2017 WI 55
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2016AP1776-BA
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of the Bar Admission
of Charles A. Nichols.
Charles A. Nichols,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Bar Examiners,
Respondent.
BAR ADMISSION OF NICHOLS
OPINION FILED: June 2, 2017
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: February 20, 2017
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED: ABRAHAMSON, J. concurs, joined by A.W. Bradley,
J.
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
For the petitioner, there were briefs filed by Tamara B.
Packard, A.J. Grund and Pines Bach LLP, Madison.
For the Board of Bar Examiners, there was a brief filed by
Jacquelynn B. Rothstein, Director & Legal Counsel.
2017 WI 55
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2016AP1776-BA
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of the Bar Admission of
Charles A. Nichols:
Charles A. Nichols, FILED
Petitioner, JUN 2, 2017
v. Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Board of Bar Examiners,
Respondent.
REVIEW of Board of Bar Examiners' decision. Decision
reversed and remanded.
¶1 PER CURIAM. This is a review, pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule (SCR) 40.08(7), of the final decision of the Board of
Bar Examiners (Board) declining to certify that the petitioner,
Charles A. Nichols, satisfied the character and fitness
requirements for admission to the Wisconsin bar set forth in
SCR 40.06(1). The Board's refusal to certify that Mr. Nichols
satisfied the character and fitness requirements for admission
to the Wisconsin bar was based primarily on Mr. Nichols'
No. 2016AP1776-BA
academic misconduct during his third year in law school and his
failure to disclose certain matters on his bar application.
After careful review, we reverse and remand the matter to the
Board for further proceedings.
¶2 We appreciate the Board's concern regarding this
applicant. We appreciate the thorough investigation the Board
conducted into Mr. Nichols' background and past conduct.
Mr. Nichols' application raised significant questions about his
fitness to practice law. The duty to examine an applicant's
qualifications for bar admission rests initially on the Board,
and this court relies heavily on the Board's investigation and
evaluation. In the final analysis, however, this court retains
supervisory authority and has the ultimate responsibility for
regulating admission to the Wisconsin bar. See In re Bar
Admission of Rippl, 2002 WI 15, ¶3, 250 Wis. 2d 519, 639
N.W.2d 553, and In re Bar Admission of Vanderperren, 2003 WI 37,
¶2, 261 Wis. 2d 150, 661 N.W.2d 27.
¶3 While we understand the Board's decision, we conclude
that the incidents the Board relied upon, while troubling, are
sufficiently offset by positive character evidence to warrant
our conclusion that Mr. Nichols may be admitted to the practice
of law in Wisconsin, albeit with conditions. Accordingly, we
reverse.
¶4 Mr. Nichols began law school at the University of
Wisconsin in the fall of 2012. In the summer of 2014,
Mr. Nichols obtained a summer internship with the Office of the
Lieutenant Governor. This internship was unpaid, so Mr. Nichols
2
No. 2016AP1776-BA
also worked nights and weekends at a restaurant, 35 to 40 hours
per week. The Lieutenant Governor's office offered him a paid
position at the end of the summer of 2014.
¶5 During the fall of 2014, his third year in law school,
Mr. Nichols struggled to manage his work, volunteer service, and
academic coursework. He began to neglect his academic work,
including a Law of Democracy course. The grade for the course
was almost solely based on a thirty-page research paper due at
the end of the semester. The syllabus for the course stated
that plagiarism would result in a failing grade.
¶6 Mr. Nichols submitted a final paper. The professor
used an anti-plagiarism software program to check student
papers. The report revealed that Mr. Nichols' final paper
contained extensive language copied verbatim or nearly verbatim
from four published law review articles, without citations. The
repetition and nature of the matches led the professor to
conclude that this could not have been coincidental.
Mr. Nichols did not credit, in any form, the four law review
articles from which he obtained the passages. The professor
concluded that large portions of Mr. Nichols' final paper were
plagiarized.
¶7 On January 15, 2015, the professor convened a meeting
with Mr. Nichols, the director of student affairs, and an
associate dean. When confronted with the apparent plagiarism,
Mr. Nichols "told them immediately how he had developed the
paper [with extensive cutting and pasting], and with complete
3
No. 2016AP1776-BA
candor." Mr. Nichols admitted that his paper was "a mess" but
said that he did not intentionally commit plagiarism.
