OLR v. Osman A. Mirza, 2023AP2369-D, February 27, 2025, (per curiam attorney discipline case)
In a disciplinary case adjacent to criminal defense practice, SCOW clarifies the impact of having charges “read-in” for purposes of an OLR proceeding.
As noted previously, this blog does not usually cover disciplinary cases. However, this case contains a helpful summary of Wisconsin’s “read-in” procedure applicable in criminal cases and clarifies their role in collateral legal proceedings. Accordingly, we felt it may be helpful for the rare case where a criminal defense client is also admitted to the Wisconsin Bar.
Here, SCOW discerns two broad rules. First, a lawyer who negotiates a plea under which certain charges are “read-in” does not have any basis to argue that these charges, because they did not result in a formal conviction, cannot be used as the basis for attorney discipline. (¶24). The attorney discipline proceeding is a distinct legal process; accordingly, even dismissed or acquitted charges can form the basis for disciplinary action. (Id.).
However, while a criminal conviction relieves OLR of the burden of proving that conduct in a disciplinary proceeding, read-in charges do not have the same effect. (¶25). Thus, even though a criminal defendant is agreeing to have those charges considered as part of his criminal sentencing proceeding, that agreement does not carry over to the separate OLR proceeding. (¶27). If the conduct underlying read-in charges is to be the basis for attorney discipline, it must be proven by OLR in that disciplinary proceeding. (¶28). Accordingly, a lawyer who agrees to have charges read-in during a criminal case maintains the ability to litigate the truthfulness of those allegations in the separate disciplinary process. (Id.).
