Most people arrested in Wisconsin ask about jail first. Nurses, teachers, accountants, contractors and social workers ask about it second. Their first question is the license, because the license is the career, and a 90-day sentence is a smaller problem than a credential that does not renew.
The honest answer, in four lines:
- A charge is not a conviction, and Wisconsin law treats them differently. Arrest record and conviction record are both protected bases under Wis. Stat. § 111.321, which binds licensing agencies, not only employers.
- The exception is where every case is decided. A conviction can lawfully cost you a license when its circumstances substantially relate to the licensed activity.
- Most credential holders owe a report within 48 hours of a conviction, not of an arrest.
- You can ask a Wisconsin licensing board, in advance and in writing, whether a specific conviction would disqualify you, with no application and no applicant fees. Almost nobody knows this.
Cafferty, Scheidegger & Johnson, S.C. is a criminal defense firm at 840 Lake Avenue in Racine, with a second office at 7001 30th Avenue in Kenosha, and we have handled cases for licensed professionals in these counties since 1994. This article is about the licensing consequence specifically. If your credential is at stake, call (262) 632-5000. The first conversation is free and the phone is answered around the clock.
(A note on scope: OWI has its own licensing and CDL analysis, which our OWI site covers at racineowi.com. This piece is about non-OWI criminal charges.)
Charge, conviction, record: three different problems
People use these interchangeably. Boards do not.
| What it is | What it usually triggers | |
|---|---|---|
| Arrest | A police custody event | Nothing automatic. Often invisible to a board unless it becomes a charge |
| Charge | The District Attorney has filed | Public on CCAP immediately. Subject to the substantially-related test under § 111.335(2)(b) |
| Conviction | A judgment of conviction is entered | The 48-hour report duty under § 440.03(13)(am), and the substantially-related test under § 111.335(3)(a)1. |
| Record | What a search returns years later | Court file, DOJ criminal history, fingerprint record, and private databases, all different systems |
The reason this matters is that defense decisions early in the case are effectively licensing decisions. An amendment from one statute to another, a deferred-prosecution agreement, a dismissal on the day of trial, or a non-criminal disposition can each change which row of that table you end up in.
The substantially related test, which is the whole game
Wisconsin’s Fair Employment Act, at Wis. Stat. § 111.335, was restructured by 2017 Wisconsin Act 278, effective August 1, 2018, and has been amended again since. Anything you read that still cites ”§ 111.335(1)(c)1.” is quoting a subsection that has not existed for years, which is worth knowing if you are reading older guidance online.
The current test lives at § 111.335(3)(a)1.: it is not employment or licensing discrimination to refuse to employ or license a person who has been convicted of any felony, misdemeanor or other offense the circumstances of which substantially relate to the circumstances of the particular job or licensed activity. For a pending charge, § 111.335(2)(b) applies the same substantially-related standard, subject to the limits in § 111.335(4)(a).
Two things follow, and they cut in opposite directions.
Against you: the test is about the character traits the offense reveals, not about the label. A theft conviction and a fiduciary role. A drug allegation and access to a controlled-substance cabinet. A violence charge and a role with unsupervised access to vulnerable people. When those line up, the board is on solid statutory ground.
For you: a conviction that reveals nothing about the licensed activity is a much weaker basis than most applicants assume, and the statute builds in procedural protection. Section 111.335(4) is titled “Discrimination in licensing,” and within it:
- (4)(c) does more than most summaries admit. An agency refusing or barring a credential under the conviction test must state its reasons in writing, including how the circumstances of the offense relate to the licensed activity, and must allow the individual to show evidence of rehabilitation and fitness. If the individual shows competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and fitness under (4)(d), the agency may not refuse the license on the basis of that conviction. Those requirements do not apply where the conviction is for an “exempt offense.”
- (4)(d) sets out what counts as rehabilitation evidence and the factors the agency must weigh.
- (4)(e) requires a state licensing agency to publish on its website a document indicating the offenses that may result in a refusal, bar or termination.
That last one is a practical gift. Before you guess, look at what your own board has published.
The 48-hour rule almost nobody hears about until they break it
This is the provision that turns a resolved criminal case into a second problem.
