Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael D. Petersen

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2016AP000563-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2017-12-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
2017 WI 102 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP563-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael D. Petersen, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Michael D. Petersen, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETERSEN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 15, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
A.W. BRADLEY, J. dissents, joined by ABRAHAMSON, 
J. (opinion filed). 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2017 WI 102
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   Error! Reference source not found. 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael D. Petersen, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael D. Petersen, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 15, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.  
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report and recommendation of 
Referee William Eich approving a stipulation filed by the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Michael D. Petersen.  In 
the stipulation, Attorney Petersen stipulated to the facts 
underlying the nine counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
complaint and joined the OLR in jointly recommending a one-year 
suspension of Attorney Petersen's license to practice law in 
No. 
Error! Reference source not found.   
 
2 
 
Wisconsin.  The referee agreed that a one-year suspension was an 
appropriate sanction for Attorney Petersen's misconduct. 
¶2 
Upon careful review of the matter, we uphold the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree that 
a one-year suspension is an appropriate sanction.  As is our 
normal practice, we also find it appropriate to impose the full 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which are $2,110.29 as of 
May 24, 2017, on Attorney Petersen.  Since Attorney Petersen has 
already made restitution to his client, the OLR does not seek a 
restitution order. 
¶3 
Attorney Petersen was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2008.  He practices in Appleton.  He has no prior 
disciplinary history. 
¶4 
On March 21, 2016, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Petersen alleging nine counts of misconduct.  Attorney 
Petersen filed an answer on May 19, 2016.  The referee was 
appointed on June 6, 2016.  The parties' stipulation was filed 
on October 21, 2016. 
¶5 
As part of the stipulation, Attorney Petersen admitted 
the facts alleged in the OLR's complaint.  All nine counts of 
misconduct arose out of Attorney Petersen's representation of 
K.F.  In November 2012, K.F. retained Attorney Petersen to 
represent him in two legal matters.  K.F.'s father, R.F., hired 
and paid Attorney Petersen and assisted K.F. in communicating 
with Attorney Petersen throughout the representation. 
¶6 
In 
May 
2014, 
Attorney 
Petersen 
reached 
a 
plea 
agreement with Outagamie County Assistant District Attorney 
No. 
Error! Reference source not found.   
 
3 
 
(ADA) Andrew Maier whereby K.F. would plead to a Class C felony 
– attempted armed robbery – and two misdemeanor charges would be 
dismissed.  Attorney Petersen failed to truthfully inform K.F. 
about the terms of the state's plea offer.   
¶7 
K.F. decided he was willing to enter a plea to a Class 
H felony – theft from a person.  The plea hearing was held on 
May 23, 2015.  Attorney Petersen misled K.F. by telling him to 
plead no contest to the Class C felony and that the charge would 
be amended after the hearing to a reduced charge of the Class H 
felony.  K.F. believed he was entering a plea to the Class H 
felony.   
¶8 
Immediately after the plea hearing, when K.F. reviewed 
the paperwork provided to him in court, K.F. called R.F., who 
was then with Attorney Petersen, to inform them that the charges 
and paperwork were incorrect.   Attorney Petersen assured K.F. 
and R.F. that the charge would be amended within two weeks.   
¶9 
Despite knowing that the charge would not be amended, 
Attorney Petersen repeatedly misrepresented to K.F. and R.F. in 
the following months that he was working with ADA Maier and the 
judge to obtain the paperwork to get the charge amended. 
¶10 On June 4, 2014, Attorney Petersen told R.F. that the 
clerk 
of 
court 
had 
amended 
the 
felony 
charge. 
 
This 
representation was untrue.  The following day, R.F. emailed 
Attorney Petersen asking for an update on the amended charge.  
Attorney Petersen responded by email informing R.F. that he had 
called ADA Maier and ADA Maier was going to check on the status 
of the amendment because that was something only the district 
No. 
Error! Reference source not found.   
 
