2004 WI 22
|
Supreme
Court of Wisconsin |
|
|
|
|
Case No.: |
88-2087-D |
|
Complete Title: |
|
|
|
In the
Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Kevin M. Kelsay, Attorney at Law: Office
of Lawyer Regulation, f/k/a Board of
Attorneys Professional Responsibility, Complainant, v. Kevin
M. Kelsay, Respondent. |
|
|
|
|
|
REINSTATEMENT OF KELSAY |
|
|
|
|
Opinion Filed: |
March 16, 2004 |
|
Submitted on Briefs: |
||
Oral Argument: |
||
|
|
|
Source of Appeal: |
|
|
|
Court: |
|
|
County: |
|
|
Judge: |
|
|
|
|
Justices: |
|
|
|
Concurred: |
|
|
Dissented: |
ROGGENSACK, J., dissents. |
|
Not Participating: |
|
|
|
|
Attorneys: |
|
|
Supreme
Court of Wisconsin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notice This order is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. |
|
The Court entered the following order on this date:
Attorney Kevin M.
Kelsay was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1984. On June 4, 1990, his license to
practice law in Wisconsin was suspended for three years for professional
misconduct. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kelsay, 155 Wis. 2d
480, 455 N.W.2d 871 (1990). On June 3,
2002, Attorney Kelsay filed a petition for reinstatement. However, on August 23, 2002, while the
reinstatement proceeding was pending, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR)
filed a new complaint against Attorney Kelsay, alleging he had engaged in
the practice of law while his license was under suspension in violation
of SCR 20:5.5(a) and SCR 22.26(2). The petition for reinstatement was
stayed pending resolution of this complaint.
On November 12,
2003, this court suspended Attorney Kelsay’s license for an
additional period of six months, in connection with findings he had
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Kelsay, 2003 WI 141.
On December 22,
2003, the referee issued the report and recommendation on the reinstatement
petition. The referee recommended the
petition be denied. Neither Attorney
Kelsay nor the OLR appealed this recommendation on the merits, however Attorney
Kelsay has filed a letter objecting to the OLR’s statement of costs associated
with the reinstatement proceeding, which total $20,317.81.
We adopt the referee’s report and
recommendation and agree that Attorney Kelsay’s petition for reinstatement
should be denied. He has failed
to establish the requirements for reinstatement set forth in SCR 22.29.
As the referee cogently stated:
. . . Mr. Kelsay’s continuing pattern of
conduct in the matters discussed above, which span the entire time since he was
eligible for reinstatement demonstrate that Mr. Kelsay’s petition for
reinstatement should be denied. Mr.
Kelsay has not been entirely honest in his dealings with others, he has
demonstrated a willingness to file frivolous claims on several occasions, he
has engaged in the practice of law on at least two occasions, and has generally
acted in a manner that is not befitting a member of the Wisconsin Bar. For these reasons, I recommend that Mr.
Kelsay’s petition for reinstatement be denied.
Report
and recommendation at 20-21.
Attorney Kelsay
objects to the assessment of costs against him on the grounds that he lacks the
financial resources to pay the costs.
He has also questioned the OLR’s authority to impose costs in this
proceeding. This court may assess costs
in reinstatement proceedings where the respondent has been denied
reinstatement. See SCR 22.24; In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Eisenberg, 122 Wis.2d 627, 632, 363 N.W.2d 430 (1985). Attorney
Kelsay has not made specific objections regarding the costs assessed in this
proceeding. Therefore, OLR's request for
costs in the amount of $20,317.81 incurred in this reinstatement proceeding is
granted. To the extent that Attorney Kelsay demonstrates that he is unable to
pay the costs imposed upon him, that will be considered in future reinstatement
proceedings. See, e.g., In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Harman, 2003 WI 45, 261 Wis. 2d 322,
661 N.W.2d 403.
IT IS ORDERED
that Attorney Kelsay’s petition for reinstatement is denied;
IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that Attorney Kelsay’s objection to the OLR’s statement of costs is
denied;
IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Attorney Kevin Kelsay
shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this reinstatement
proceeding. If the costs are not paid within the time specified, and absent a
showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the
license of Kevin Kelsay to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended
until further order of the court.
Roggensack
J., dissenting as to the imposition of costs.
Cornelia
G. Clark
Clerk
of Supreme Court