Professional Responsibility — revocation

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Professional Responsibility — revocation

Where attorney Joshua F. Stubbins made repeated misrepresentations to his clients, to his law firm, and to opposing counsel, billed for work he never performed, lacked diligence, and took actions on behalf of his clients without their knowledge or consent, revocation is appropriate.

“As noted above, Attorney Stubbins’s petition states that he cannot successfully defend himself against the misconduct allegations that have arisen from the OLR’s investigations. In the petition Attorney Stubbins asserts that he is freely, voluntarily, and knowingly (1) giving up his right to contest the OLR’s allegations of misconduct and (2) asking for the revocation of his license to practice law in this state. He also acknowledges that he has the right to retain counsel in this matter, but states that he has chosen to represent himself. Finally, Attorney Stubbins states that he is aware of the consequences of the revocation of his license, including his obligation to follow the requirements of SCR 22.26 and the need to complete the formal reinstatement process outlined in SCRs 22.29 through 22.33 in the event that he would ever seek the reinstatement of his license.”

2014AP1622-D OLR v. Stubbins

Per Curiam.

Attorneys: For Complainant: Weigel, William J., Madison; For Respondent: Stubbins, Joshua F., Rockville, MD