4 
 
attorney could file.  Attorney Petersen's representation was 
untrue as he had never called ADA Maier.   
¶11 Attorney Petersen falsely represented to R.F. that ADA 
Maier had agreed in writing to amend the charge.  He claimed he 
had received an email from ADA Maier and had forwarded it R.F.  
R.F. never received any such email.   
¶12 At a meeting on or about June 11, 2014, R.F. asked 
Attorney Petersen for a copy of the email that Attorney Petersen 
claimed he had received from ADA Maier saying that ADA Maier had 
agreed to amend the charges.  Attorney Petersen provided R.F. 
with a copy of an email he claimed he received on June 6, 2014, 
in which ADA Maier purportedly wrote, "After we talked this 
morning and I reviewed the defendant's file, the charge was 
amended down from a (sic) Armed Robbery to theft from a Person 
as PTAC."  ADA Maier did not author this email, nor had he 
agreed to amend K.F.'s conviction.  Attorney Petersen falsified 
the ADA Maier email, which he provided to R.F. 
¶13 On June 23, 2014, R.F. emailed Attorney Petersen 
requesting an update on the amended charges.  In response, 
Attorney Petersen spoke with R.F. and told him not to be 
concerned about the amendment of the charge.  He said the 
district attorney had processed the paperwork and it was with 
the judge for processing.  These representations were untrue.   
¶14 On June 24, 2014, Attorney Petersen filed a motion for 
sentence credit.  On July 10, 2014, the court signed an order 
granting K.F.'s sentence credit.   
No. 
Error! Reference source not found.   
 
5 
 
¶15 On July 18, 2014, Attorney Petersen sent R.F. an email 
saying he had talked directly with the judge that morning and 
the judge had assured Attorney Petersen that the paperwork would 
be completed by the next Friday.  The email also said that ADA 
Maier was available and that both Attorney Petersen and ADA 
Maier had explained the situation and lack of objections to 
amending the charge to the judge.  These representations were 
untrue. 
¶16 On more than one occasion in August 2014, R.F. sent 
Attorney Petersen emails inquiring about the status of the 
amended charge.  Attorney Petersen did not respond until August 
22, 2104, when he emailed R.F. saying he was waiting to hear 
from the court about the amendment.  Attorney Petersen claimed, 
"the judge refuses to talk to me about this case unless ADA 
Andrew Maier is present, and he has been out of town recently 
and returns tomorrow."  These representations were untrue. 
¶17 On September 5, 2014, R.F. and Attorney Petersen 
exchanged emails about filing an appeal.  R.F. asked Attorney 
Petersen to call him because he had numerous questions and was 
not sure if an appeal should be filed if the amended charges 
would soon be recorded.  Attorney Petersen spoke with R.F. and 
mentioned writing a letter to the judge or the district attorney 
about the delay.   
¶18 On September 22, 2014, R.F. emailed Attorney Petersen 
about 
the 
continued 
delays 
and 
said 
he 
was 
considering 
contacting the Attorney General, the State Bar, or the judge 
directly.  On September 26, 2014, Attorney Petersen caused the 
No. 
Error! Reference source not found.   
 
6 
 
clerk to schedule a motion hearing on the court's calendar for 
October 7, 2014, although no corresponding motion was filed.  
Attorney Petersen told R.F. that the purpose for the hearing was 
to amend K.F.'s conviction.  Attorney Petersen later cancelled 
the hearing and told R.F. that the matter could be handled over 
the phone and that the amended charge would soon appear in the 
online court record.  These representations about the hearing 
were untrue. 
¶19 On October 24, 2014, Attorney Petersen sent R.F., via 
email, a document entitled Order Amending Conviction and 
Sentence.  R.F. was not able to open the email attachment.  
Attorney Petersen sent the email from his personal account 
rather than his law office account.  Attorney Petersen later 
told R.F. he had a signed copy of the order amending the 
charges.  On October 31, 2014, R.F. went to Attorney Petersen's 
office and picked up a document entitled Order Amending 
Conviction and Sentence.  He took the document to the Outagamie 
County courthouse to confirm it had in fact been entered in 
K.F.'s case.  The clerk's office pointed out the order was not 
filed stamped by the court.  The clerk's office spoke with the 
judge's judicial assistant, who verified the purported order was 
not in K.F.'s court file.  After speaking to the judge, the 
judicial assistant called Attorney Petersen to inquire about the 
order.  Attorney Petersen went to the courthouse and examined 
the order but did not admit he had created it.   
¶20 On October 31, 2014, Attorney Petersen called R.F.  
R.F. told Attorney Petersen it was odd that the order had not 
No. 
Error! Reference source not found.   
 