Wis. Stat. § 440.03(13)(am) requires a person holding a Wisconsin credential who is convicted of a felony or misdemeanor anywhere to send notice to the department within 48 hours after the entry of the judgment of conviction. Wis. Admin. Code § SPS 4.09(2) carries the same duty and spells out what to send: the judgment of conviction, plus the complaint or other information describing the nature of the crime. Nursing restates it at Wis. Admin. Code § N 7.03(1)(h), where failing to notify is itself a ground for discipline.
Three points of precision, because getting this wrong is expensive:
- It is triggered by conviction, not by arrest or charge. For an existing credential holder there is generally no mid-cycle duty to self-report a pending case. Pending charges usually surface as an application or renewal disclosure instead.
- “Anywhere” means anywhere. An out-of-state misdemeanor counts. This matters in Kenosha County, where a large share of clients live or work across the Illinois line.
- The duty is general, not board-by-board. Section 440.03(13)(am) applies to credential holders across the department, and some boards restate it. Do not assume your profession is exempt because your chapter is silent.
Two professions run on their own clocks. Wisconsin attorneys must notify both the Office of Lawyer Regulation and the clerk of the Supreme Court within five days under SCR 21.15(5), measured from the finding of guilt or the conviction, whichever comes first, and failing to do so is itself misconduct. In K-12 education, the duty sits on the administrator rather than the licensee, and it is triggered by a charge: Wis. Stat. § 115.31(3)(a)1. covers a person charged with a crime under chapter 948, a felony carrying a maximum term of at least five years, or a crime in which the victim was a child. The deadline is 15 days under § 115.31(5)(a), running from when the administrator becomes aware. That detail catches teachers off guard, because the employer often learns about a case long before it resolves.
Education also has the least discretionary rule in the state. Under Wis. Stat. § 115.31(2), the state superintendent may revoke for incompetency or immoral conduct, after written notice of the charges and an opportunity to defend. Under § 115.31(2g), the superintendent shall revoke, without a hearing, on conviction of a listed set of offenses, subject to stated exceptions: Class A through D felonies under chapters 940 and 948 for violations occurring on or after September 12, 1991, Class E through H felonies under those chapters for violations on or after February 1, 2003, and a further list for violations on or after March 24, 2024.
Reinstatement is governed by § 115.31(2r). Under (2r)(a) the superintendent may not reinstate for six years after the date of conviction, and then only if the licensee establishes entitlement by clear and convincing evidence. A narrower set of convictions listed at (2r)(c) cannot be reinstated at all, including a felony chapter 948 violation described in (2g)(a) or (b) and certain chapter 942 offenses. Section 115.31(2r)(b) provides for reinstatement where the court certifies that the conviction was reversed, set aside or vacated.
Predetermination: ask before you plead
This is the most useful and least known provision in this entire area.
Wis. Stat. § 111.335(4)(f) lets a person who does not hold a credential ask the licensing agency, in advance, whether a particular conviction would disqualify them. The mechanics:
- It is available to an individual who does not already hold the license.
- No full application is required, and the fees applicable to applicants are not charged. A state licensing agency may charge a fee covering the cost of making the determination, and for DSPS specifically Wis. Stat. § 440.03(13)(d) makes that charge mandatory rather than optional.
- The agency must send a written determination within 30 days of receiving the request.
- The determination is binding on the agency if the person later applies, but only as to the convictions the agency actually reviewed, and not where information relevant to the determination was unavailable at the time.
The Department of Safety and Professional Services, which by its own account issues “more than 240 unique licenses” and administers dozens of boards and councils, handles these on dedicated predetermination forms rather than through the ordinary application path.
Two situations where this is worth doing:
- Career change with an old record. Someone with a ten-year-old conviction who wants to know whether a training program is worth paying for.
- Before a plea in a live case. If a negotiation is choosing between two statutes, a written answer from the board about which one disqualifies is better evidence than anyone’s prediction.
What expungement actually fixes, and what it does not
Wisconsin expungement is narrower than the word suggests, and the timing rule is brutal.