¶8 The law school determined that Mr. Nichols had engaged
in academic misconduct by submitting a paper that was copied in
substantial part from several existing legal publications with
no attribution in violation of UWS 14.03(1)(a).1 This conclusion
is reflected in a letter from the professor to Mr. Nichols,
dated January 23, 2015:
During our meeting, you confirmed that you drew
material from these sources—in particular, the [law
review] article. You further explained that your
research and note-taking process involved cutting and
pasting passages from [the law review article] and
other sources, and you acknowledged that, in your rush
to finish the paper, you may have (perhaps
unintentionally) reproduced some of those passages
without quotation marks, citations, or other
attribution.
As a sanction, Mr. Nichols received a failing grade on the paper
and in the course. The UW-Madison Dean of Students' Office also
reviewed the matter and imposed an additional sanction,
requiring Mr. Nichols to take an on-line course on academic
integrity and research methods. Mr. Nichols did so, and passed
the exam.
¶9 In the spring of 2015, his final year, Mr. Nichols
failed his required Professional Responsibility course because
1
UWS 14.03(1)(a) provides: "Academic misconduct is an act
in which a student [s]eeks to claim credit for the work or
efforts of another without authorization or citation."
4
No. 2016AP1776-BA
he failed to comply with the attendance policy; a student who
received more than three unexcused absences would fail the
course. Mr. Nichols retook the course and graduated from law
school in December 2015.
¶10 On March 23, 2015, Mr. Nichols submitted his bar
application to the Board pursuant to the diploma privilege,
SCR 40.03. He disclosed the academic misconduct. However,
during the ensuing standard character and fitness review, the
Board identified a number of discrepancies and omissions in his
bar application, including:
Mr. Nichols had failed to report three underage
drinking citations on his law school application. He
did report them on his bar application. Mr. Nichols
later explained that he did not "intend to purposely
mislead." He subsequently amended his law school
application, and was informed the information would
not have affected his admission.
Mr. Nichols failed to include on his bar application
information regarding a 2007 eviction case in which he
was named as a party. He had no actual involvement in
the case. A former roommate owed rent and all
roommates were listed as parties to the action. The
matter was resolved without Mr. Nichols' involvement.
Mr. Nichols failed to disclose on his bar application
that in 2008, he sought and obtained a restraining
order against a former girlfriend, for her harassment
of him.
Mr. Nichols failed to include information on his bar
application regarding a citation he received on
March 18, 2009 for an alleged absolute sobriety
violation. Mr. Nichols explained that the citation
was dismissed because testing revealed no detectible
level of alcohol.
5
No. 2016AP1776-BA
Mr. Nichols amended his bar application on January 27, 2016 in
response to the Board's inquiries. He said these omissions were
accidental.
¶11 On April 11, 2016, the Board informed Mr. Nichols that
his bar application was at risk of being denied for failing to
establish his good moral character and fitness within the
meaning of SCR 40.06(1) and Bar Admission Rule (BA) 6.01.
Mr. Nichols requested a hearing.
¶12 The Board conducted a hearing on June 10, 2016, at
which Mr. Nichols appeared and testified. He also offered
character witnesses including his colleague and former
supervisor Attorney Daniel Suhr, Chief of Staff and Legal
Counsel to the Lieutenant Governor. Attorney Suhr stated he is
"absolutely convinced that [Nichols] has the requisite
integrity, diligence, and judgment to serve his clients and
community well as an attorney in the State of Wisconsin."
Professor Robert Yablon, the professor who identified
Mr. Nichols' academic misconduct, also supported Mr. Nichols'
admission to the bar, stating that he feels Mr. Nichols has been
punished enough.
¶13 On August 4, 2016, the Board issued an adverse
decision concluding that Mr. Nichols failed to establish good
moral character and fitness to practice law in Wisconsin under
SCR 40.06(1) and (3). The Board's decision stated, inter alia:
In short, Mr. Nichols engaged in a blatant display of
plagiarism. By submitting a paper in connection with
his Law of Democracy course in which he failed to
include four separate sources from which he quoted
6
No. 2016AP1776-BA
extensively, and which accounted for over half of the
paper, Mr. Nichols was both dishonest and deceptive.
His conduct demonstrates that he is not honest,
diligent, or reliable.