7 
 
been filed stamped by the court.  Attorney Petersen claimed the 
order copied for R.F. had been in his mailbox at the courthouse 
on October 24, 2014, and that the order had not gone through and 
that Stanley Correctional Institution had rejected the order 
because it contained the word "modified" rather than "amended."  
¶21 On November 3, 2014, Attorney Petersen wrote to the 
court to explain the origins of the order.  Attorney Petersen 
was not truthful and did not admit he had falsified the order.  
Instead, Attorney Petersen claimed he had copied both an 
unsigned version of the order and the court's prior signed order 
for sentence credit to give to R.F. and suggested that the 
signature from the signed order had somehow been transposed in 
the copying process.  Attorney Petersen said, " . . . it is 
possible that I inadvertently created the order.  I do not 
believe anything criminal was done by my client's father."   
¶22 On November 4, 2014, the court contacted the Appleton 
Police Department to report a possible forgery.  Sergeant Neal 
Rabas was assigned to investigate the matter.   
¶23 On November 10, 2014, Attorney Petersen met with R.F. 
at his office.  Unbeknownst to Attorney Petersen, R.F. recorded 
the meeting.  R.F. questioned Attorney Petersen about the order 
given to him and why it had still not been processed.  Attorney 
Petersen continued to lie, telling R.F. there had been an error 
in the order, which he had corrected.  Attorney Petersen claimed 
that he had submitted the corrected order to ADA Maier for 
approval the previous week and that he expected to find out from 
No. 
Error! Reference source not found.   
 
8 
 
ADA Maier that day whether it was approved and, if so, Attorney 
Petersen would take it to the judge for his signature.   
¶24 On 
November 
26, 
2014, 
Attorney 
Petersen 
was 
interviewed by police.  Attorney Petersen denied that he had 
copied the judge's signature onto the October 24, 2014 order.  
Attorney Petersen told Sergeant Rabas that he had given R.F. an 
unsigned Order to Amend Conviction and Sentence and a copy of 
the Order for Sentence Credit.  When Sergeant Rabas asked 
Attorney Petersen if he thought R.F. had put the judge's 
signature on the order, Attorney Petersen replied he did not 
know and could not answer that. 
¶25 During the interview with Sergeant Rabas, Attorney 
Petersen said there was no agreement with ADA Maier to amend 
K.F.'s conviction and that it had become a moot point.  Sergeant 
Rabas questioned Attorney Petersen about the email purportedly 
sent by ADA Maier in June suggesting that the charge was 
amended.  Attorney Petersen claimed he had received the email 
from ADA Maier but it only meant the charge would be amended if 
K.F. was not able to obtain the programming he needed in prison.  
Attorney Petersen did not admit that he had fabricated ADA 
Maier's email. 
¶26 Sergeant Rabas revealed to Attorney Petersen that his 
November 10, 2014 meeting was recorded and asked him to explain 
why he was now saying there was no agreement to amend the charge 
when he had repeatedly told R.F. the charge would be amended.  
Attorney Petersen ended the interview soon thereafter and said 
he wanted to speak to an attorney. 
No. 
Error! Reference source not found.   
 
9 
 
¶27 On December 20, 2014, Sergeant Rabas received a 
handwritten letter from Attorney Petersen saying, "I phonied a 
document to get Mr. F. off my back."  The judge and his judicial 
assistant received similar letters from Attorney Petersen. 
¶28 On August 11, 2015, for his conduct in K.F.'s matter, 
Attorney Petersen was charged with one misdemeanor count of 
violating Wis. Stat. § 785.04(2)(a) – contempt of court.  On 
November 19, 2015, Attorney Petersen pled no contest to the 
charge and was convicted.  See State v. Petersen, Outagamie 
County circuit court case no. 2015CM878. 
¶29 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct:   
Count One:  By failing to abide by K.F.'s decision as 
to the terms of a plea agreement he was willing to 
accept in resolution of the charges against him, and 
accepting a plea agreement that was not in accordance 
with 
K.F.'s 
decision, 
Attorney 
Petersen 
violated 
SCR 20:1.2(a).1 
Count Two:  By failing to truthfully inform K.F. about 
the terms of the State's plea agreement offer, 
Attorney Petersen violated SCR 20:l.4(b).2 
Count Three:  By misleading K.F. that the charge 
against him would be amended after his conviction, 
Attorney Petersen violated SCR 20:8.4(c).3 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.2(a) provides: " . . . In a criminal case or any 
proceeding that could result in deprivation of liberty, the 
lawyer shall abide by the client's decision, after consultation 
with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered."   
2 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides:  "A lawyer shall explain a matter 
to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation." 
No. 
Error! Reference source not found.   
 