Under Wis. Stat. § 973.015 the person must have been under the age of 25 at the time of the offense, the offense must carry a maximum period of imprisonment of 6 years or less, the sentencing judge must order expungement at sentencing, the person must successfully complete the sentence, and the court must determine that the person will benefit and society will not be harmed. Section 973.015(1m)(a)3. separately bars expungement of certain Class H and Class I felonies, including where the person has a prior felony conviction or the offense is a “violent offense” under § 301.048(2)(bm). Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has confirmed the timing point twice, in State v. Matasek, 2014 WI 27, and State v. Arberry, 2018 WI 7: there is no post-sentencing motion to add it later. If it was not ordered at sentencing, that door is closed.
Note also that there has been no change to § 973.015 since 2015, despite several rounds of proposed reform. Bills introduced in 2023 did not pass, and the expungement rewrite proposed in 2025 did not survive into law. Anything promising a new Wisconsin expungement path is describing a bill, not a statute.
Even granted, expungement reaches the court record. In State v. Leitner, 2002 WI 77, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the statute does not require district attorneys or law enforcement agencies to expunge their own records, and in State v. Braunschweig, 2018 WI 113, the court described the expunged conviction as remaining an unvacated adjudication of guilt. There is also an express carve-out for the driving record.
For a licensed professional, the honest translation is: expungement can clean up a public court search. It cannot be relied on to erase what a board sees, what a fingerprint-based background check returns, or what you must disclose in answer to a direct question. Our Wisconsin expungement page walks through who qualifies.
What a dismissed case leaves behind
Clients are frequently shocked that a dismissal is not invisible.
A charge appears on the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access site from the day it is filed. Where all charges in a criminal felony or misdemeanor case are dismissed or result in acquittal, the case is removed from public display on WCCA two years after the final order. The exception that catches people is the charge dismissed but read in at sentencing on another count: a single read-in keeps the whole case displayed for the full retention period, unless a court later orders those charges dismissed outright. Cases also stay up while there are active warrants or appeals, or money still owed.
Two things that removal is not. It is a website display policy set by the court system, not expungement, and it does not destroy anything. Under SCR 72.01 the court files themselves are kept for 50 years after final judgment in felony proceedings, 75 years for Class A felonies, and 20 years for misdemeanors, and where a proceeding ends in dismissal or acquittal of all charges the documents are retained as if the case had been disposed as a felony or misdemeanor.
There is one separate and genuinely useful tool. Wis. Stat. § 165.84(1) provides that a person who is released without charge, or cleared of the offense through court proceedings, shall have any fingerprint record taken in connection with it removed from Department of Justice records upon request. Read the limits carefully: fingerprints only, DOJ only, and it happens only if somebody asks.
What we do differently when a license is on the table
The defense of a licensed professional is not the same engagement as an ordinary misdemeanor, because the target is different. The sentence is often not the worst outcome available.
- Identify the board and its published list first, under § 111.335(4)(e), before any plea posture is set.
- Negotiate toward the statute, not the sentence. Two dispositions with identical jail exposure can have completely different licensing consequences.
- Consider a predetermination request under § 111.335(4)(f) where the timing allows it, so the negotiation runs on a written answer rather than a guess.
- Raise expungement before sentencing if the age and class thresholds are met, because there is no second chance.
- Calendar the 48-hour notice the moment a judgment is entered, and prepare the notice rather than improvising it.
- Build the rehabilitation record early, because § 111.335(4)(d) requires the agency to consider it and a record assembled in advance is better than one assembled under deadline.
Nobody can promise a licensing outcome, and no Wisconsin lawyer is permitted to try. What is within reach is making sure the criminal case is resolved with the licensing consequence in view rather than discovered afterward.
If you hold a Wisconsin credential and are facing a criminal charge in Racine, Kenosha or Walworth County, contact the firm or call (262) 632-5000 for a free initial consultation.
Related reading: Civil consequences of a conviction, part 1: employment · Civil consequences, part 2: collateral consequences · Wisconsin expungement · Do I need a lawyer for a misdemeanor? · Wisconsin expungement series: arrest records · White collar crime defense · Racine County criminal court guide
This article describes Wisconsin law as of August 16, 2026. It is general information, not legal advice about any specific case, and licensing rules vary by board. Check your own profession’s chapter of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.