The very next semester, Mr. Nichols took Professional
Responsibility, a required law school course, for
which he received a failing grade. In the course
syllabus, the attendance policy was outlined.
According to Mr. Nichols, the policy stated that
students who missed more than three (3) classes would
receive a failing grade. Mr. Nichols readily conceded
that he was aware of that professor's attendance
policy but that he missed several classes because of
"workload and stuff." Despite having been sanctioned
for plagiarism the prior semester, Mr. Nichols still
thought that the attendance policy was somehow
"subject to change" and would therefore not be
applicable to him. His attitude evinces a disregard
for rules and authority, and is especially concerning
given its close proximity to his plagiarism incident.
It suggests a pattern of problematic behavior in which
Mr. Nichols does not believe that certain rules and
requirements apply to him.
Additionally, Mr. Nichols failed to disclose three
underage drinking citations to the University of
Wisconsin Law School which he reported on his bar
application. In an amendment to his bar application,
Mr. Nichols explained that because the citations no
longer appeared on file in the county in which they
were issued, he did not believe that he was required
to report them. He went on to explain that "not
having gone to law school and not knowing any
attorneys" he "just missed" some things on his law
school application. The Board did not find
Mr. Nichols' explanation for failing to disclose the
underage drinking citations to be persuasive.
Mr. Nichols also failed to disclose a citation for an
absolute sobriety violation, and two civil actions.
The first civil matter involved him filing a
restraining order against a former girlfriend. The
second involved an eviction matter. Mr. Nichols
claimed that it was a "misunderstanding" on his part
as to why he had not included them in his application
to the bar. However, the Board did not find
Mr. Nichols' explanations for failing to include these
7
No. 2016AP1776-BA
items in his bar application to be credible or
convincing.
It appears as if Mr. Nichols has engaged in a pattern
of behavior in which he disregards certain rules and
authority to suit his needs. Mr. Nichols'
explanations about his academic misconduct in addition
to his omissions on his bar application and his law
school application were neither plausible nor
believable. Thus, the Board did not find him to be a
credible witness. Other than his employment, which
Mr. Nichols seemed strongly focused upon—much to the
detriment of his academic work, there does not appear
to have been any other rehabilitative efforts on his
part which would bolster or establish his required
character or fitness for admission to the Wisconsin
bar. Mr. Nichols' employment is not a sufficient
demonstration of rehabilitation to offset his
troubling conduct. Moreover, his academic misconduct
occurred during his third year of law school, at which
point he unquestionably should have known and
understood the wrongfulness of committing plagiarism.
When his omissions are coupled with his plagiarism, a
clear picture emerges wherein disclosures which are
not to Mr. Nichols' advantage are necessarily
withheld. Such conduct is of grave concern to the
Board causing it to wonder how Mr. Nichols would
prevent such behavior in the course of dealing with
clients in a future legal practice.
****
Mr. Nichols' various explanations for engaging in
conduct of this type are neither convincing nor
persuasive. Mr. Nichols has minimized his behavior,
providing excuses at every turn for his actions. He
engaged in intentional and wrongful conduct which
demonstrates a lack of character and fitness on his
part.
(Record citations omitted). Mr. Nichols seeks this court's
review.
¶14 Mr. Nichols first contends that several of the Board's
findings are clearly erroneous and should be rejected by this
8
No. 2016AP1776-BA
court. See In re Bar Admission of Rusch, 171 Wis. 2d 523, 528-
29, 492 N.W.2d 153 (1992). He also contends that the Board's
legal conclusions are not supported by the record evidence, and
that this court must, after its de novo review, reject the
Board's conclusions of law. See Rippl, 250 Wis. 2d 519, ¶16; In
re Bar Admission of Crowe, 141 Wis. 2d 230, 232, 414 N.W.2d 41
(1987). He maintains that he has met his burden of producing
information sufficient to affirmatively demonstrate his present
character and fitness. He asks this court to reverse the
Board's adverse decision.
¶15 When this court reviews an adverse determination of
the Board pursuant to SCR 40.08(7), we adopt the Board's
findings of fact if they are not clearly erroneous. In re Bar
Admission of Vanderperren, 2003 WI 37, ¶20, 261 Wis. 2d 150, 661
N.W.2d 27. We then determine if the Board's conclusions of law
based on those facts are proper. Id. This court retains the
ultimate authority to determine who should be admitted to the
bar in Wisconsin. While the Board's experience in administering
the bar admission rules is appreciated, this court is obligated
to make its legal determinations de novo. Rippl, 250
Wis. 2d 519, ¶¶13, 16.
