correctly points out, confidentiality is for the protection of a respondent. See Baker, 293 N.W.2d at 576. Yet, we do not think the presence of an attorney for a witness during the disciplinary proceeding should be disallowed based upon confidentiality concerns. Like counsel for a respondent, counsel for a witness is subject to the confidentiality requirements of our court rules. While our rules only require witnesses to take an oath of confidentiality and there is no similar provision pertaining to an attorney, we think it is clear that a witness’s counsel is bound by the confidentiality provisions of our court rules and, as a result, any oath would be redundant. See State ex rel. Individual Subpoenaed to Appear at Waukesha Cnty. v. Davis, 281 Wis.2d 431, 697 N.W.2d 803, 810-11 (2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Disciplinary Counsel v. Pullins, 127
holding such statements created genuine issue of fact only because matters involved were by nature shrouded in secrecy holding the requirement that an attorney take a secrecy oath was redundant in light of an order requiring secrecy holding policy provision requiring an insured to submit to an examination under oath is a condition precedent to suit rather than a cooperation clause holding that an attorney was subject to disbarment based on his willful disobedience of a probate court order requiring him to return excess attorney fees paid to the executor of an estate holding that an order imposing sanctions against an attorney for one of the parties in a pending case is final and therefore immediately appealable by the attorney