¶ 22.
Moreover, interrelationship of the language of section 137.01(2)(am) language with the language of section 137.01(2)(a) confirms that the section 137.01(2)(am) provisions apply to all attorneys. ¶ 23.
Section 137.01(2)(a) establishes the general rule: “any” United States resident licensed to practice law in Wisconsin is entitled to a permanent commission as a notary public upon satisfaction of the specified conditions. The meaning of “any” is unambiguously all‑inclusive. “‘Any’ means any . . . .” State ex rel. Hipp v. Murray, 2007 WI App 202, ¶ 12, 305 Wis. 2d 148, 738 N.W.2d 570.¶ 24.
Section 137.01(2)(a) also establishes by reference that there is one exception to the general rule of entitlement; it begins, “[e]xcept as provided in par. (am) . . . .” Two criteria define the section 137.01(2)(am) exception: an attorney subject to that provision has had his or her Wisconsin law license suspended or revoked, and the attorney subsequently obtained reinstatement of his or her Wisconsin law license. The criteria are stated in terms of the loss and reacquisition of the Wisconsin law license, not in terms of an initial notary public application or a subsequent reapplication. ¶ 25.
In my opinion, therefore, section 137.01(2)(am) by its plain language applies both to attorneys applying for their first Wisconsin notary public commission and attorneys applying for a 4-year notary public commission after revocation of their previously obtained permanent commissions.
¶ 26.
Likewise, the language of section 137.01(2)(c) is plain and unambiguous. Besides applying to “any” described attorney, like the section 137.01(2)(am) provision discussed above, section 137.01(2)(c) also includes the directive “shall” in two places: the supreme court “shall” file notice of the “suspension or revocation of the license to practice law of any attorney” who holds a permanent notary public commission and such notice “shall be deemed a revocation” of that commission. The word “shall” generally is presumed to be mandatory when interpreting statutory language. State ex rel. Marberry v. Macht, 2003 WI 79, ¶ 16, 262 Wis. 2d 720, 665 N.W.2d 155. Nothing in the statutory language itself above supports any other interpretation. Conversely, any other interpretation would defeat the Legislature’s regulatory objectives and create inequitable consequences if not uniformly applied to all attorneys whose law licenses have been suspended or revoked. Cf. Marberry, 262 Wis. 2d 270, ¶ 17.¶ 27.
In my opinion, therefore, section 137.01(2)(c) by its plain language mandates that filing by the supreme court of notice about any suspension or revocation of an attorney’s Wisconsin law is deemed a revocation of that attorney’s existing permanent notary public commission. ¶ 28.
Your third question concerns the effective date for revocation of permanent notary public commissions by operation of section 137.01(2)(c). By operation of statute, revocation of a permanent notary commission is not automatic or discretionary. Instead, revocation of an attorney’s permanent notary commission only occurs if and when the supreme court files notice with your office that the attorney’s Wisconsin law license has been suspended or revoked. ¶ 29.
Section 137.01(2)(c) constitutes the exclusive mechanism for revocation of an attorney’s existing permanent notary public commission. The language of section 137.01(2)(c) is unambiguous: “Such notice shall be deemed a revocation of said commission.” In my opinion, therefore, the operative date for your office’s administration of section 137.01(2)(c) is the date that the supreme court files with your office the notice of the suspension or revocation of an attorney’s Wisconsin law license—not the actual date that the attorney’s law license was suspended or revoked. ¶ 30.
By itself, suspension or revocation of an attorney’s Wisconsin law license does not automatically revoke that attorney’s permanent notary public commission. Your office therefore has no independent obligation or authority to seek out lists of suspended or revoked attorneys, verify the law licensing of attorneys holding permanent notary commissions, or otherwise revoke permanent notary public commissions. Instead, your office must act only upon filing of notice by the supreme court pursuant to section 137.01(2)(c). ¶ 31.
Conversely, your office may not unilaterally revoke a permanent notary public commission without filing of notice by the supreme court pursuant to section 137.01(2)(c). There is no statutory authority for the Secretary of State to revoke a permanent notary commission without filing of such notice. Section 137.01(2)(c), as noted above, provides the exclusive mechanism for revoking an attorney’s permanent notary public commission.¶ 32.
To summarize, sections 137.01(2)(am) and (c) operate as follows. An attorney applying for the first time for a notary public commission, whose Wisconsin law license previously was suspended or revoked but has been reinstated, is entitled to a 4-year notary public appointment which may be renewed for subsequent 4-year terms. An attorney’s existing permanent notary public commission is deemed revoked by operation of statute only upon filing of notice by the supreme court with your office that the attorney’s Wisconsin law license has been suspended or revoked for any reason. Finally, an attorney who previously held a permanent notary public commission, which was deemed revoked by notice filed with your office by the supreme court that the attorney’s Wisconsin law license had been suspended or revoked, is entitled upon reinstatement of his or her law license to a 4-year notary public appointment which may be renewed for subsequent 4-year terms. ¶ 33.
I hope that you find this analysis helpful in your office’s administration of the notary public statutes. Sincerely,
J.B. Van Hollen
Attorney General
JBVH:KMS:MEB:ajw
/misc/oag/recent/oag3_09
true
oag
/misc/oag/recent/oag3_09/_122
section
true