¶16 We reject Mr. Nichols' assertion that the challenged
Board findings are clearly erroneous. Mr. Nichols challenges
the Board's factual finding that "[b]y submitting a plagiarized
paper in connection with his Law of Democracy course,
Mr. Nichols was both dishonest and deceptive." Mr. Nichols says
that the record does not support the finding that he was ever
9
No. 2016AP1776-BA
"dishonest" or "deceptive." He says that "nothing in the record
supports the Board's contention that Mr. Nichols' conduct was
intended to deceive or serves as evidence of dishonesty." He
also disputes the Board's finding that he "minimized the
significance of the misconduct in which he had engaged."
¶17 The Board stands by its findings. It found that
Mr. Nichols was not credible when explaining his conduct and the
omissions on his bar application at the hearing before the
Board. The Board maintains that Mr. Nichols has consistently
minimized the seriousness of his behavior and contends that this
"record clearly reveals that Mr. Nichols has a serious
credibility problem."
¶18 The Board's factual findings essentially derive from
the facts of the undisputed underlying academic misconduct and
omissions on his bar application, coupled with its own
credibility determinations made at the Board hearing. We are
disinclined to second guess credibility determinations made by
factfinders. Nothing in this record suggests that it was
"clearly erroneous" for the Board not to accept Mr. Nichols'
explanations for his plagiarism or his failures to disclose
certain matters on his bar application. The Board's factual
findings, particularly those based on the Board's credibility
determinations, have sufficient support and are not clearly
erroneous.
¶19 We next evaluate the Board's conclusion that
Mr. Nichols failed to satisfy the character and fitness
requirements for admission to the Wisconsin bar.
10
No. 2016AP1776-BA
¶20 The standards for evaluating an applicant's admission
to the Wisconsin bar are well settled. Supreme Court Rule
40.06(1) requires that applicants for bar admission establish
good moral character and fitness to practice law. The burden
rests with the applicant to establish character and fitness to
the satisfaction of the Board. See SCRs 40.06(3) and 40.07.
The Appendix to SCR Ch. 40 contains the Board's rules that
provide additional guidance to the Board and to applicants.
¶21 Bar Admission 6.01 provides that "[a] lawyer should be
one whose record of conduct justifies the trust of clients,
adversaries, courts and others with respect to the professional
duties owed to them." That same section notes that "[a] record
manifesting a deficiency in the honesty, diligence or
reliability of an applicant may constitute a basis for denial of
admission."
¶22 Bar Admission 6.02 provides that in determining
whether an applicant possesses the necessary character and
fitness to practice law, 12 factors "should be treated as cause
for further inquiry." BA 6.02 (Relevant Conduct or Condition).
As relevant, these factors include a person's unlawful conduct,
academic misconduct, false statements by the applicant,
including concealment or nondisclosure, and acts involving
dishonesty or misrepresentation. See id.
¶23 Bar Admission 6.03 provides that in assigning weight
and significance to the applicant's prior conduct, the following
factors are to be considered:
(a) the applicant's age at the time of the conduct
11
No. 2016AP1776-BA
(b) the recency of the conduct
(c) the reliability of the information concerning the
conduct
(d) the seriousness of the conduct
(e) the mitigating or aggravating circumstances
(f) the evidence of rehabilitation
(g) the applicant's candor in the admissions process
(h) the materiality of any omissions or misrepresentations
(i) the number of incidents revealing deficiencies
See SCR 40 app., BA 6.03.
¶24 When conducting our de novo review, we, like the
Board, use the guidelines established in BA 6.02 and BA 6.03.
¶25 Although both parties address each of these factors,
the crux of Mr. Nichols' argument is that he committed a "single
instance of academic misconduct that developed from
carelessness, not intent." He concedes this was serious but
contends that it is not substantial enough to warrant denial of
his admission to the bar. He claims that the Board "ignored"
other relevant evidence that reflects his good character, such
as his positive character references from employers.
