95-0536 In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against David V. Penn, Attorney at Law

Listen to this article

And, in response to the referee’s procedural questions, We believe that the rules contemplate that the referee conducting a hearing on the petition for reinstatement must engage in a full and unrestricted evaluation of the petitioner’s past, present, and predicted future behavior, as well as any other relevant information going to the issue of whether the petitioner has the moral character to practice law in this state and whether his or her resumption of the practice of law would be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest. We point out that SCR 22.29 lists the requirements a petition for reinstatement must show. However, SCR 22.30 dealing with the reinstatement procedure itself, as well as the provisions in SCR 22.31[4] describing the reinstatement hearing, bolster the conclusion that the reinstatement hearing if necessary can be far-ranging and not limited to addressing the listed petition requirements in SCR 22.29(4). … We believe that the petitioner’s activities leading to the suspension of his or her license to practice law may indeed be relevant to the referee’s determination of whether that petitioner has demonstrated by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or she has the moral character to resume the practice of law in this state and that such resumption would not be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive to the public interest.”

Further, we adopt the referee’s recommendation that David Penn be required, as a condition of reinstatement, to pay the costs of these reinstatement proceedings now totaling $6803.64. We determine, however, that rather than being given only six months to pay such costs, that the petitioner may have one year from the date of this opinion within which to pay such costs. Accordingly, we grant Attorney David V. Penn’s petition to reinstate his license to practice in this state.

CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART: Prosser, J. I concur in that portion of the court’s decision and order reinstating the license to practice law of Attorney David V. Penn. I dissent from the court’s determination imposing all costs of this reinstatement proceeding ($6,803.64) on Attorney Penn. …

“Attorney Penn is being assessed nearly seven times the costs being assessed against Attorney Hyndman in another matter decided today, in large part because the much more serious Hyndman case was handled under the old rules. Disciplinary Matter Against Hyndman, 2002 WI 6, ___ Wis.2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___. I think this result is manifestly unfair. No doubt, Attorney Penn should pay reasonable costs. In my view, full costs are not reasonable under the circumstances here and will impose a hardship on an attorney trying to start over.

Consequently, on the issue of costs, I dissent.”

Office of Lawyer Regulation; Per Curiam