The Wisconsin Supreme Court reinstated attorney Steven D. Johnson's law license in a per curiam decision issued Oct. 10, despite finding that Johnson failed to disclose receiving a consensual public reprimand while his reinstatement petition was pending.
The court reviewed reports from Referee L. Michael Tobin recommending reinstatement following Johnson's six-month suspension imposed in 2023. The Wisconsin Supreme Court had previously suspended Johnson's license in *In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Johnson* (2023 WI 73).
The reinstatement proceeding took an unusual turn when the court discovered on its own that Johnson had negotiated and received a consensual public reprimand while his petition was pending before the referee. Both Johnson and the Office of Lawyer Regulation failed to disclose this development to Referee Tobin, prompting the court to order a supplemental report.
"We caution future litigants in reinstatement matters not to follow the course charted by the parties here," the court wrote in its per curiam opinion.
Johnson was licensed to practice law in Wisconsin in July 2005 and has maintained his practice in Appleton throughout his legal career. The attorney has a documented disciplinary history, including a private reprimand received in August 2008 for unspecified professional conduct violations.
The case proceeded without appeal from either Referee Tobin's initial report or his supplemental report, allowing the court to review the matter under Supreme Court Rule 22.33(3). This procedural posture meant the court could act directly on the referee's recommendations without additional briefing from the parties.
The Office of Lawyer Regulation, which oversees attorney discipline in Wisconsin, served as complainant-respondent in the proceedings. The OLR's failure to disclose the consensual public reprimand to the referee appears to have been as concerning to the court as Johnson's own nondisclosure.
Referee Tobin's reports, both initial and supplemental, recommended granting Johnson's reinstatement petition despite the disclosure issues. The referee apparently concluded that the underlying circumstances warranted restoration of Johnson's law license, even accounting for the procedural irregularities that emerged during the proceedings.
The court's decision to proceed with reinstatement while issuing a public caution reflects the balance courts must strike in attorney discipline cases. While nondisclosure during reinstatement proceedings represents a serious procedural violation, the court evidently determined that the violation did not warrant denial of Johnson's petition.
Attorney reinstatement proceedings in Wisconsin follow specific procedural requirements designed to ensure that suspended lawyers demonstrate fitness to resume practice. These proceedings typically require disclosure of all relevant circumstances, including any disciplinary actions or pending matters that could affect the attorney's standing.
The consensual public reprimand that Johnson received during his reinstatement proceedings suggests additional professional conduct issues arose after his initial suspension. Public reprimands represent formal disciplinary sanctions that become part of an attorney's permanent record and are accessible to the public.
The timing of the undisclosed reprimand appears particularly significant, as it occurred while Johnson was actively seeking reinstatement and presumably attempting to demonstrate rehabilitation and fitness to practice. The failure to disclose this development to the referee undermined the transparency that reinstatement proceedings require.
The court's discovery of the nondisclosure "on its own" suggests the information came to light through means other than the parties' representations. This circumstance likely contributed to the court's pointed warning about future conduct in similar proceedings.
Wisconsin's attorney discipline system operates under the oversight of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, with the Office of Lawyer Regulation serving as the prosecutorial arm. The system relies on accurate and complete disclosure from all parties to function effectively, making the nondisclosure in Johnson's case particularly problematic.
The case highlights the importance of transparency in attorney discipline proceedings and the consequences of failing to meet disclosure obligations. While Johnson ultimately achieved reinstatement, the court's public caution serves as a warning to other attorneys and regulatory officials about the importance of complete candor in these proceedings.
Johnson's reinstatement allows him to resume practicing law in Wisconsin, but the court's criticism of the parties' conduct in this matter will likely influence how similar cases are handled in the future. The decision reinforces that procedural integrity in attorney discipline matters remains paramount, even when substantive considerations might support the relief sought.
The case number 2022AP11-D indicates the matter originated in 2022 and proceeded through the state's attorney discipline system before reaching final resolution in 2025. The extended timeline reflects the thorough review process that reinstatement petitions typically require, particularly when complications arise during the proceedings.