¶26 The Board maintains that it considered all facets of
Mr. Nichols' application. It observes that most of Mr. Nichols'
positive conduct is linked to his recent employment. The Board
determined that his negative conduct, coupled with his lack of
candor and credibility, substantially outweighed his positive
conduct. Contrary to certain assertions in Mr. Nichols' brief,
the Board does not seek to forever bar Mr. Nichols from
12
No. 2016AP1776-BA
admission to the practice of law in Wisconsin. The Board
suggests he could reapply pursuant to SCR 40.04 after a year.
The court has used this or a similar mechanism in the past,
typically when the court deemed it appropriate to defer an
applicant's admission. See, e.g., In re Bar Admission of
Gaylord, 155 Wis. 2d 816, 456 N.W.2d 590 (1990); In re Bar
Admission of Saganski, 226 Wis. 2d 678, 78-80, 595 N.W.2d 631
(1999).
¶27 Mr. Nichols argues that the Board's adverse
determination is inconsistent with this court's resolution of
other bar admission cases, most notably and recently, In re Bar
Admission of Jarrett, 2016 WI 39, 368 Wis. 2d 567, 879
N.W.2d 116. See also, In re Bar Admission of Anderson, 2006 WI
57, ¶26, 290 Wis. 2d 722, 715 N.W.2d 586; Vanderperren, 261
Wis. 2d 150, ¶65; Rippl, 250 Wis. 2d 519.
¶28 The most factually analogous case is our recent
decision in Jarrett. Mr. Jarrett committed academic misconduct
after his first year in law school. He sent a resume and
unofficial transcript to a potential employer, containing false
information and inflated grades. Jarrett, 2016 WI 39, ¶6.
Mr. Jarrett also failed to disclose in his bar application that
he had received several traffic violations. This court
ultimately opted to admit Mr. Jarrett, with conditions.
¶29 Here, as in Jarrett, we emphasize that the Board acted
reasonably in questioning Mr. Nichols' character and fitness,
and conducted its review in accordance with the established
standards. Bar Admission 6.02 provides that both academic
13
No. 2016AP1776-BA
misconduct and false statements (including nondisclosure)
"should be treated as cause for further inquiry." (Emphasis
added.) The record reflects that the Board considered the
factors set forth in BA 6.03; particularly the recency of the
conduct, which occurred during his final year of law school,
(6.03(b)), its seriousness (6.03(d)), and the applicant's candor
in the admissions process (6.03(g)). See SCR 40 app, BA 6.03
(a)-(i). The Board expressed very reasonable concern about a
pattern "wherein disclosures which are not to Mr. Nichols'
advantage are necessarily withheld." The Board explicitly found
that "Nichols' employment is not a sufficient demonstration of
rehabilitation to offset his troubling conduct."
¶30 The Board serves the critically important role as a
gatekeeper to admission to the bar. The Board was right to be
deeply concerned by Mr. Nichols' record. Still, as in Jarrett,
this court has reviewed this record and has opted to afford this
applicant the benefit of the doubt. We conclude that
Mr. Nichols can be admitted to the practice of law, subject to
the imposition of certain conditions.2 In reaching this
conclusion we are influenced by the fact that employers who work
closely with Mr. Nichols speak highly of him as an individual,
and of his work ethic. The omissions on his bar application
were careless, but the items omitted do not, themselves, reflect
2
We accept the Board's determination that conditional
admission pursuant to SCR 40.075(1) was not appropriate here.
This does not preclude this court from imposing its own
conditions on Mr. Nichols' license to practice law.
14
No. 2016AP1776-BA
poorly on Mr. Nichols' character. We are also influenced by the
fact that the professor of the class in which Mr. Nichols
committed academic misconduct supports his admission to the bar.
The professor noted that Mr. Nichols had been "forthright in
acknowledging his errors and accepting responsibility," and that
he seems genuinely contrite. The professor noted further that
Mr. Nichols "has paid a real price for his actions, with an F on
his transcript and his misconduct made the admission process
vastly more time consuming, expensive, and stressful."
¶31 Accordingly, we direct the Board to certify
Mr. Nichols' admission to practice law in Wisconsin.
Mr. Nichols' admission to the practice of law in Wisconsin is
contingent on his compliance with certain requirements set forth
in this decision as well as certain conditions on his license to
practice law.
¶32 We direct the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) to
identify and appoint a practice monitor to serve as a mentor to
Mr. Nichols and to supervise and oversee Mr. Nichols' practice
of law and related professional activities for a period of two
years following the practice monitor's appointment. The
practice monitor shall be licensed to practice law in Wisconsin
and be located in the region of Mr. Nichols' place of employment
or residence.
