2011 WI 17
|
Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
|
|
|
|
Case No.: |
2001AP1784-D & 2003AP1743-D |
|
Complete Title: |
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Virginia Rose Ray, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation f/k/a Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, Complainant, v. Virginia Rose Ray, Respondent. |
|
|
|
|
|
REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR RAY |
|
|
|
|
Order Filed: |
March 16, 2011 |
|
Submitted on Briefs: |
||
Oral Argument: |
||
|
|
|
Source of Appeal: |
|
|
|
Court: |
|
|
County: |
|
|
Judge: |
|
|
|
|
Justices: |
|
|
|
Concurred: |
|
|
Dissented: |
|
|
Concurred/Dissented |
CROOKS, J. concurs in part; dissents in part. |
|
Not Participating: |
|
|
|
|
Attorneys: |
|
2011 WI 17
|
Supreme Court of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notice This order is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. |
|
No. 2001AP1784-D & 2003AP1743-D
The Court entered the following order on this date:
On May 18, 2009,
Virginia Rose Ray filed a petition for reinstatement of her license to practice
law in
The referee's
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation are approved and
adopted. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED
that the petition for reinstatement is denied;
IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that the file be placed under seal because it contains confidential
information; and
IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that within 60 days of the day of this order, Virginia Rose Ray pay to
the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which total
$30,354.68 as of January 3, 2011.
Crooks,
J., concurs in the denial of the petition for reinstatement and dissents from
the portion of the order placing the file under seal.
[1] SCR 22.29(4) provides:
The petition for
reinstatement shall show all of the following:
(a) The petitioner
desires to have the petitioner's license reinstated.
(b) The petitioner has
not practiced law during the period of suspension or revocation.
(c) The petitioner has
complied fully with the terms of the order of suspension or revocation and will
continue to comply with them until the petitioner's license is reinstated.
(d) The petitioner has
maintained competence and learning in the law by attendance at identified
educational activities.
(e) The petitioner's
conduct since the suspension or revocation has been exemplary and above
reproach.
(f) The petitioner has
a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with the standards.
(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 activities during the period of suspension
or revocation.
(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to the Wisconsin lawyers’ fund for client protection for all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability to do so.