on the petition for reinstatement must engage in a full and unrestricted eval

2021In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nussburger, 2009 WI 103 , 321 Wis. 2d 576 , 775 N.W.2d 525 ; see also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Langer, 213 Wis. 2d 125 , 569 N.W.2d 465 (1997).

2021In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nussburger, 2009 WI 103 , 321 Wis. 2d 576 , 775 N.W.2d 525 ; see also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Langer, 213 Wis. 2d 125 , 569 N.W.2d 465 (1997).

1932State v. Cannon, 199 Wis. 401 , 226 N. W. 385 .

1932State v. Cannon, 199 Wis. 401 , 226 N. W. 385 .

2017If the member is practicing law, the member shall state the account number of any trust account, and the name of each financial institution in which the member maintains the trust account.... 10 SCR 22.26(2) provides: An attorney whose license to practice law is suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the practice of law may not engage in this state in the practice of law or in any law work activity customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may engage in law related work in this state for a commercial employer itself not engaged

2017If the member is practicing law, the member shall state the account number of any trust account, and the name of each financial institution in which the member maintains the trust account.... 10 SCR 22.26(2) provides: An attorney whose license to practice law is suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the practice of law may not engage in this state in the practice of law or in any law work activity customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may engage in law related work in this state for a commercial employer itself not engaged

1998Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 117 Wis. 2d 332 , 344 N.W.2d 169 (1984). 122 Wis. 2d 627 , 363 N.W.2d 430 (1985). 126 Wis. 2d 435 , 377 N.W.2d 160 (1985).

1998Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 117 Wis. 2d 332 , 344 N.W.2d 169 (1984). 122 Wis. 2d 627 , 363 N.W.2d 430 (1985). 126 Wis. 2d 435 , 377 N.W.2d 160 (1985).

1998Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 117 Wis. 2d 332 , 344 N.W.2d 169 (1984). 122 Wis. 2d 627 , 363 N.W.2d 430 (1985). 126 Wis. 2d 435 , 377 N.W.2d 160 (1985).

1998Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 117 Wis. 2d 332 , 344 N.W.2d 169 (1984). 122 Wis. 2d 627 , 363 N.W.2d 430 (1985). 126 Wis. 2d 435 , 377 N.W.2d 160 (1985).

1998Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 117 Wis. 2d 332 , 344 N.W.2d 169 (1984). 122 Wis. 2d 627 , 363 N.W.2d 430 (1985). 126 Wis. 2d 435 , 377 N.W.2d 160 (1985).

1998Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 117 Wis. 2d 332 , 344 N.W.2d 169 (1984). 122 Wis. 2d 627 , 363 N.W.2d 430 (1985). 126 Wis. 2d 435 , 377 N.W.2d 160 (1985).

1963The majority opinion holds in effect this court has power to revoke or suspend a license of a member of the bar for acts in his private life which do not involve unprofessional conduct or moral turpitude and overrules language in State v. McKinnon (1953), 263 Wis. 413, 416 , 57 N. W. (2d) 404 , that “it is not within the scope of this court’s authority to impose discipline for conduct which has no relation to his duties and obligations as a lawyer, where the request for disciplinary action is based upon acts involving no moral turpitude.” It was pointed out in State v. McCarthy (1949), 255 Wis

1963The majority opinion holds in effect this court has power to revoke or suspend a license of a member of the bar for acts in his private life which do not involve unprofessional conduct or moral turpitude and overrules language in State v. McKinnon (1953), 263 Wis. 413, 416 , 57 N. W. (2d) 404 , that “it is not within the scope of this court’s authority to impose discipline for conduct which has no relation to his duties and obligations as a lawyer, where the request for disciplinary action is based upon acts involving no moral turpitude.” It was pointed out in State v. McCarthy (1949), 255 Wis

1963The majority opinion holds in effect this court has power to revoke or suspend a license of a member of the bar for acts in his private life which do not involve unprofessional conduct or moral turpitude and overrules language in State v. McKinnon (1953), 263 Wis. 413, 416 , 57 N. W. (2d) 404 , that “it is not within the scope of this court’s authority to impose discipline for conduct which has no relation to his duties and obligations as a lawyer, where the request for disciplinary action is based upon acts involving no moral turpitude.” It was pointed out in State v. McCarthy (1949), 255 Wis

1963The majority opinion holds in effect this court has power to revoke or suspend a license of a member of the bar for acts in his private life which do not involve unprofessional conduct or moral turpitude and overrules language in State v. McKinnon (1953), 263 Wis. 413, 416 , 57 N. W. (2d) 404 , that “it is not within the scope of this court’s authority to impose discipline for conduct which has no relation to his duties and obligations as a lawyer, where the request for disciplinary action is based upon acts involving no moral turpitude.” It was pointed out in State v. McCarthy (1949), 255 Wis

1961Cowern v. Nelson (1940), 207 Minn. 642, 647 , 290 N. W. 795 , reached a similar conclusion and rested its decision in favor of the brokers on the ground of comity between the judicial and legislative branches of government.

1961Cowern v. Nelson (1940), 207 Minn. 642, 647 , 290 N. W. 795 , reached a similar conclusion and rested its decision in favor of the brokers on the ground of comity between the judicial and legislative branches of government.

1958In the opinion In re Integration of Bar (1946), 249 Wis. 523 , 25 N. W. (2d) 500 , the court assumed it would be required to censor the budget and activities of the bar after integration.

1958In the opinion In re Integration of Bar (1946), 249 Wis. 523 , 25 N. W. (2d) 500 , the court assumed it would be required to censor the budget and activities of the bar after integration.

1936Wayne County v. Waller, 90 Pa. 99 , 35 Am.

1930State v. Cannon, 196 Wis. 534 , 221 N. W. 603 ; Id. 199 Wis. 401 , 226 N. W. 385 .

1930State v. Cannon, 196 Wis. 534 , 221 N. W. 603 ; Id. 199 Wis. 401 , 226 N. W. 385 .

1927This conclusion is supported by In re Burton (Utah) 246 Pac. 188 ; State v. Peck, 88 Conn. 447 , 91 Atl. 274 ; Hobbs’ Case, 75 N. H. 285, 73 Atl. 303 ; State ex rel.

1927This conclusion is supported by In re Burton (Utah) 246 Pac. 188 ; State v. Peck, 88 Conn. 447 , 91 Atl. 274 ; Hobbs’ Case, 75 N. H. 285, 73 Atl. 303 ; State ex rel.

1927This conclusion is supported by In re Burton (Utah) 246 Pac. 188 ; State v. Peck, 88 Conn. 447 , 91 Atl. 274 ; Hobbs’ Case, 75 N. H. 285, 73 Atl. 303 ; State ex rel.

1927This conclusion is supported by In re Burton (Utah) 246 Pac. 188 ; State v. Peck, 88 Conn. 447 , 91 Atl. 274 ; Hobbs’ Case, 75 N. H. 285, 73 Atl. 303 ; State ex rel.

1916Co. 39 Wis. 390 , was a case where under a statute declared to be unconstitutional it was provided that instead of a change of venue upon a disqualification of the circuit judge the parties might stipulate to try the case before a member of the bar of the supreme court, and the validity of a judgment of an attorney so chosen came into question.

1898Atwood v. Dumas, 149 Mass. 167 .