¶33 Upon Mr. Nichols' admission to the practice of law in
Wisconsin and his enrollment with the State Bar of Wisconsin
pursuant to SCR 10.03(2), Mr. Nichols is directed to initially
elect inactive membership status. See SCR 10.03(3)(a). This
15
No. 2016AP1776-BA
will afford the OLR time to identify a practice monitor and will
obviate the need for Mr. Nichols to bear the costs and
obligations of monitoring before he assumes the active practice
of law.
¶34 When the OLR advises Mr. Nichols that a practice
monitor has been identified, Mr. Nichols shall execute a written
monitoring agreement setting forth the terms of Mr. Nichols'
monitoring as determined by the practice monitor. Mr. Nichols
may then, with written notice to the OLR, change his
classification to active status by complying with
SCR 10.03(3)(b)1. The formal appointment date of the monitor
will be the date Mr. Nichols elects active membership in the
State Bar pursuant to SCR 10.03(3)(b)1.
¶35 We direct Mr. Nichols to cooperate with the OLR,
cooperate with his practice monitor, and comply with all
requirements imposed upon him by the OLR relating to his
monitoring. Mr. Nichols shall comply with all reasonable
requests of his practice monitor and shall bear the reasonable
costs of monitoring.3
¶36 Upon appointment, the monitor shall report to the OLR,
in writing, on a quarterly basis. Within thirty days prior to
3
Lawyer monitoring often requires a lawyer to undergo an
AODA (alcohol and other drug abuse) assessment and/or
psychological evaluation. The record in this case does not
appear to warrant such conditions and they should not be imposed
here. In the event such conditions appear necessary, the OLR
shall provide Mr. Nichols with notice and an opportunity to be
heard.
16
No. 2016AP1776-BA
the expiration of the two-year monitoring period, the OLR shall
file a report in this court in which it shall recommend to the
court that the conditions on Mr. Nichols' admission be allowed
to terminate or be extended.
¶37 Should Mr. Nichols fail to make a good faith effort to
satisfy these conditions, or should he commit misconduct during
the monitoring period, his license to practice law may be
suspended or revoked and he may be subject to other discipline
pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys.
¶38 IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Board of Bar
Examiners declining to certify that Charles A. Nichols has
satisfied the requirements for admission to the practice of law
in Wisconsin is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Board
for further action consistent with this decision.
¶39 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Charles A. Nichols shall
comply with the directives set forth in this decision and shall,
promptly upon receipt of this decision, provide the Office of
Lawyer Regulation with a copy of the entire record in this
matter and authorize the OLR to share the record with the
practice monitor.
¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that subject to the required
disclosures to the Office of Lawyer Regulation and practice
monitor as set forth herein, the documents submitted under seal
are deemed confidential, and will be maintained under seal until
further order of the court.
17
No. 2016AP1776-BA.ssa
¶41 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (concurring). I write
separately to provide some context for ¶40 of this opinion,
which may be confusing for those who are not thoroughly
conversant with our court rules. The paragraph provides that,
"subject to the required disclosures to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation and practice monitor as set forth herein, the
documents submitted under seal are deemed confidential, and will
be maintained under seal until further order of the court."
¶42 Persons seeking admission to practice law in Wisconsin
must file an application with the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE).
See SCR 40.14. The information an applicant must disclose to
the BBE is extensive and some of it is highly personal. For
this reason, SCR 40.12 provides that the "application files of
an applicant and all examination materials are confidential.
The supreme court or the board may authorize the release of
confidential information to other persons or agencies."
¶43 When an applicant asks this court to review an adverse
determination from the BBE, SCR 40.08(7), the record submitted
to this court typically contains the applicant's bar application
and related documents, which comprise the "application file."
Consistent with our rule, material from the application file is
confidential and is not available to the public, absent a court
order. In this matter, the applicant, himself, voluntarily
opted to include in the appendix to his appellate brief some
items from his bar application, including certain amendments to
his bar application. When an applicant does not file
1
No. 2016AP1776-BA.ssa
confidential material under seal with this court, a question may
arise whether confidentiality is waived.
¶44 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH
BRADLEY joins this concurrence.
2
No. 2016AP1776-BA.ssa
1