92AP3208-D BAPR v. Jennings

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 23, 2011//

Listen to this article

Professional Responsibility
Reinstatement

Where attorney David V. Jennings, III, has satisfied the conditions for reinstatement, reinstatement is appropriate.

“Despite the weaknesses of some of Attorney Jennings’ contentions, we ultimately agree with his contention that his reinstatement petition should be granted. Upon review of undisputed facts, it becomes apparent that Attorney Jennings has made significant progress in satisfying reinstatement requirements. In addition to continuing monthly restitution payments to ESOT and maintaining competence in the law, he has demonstrated he has earned the trust and respect of those with whom he has worked. Over the past 15 years, Attorney Jennings has successfully held positions of trust and responsibility.”

92AP3208-D BAPR v. Jennings

Per Curiam.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Jennings, David V., III, Cedarburg; For Respondent: Spoke, Julie Marie, Madison

Full Text

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event