10 
 
Count Four:  By making numerous false statements in 
emails and oral conversations to R.F. over the course 
of 
five 
months, 
Attorney 
Petersen 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count Five:  By falsifying an email in order to 
mislead 
R.F. 
to 
believe 
that 
ADA 
Maier 
had 
acknowledged an agreement to amend K.F.'s conviction, 
Attorney Petersen violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count Six:  By fabricating the Order To Amend 
Conviction and Sentence designed to mislead R.F. and 
K.F. to believe that the court had amended K.F.'s 
conviction, Attorney Petersen violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count Seven:  By knowingly making a false statement of 
material fact to Judge Des Jardins in the November 3, 
2014 letter in which he told Judge Des Jardins that he 
had provided R.F. with an unsigned copy of the Order 
Amending Conviction and Sentence and offering a false 
explanation 
that 
the 
appearance 
of 
the 
judge's 
signature on the Order may have resulted from a copy 
machine 
error, 
Attorney 
Petersen 
violated 
SCR 20:3.3(a)(l).4 
Count Eight:  By engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation when he 
made 
false 
statements 
to 
the 
Appleton 
Police 
Department in the course of its investigation of the 
forged 
Order, 
Attorney 
Petersen 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count Nine:  By committing a criminal act that 
reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, 
and fitness as a lawyer during the course of his 
representation of K.F. that resulted in his conviction 
for Contempt of Court in violation of Wis. Stat. 
                                                                                                                                                             
3 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
4 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides:  "A lawyer shall not knowingly 
make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to 
correct false statement of material fact or law previously made 
to the tribunal by the lawyer." 
No. 
Error! Reference source not found.   
 
11 
 
§ 785.04(2)(a), 
Attorney 
Petersen 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(b).5 
¶30 In the stipulation, Attorney Petersen stated that he 
fully understands the misconduct allegations; fully understands 
the ramifications should the court impose the stipulated level 
of discipline; understands that he has the right to consult with 
counsel; and states that his entry into the stipulation is made 
knowingly and voluntarily; and represents his admission of all 
misconduct recited in the complaint and his assent to the level 
and type of discipline sought by the OLR Director.   
¶31 As previously noted, the parties agreed that an 
appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline 
for 
Attorney 
Petersen's 
misconduct is a one-year suspension of his license to practice 
law in Wisconsin.  The referee agreed.   
¶32 The referee's May 8, 2017 report and recommendation 
found that the OLR met its burden of proof with respect to all 
nine counts of misconduct set forth above.  In discussing the 
appropriate level of discipline, the referee noted a number of 
aggravating factors.  The referee said Attorney Petersen did not 
engage in a single lie to his client but instead told multiple 
lies and fabricated documents to conceal those lies.  The 
referee also noted the nature of the misconduct and Attorney 
Petersen's attempt to shift the blame to R.F., his client's 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on 
the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects." 
No. 
Error! Reference source not found.   
 
12 
 
father.  In addition, the referee pointed out that K.F. was 
incarcerated and had placed his trust in Attorney Petersen, who 
repeatedly told him that the felony charges would be amended.  
The referee also pointed out that Attorney Petersen was 
criminally charged and convicted of the misdemeanor offense of 
contempt of court.   
¶33 With respect to mitigating factors, the referee 
pointed out that Attorney Petersen has no prior disciplinary 
record.  The referee noted that at the sentencing hearing in the 
misdemeanor case, Attorney Petersen's counsel indicated that 
Attorney Petersen had a difficult childhood as the child of 
alcoholic parents, with a resulting psychological or psychiatric 
factor at play.  While Attorney Petersen sought psychological 
treatment after the police became involved in the matter, the 
referee noted there is no proof in the disciplinary case that a 
medical condition was causal of the misconduct.   
¶34 The referee said that a final mitigating factor to be 
considered is the imposition of other sanctions or penalties.  
Attorney Petersen was sentenced to one year of probation 
conditioned on 30 days in jail with Huber privileges, with 25 of 
those days stayed.  Attorney Petersen was also ordered to refund 
the $5,000 fee to R.F., and Attorney Petersen was required to 
provide a copy of the criminal complaint to every client he 
dealt with in the next year, along with a letter stating: 
I am a crook.  I am a cheat.  I am a thief.  I am a 
liar.  I was convicted of a crime on November 9th, 
2015.  My conviction resulted from my intentional 
choice to sell my own clients down the river and then 
No. 
Error! Reference source not found.   
 
