WI · rules
SCR 22.39
Burden of proof
(1) Subject to the exceptions identified in SCR 22.39(2), the
director, or a special investigator acting under SCR 22.25, has the
burden of proof in proceedings seeking discipline for misconduct or
license suspension or the imposition of conditions for medical
incapacity.
(2) A lawyer's failure to promptly deliver trust property to a
client or 3rd party entitled to the property, or promptly submit trust or
fiduciary account records to the office of lawyer regulation, or promptly
provide an accounting of trust or fiduciary property to the office of
lawyer regulation, shall result in a presumption that the lawyer has
failed to hold trust or fiduciary property in trust, contrary to
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) or SCR 20:1.15(k)(1). This presumption may be
rebutted by the lawyer's production of records or an accounting that
overcomes this presumption by clear, satisfactory, and convincing
evidence.
(3) In proceedings seeking license reinstatement, readmission to
the practice of law, removal of a medical incapacity, removal of
conditions imposed on the practice of law, and discipline different from
that imposed in another jurisdiction, the proponent has the burden of
proof.
History
WISCONSIN COMMENT While the director of the office of lawyer regulation or a special investigator appointed by the director pursuant to SCR 22.25 has the burden of proving misconduct in most circumstances, par. (2) establishes a rebuttable presumption of certain violations based solely upon a lawyer's failure to deliver property, produce records or provide accountings. The conduct that will lead to the presumptions of a violation, and the rules to which the presumptions relate are as follows: (1) A lawyer's failure to comply with the delivery requirements of SCR 20:1.15(e)(1) will result in a presumption that the lawyer has failed to hold property in trust, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(b)(1). (2) A lawyer's failure to comply with the record production requirements of SCR 20:1.15(g)(2) or SCR 20:1.15(k)(8) will result in a presumption that the lawyer has failed to hold trust or fiduciary property in trust, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) or SCR 20:1.15(k)(1). (3) A lawyer's failure to comply with the accounting requirements of SCR 20:1.15(e)(2) or SCR 20:1.15(k)(9) will result in a presumption that the lawyer has failed to hold trust or fiduciary property in trust, contrary to SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) or SCR 20:1.15(k)(1). See, In re Trust Estate of Martin, 39 Wis. 2d 437, 159 N.W.2d 660 (1968).
Provenance
- Source
- www.wicourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-23
- Edition
- 2026-09-23
- Content hash
2e674dd1f10a8b4427f7c825b58feb8c40f5aecdd10d3b055be8d789e5142016
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.