13 
 
trying to cover it up.  You may not hire me or have me 
legally represent you in any fashion until you read 
the Criminal Complaint and Judgment of Conviction in 
my Outagamie County Wisconsin Case no. 15-CM878.  This 
disclosure is required as one of the conditions of my 
probation. 
¶35 The referee discussed a number of prior disciplinary 
cases that support the imposition of a one-year suspension.  
Those cases include In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Siderits, 2013 WI 2, 345 Wis. 2d 89, 824 N.W.2d 812; In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Donovan, 211 Wis. 2d 451, 564 
N.W.2d 772 (1997); and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Spangler, 2016 WI 61, 370 Wis. 2d 369, 881 N.W.2d 35.  Attorney 
Siderits was suspended for one year for five counts of 
misconduct, which included falsifying billable time records in 
order to qualify for bonus compensation.  Attorney Donovan 
received a six-month suspension.  While serving as an assistant 
district attorney, Attorney Donovan forged documents submitted 
in two cases in order to assist the defendants in those cases.  
She also pled no contest to two misdemeanor counts of forgery.  
Attorney Spangler received a six-month suspension for creating 
fake documents in two cases to mislead his clients into 
believing they had lawsuits pending when one lawsuit had been 
dismissed and the other had never been filed. 
¶36 The referee said Attorney Petersen's conduct was 
potentially worse than that of Attorney Siderits because 
Attorney Petersen lied to multiple people and was convicted of 
illegal conduct directly related to his practice of law.  
However, the referee noted Attorney Petersen incurred the 
No. 
Error! Reference source not found.   
 
14 
 
additional penalty of having to notify prospective clients of 
his criminal conviction and having to provide them with a 
written statement designed to discourage clients from hiring 
him, effectively preventing him or at least severely curtailing 
him from practicing law.  The referee thus concluded that a one-
year suspension was an appropriate level of discipline.  The 
referee also recommends that Attorney Petersen bear the full 
costs of the proceeding. 
¶37 This court will adopt a referee findings of fact, 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. The 
court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of 
the 
referee's 
recommendation. 
 
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686. 
¶38 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law that Attorney Petersen violated the supreme 
court rules as alleged in the nine counts set forth above.  We 
also agree with the referee that a one-year suspension of 
Attorney Petersen's license to practice law in Wisconsin is an 
appropriate level of discipline for the misconduct.   
¶39 Since no two cases are precisely identical, there is 
no standard sanction for any particular misconduct.  We agree 
with the referee that Attorney Petersen's misconduct is somewhat 
analogous to that in Siderits, where a one-year suspension was 
also imposed.  In addition, we also find that the misconduct is 
No. 
Error! Reference source not found.   
 
15 
 
somewhat similar to that at issue in our recent decision in 
Spangler.  Like Attorney Spangler, Attorney Petersen created a 
series of false documents to mislead his client about the status 
of his case.  Like Attorney Spangler, Attorney Petersen's 
deception and lies to K.F. and R.F. were a betrayal of the trust 
that the F.s had placed in him.  In addition, Attorney Petersen 
tried to blame R.F. for at least one of the forged documents.  
Moreover, unlike Attorney Spangler, Attorney Petersen's conduct 
also resulted in a criminal conviction for contempt of court.  
Accordingly, Attorney Petersen's conduct warrants a suspension 
in excess of the six-month suspension imposed in Spangler.  
Thus, we agree with the referee that a one-year suspension of 
Attorney Petersen's license to practice law in Wisconsin is 
necessary to protect the public, the courts, and the legal 
system from Attorney Petersen's repetition of misconduct, to 
impress upon him the seriousness of his misconduct, and to deter 
other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.  We also 
deem it appropriate, as is our usual custom, to impose the full 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding on Attorney Petersen.  
Since Attorney Petersen has made restitution to R.F., the OLR 
does not seek a restitution award and we do not impose such an 
award. 
¶40 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michael D. Petersen 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one 
year, effective January 26, 2018. 
¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Michael D. Petersen shall pay to the Office of 
No. 
Error! Reference source not found.   
 
16 
 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding which are 
$2,110.29 as of May 24, 2017. 
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael D. Petersen shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions with this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(3). 
 
No.  2016AP563-D.awb 
 
1 
 
¶44 ANN 
WALSH 
BRADLEY, 
J.   (dissenting). 
 
Attorney 
Petersen's misconduct was egregious.  He repeatedly lied to his 
client about the terms of the State's plea offer.  He told his 
client that certain charges would be amended when Attorney 
Petersen knew this was untrue.  He then falsified an email 
purportedly written by an Assistant District Attorney in 
furtherance of the lies and falsely reported that the judge 
agreed with the amended charges. 
¶45 It gets worse.  Attorney Petersen apparently forged a 
judge's signature on a fabricated court order, lied to the court 
and to the police, all the while continuing the lies to his 
client. 
¶46 Given the nature and extent of Attorney Petersen's 
misconduct, I conclude that the one-year suspension imposed by 
the per curiam opinion is too light. 
¶47 Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. 
¶48 I am authorized to state that Justice SHIRLEY S. 
ABRAHAMSON joins this dissent. 
 
No.  2016AP563-D.awb 
 
 
 
1