Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Matthew R. Meyer

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2021AP001222-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2022-06-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
2022 WI 39 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
 2021AP1222-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Matthew R. Meyer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Matthew R. Meyer, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MEYER  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 8, 2022   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. ZIEGLER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion in which 
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., and HAGEDORN, J., joined. ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY, J., filed a dissenting opinion.  
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2022 WI 39
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2021AP1222-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Matthew R. Meyer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Matthew R. Meyer, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
JUN 8, 2022 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report filed by Referee Jean 
A. DiMotto concluding, based on a stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Matthew R. Meyer, 
that Attorney Meyer committed two counts of professional 
misconduct as alleged in the OLR's complaint.  The referee 
agreed with the parties that a two-year suspension of Attorney 
Meyer's license to practice law in Wisconsin is an appropriate 
level of discipline for the misconduct.  The referee also 
recommended, consistent with the stipulation, that the court 
No. 
2021AP1222-D   
 
2 
 
impose 
the 
following 
conditions 
on 
Attorney 
Meyer's 
reinstatement: 
a. Provide the OLR with signed releases for any mental 
health and alcohol and other drug abuse (AODA) 
treatment provider who is providing or has provided 
treatment to Attorney Meyer within the last four 
years prior to his filing of a reinstatement 
petition. 
b. Provide proof of participation in mental health 
counseling. 
c. Comply with all terms and conditions of his 
probation 
related 
to 
Milwaukee 
County 
Case 
No. 2019CF4573. 
d. Provide documentation of the completion of an anger 
management program. 
e. Provide documentation of the completion of a 
certified batterers' treatment program. 
¶2 
In addition, the referee recommended that Attorney 
Meyer's reinstatement be conditioned on his submitting to an 
examination by a psychiatric or psychological expert of the 
OLR's choosing who shall evaluate the effectiveness of Attorney 
Meyer's rehabilitation.  Finally, the referee recommended that 
Attorney Meyer be assessed the full costs of this proceeding, 
which are $1,891.81 as of November 17, 2021.  Attorney Meyer has 
filed an objection to the recommended costs. 
¶3 
While we accept the referee's factual findings and 
conclusions of law, we conclude Attorney Meyer's serious and 
No. 
2021AP1222-D   
 
3 
 
disturbing conduct, in which he used his position as an attorney 
to intimidate and threaten a woman with whom he had been in a 
relationship, warrants the revocation of his Wisconsin law 
license.  In the event Attorney Meyer seeks the reinstatement of 
his license to practice law, we agree with the conditions 
recommended by the referee, except for the requirement that 
Attorney 
Meyer 
undergo 
a 
psychological 
or 
psychiatric 
examination.  We deny Attorney Meyer's objection to costs and 
order him to pay the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶4 
Attorney Meyer was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 2012 and practices in Milwaukee.  He has no prior 
disciplinary history. 
¶5 
On July 15, 2021, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Meyer alleging two counts of misconduct arising out of 
felony convictions for threatening to communicate derogatory 
information and stalking.  The victim in the case was H.S., who 
had been in a dating relationship with Attorney Meyer.   
¶6 
According to the OLR's complaint, in late October 
2017, H.S. broke off her approximately nine-month dating 
relationship with Attorney Meyer.  Attorney Meyer subsequently 
engaged in a pattern of conduct aimed at H.S. to cause her to 
believe that Attorney Meyer would ruin her life, commit acts of 
violence against her and her family and friends, damage her 
property, interfere with future relationships she may have, and 
leave her without a job and money.  Attorney Meyer also made 
threats to H.S. to ruin her reputation with her employer. 
No. 
2021AP1222-D   
 
4 
 
¶7 
On April 14, 2018, during an argument in Attorney 
Meyer's apartment, Attorney Meyer punched H.S. in the face, 
resulting in a concussion and facial bruising significant enough 
for her to miss approximately two weeks of work.  At the time of 
this incident, Attorney Meyer and H.S. had separate apartments 
in the same building.  H.S. returned to her apartment and called 
the police.  When police arrived, H.S. informed them she did not 
want to pursue criminal charges because she feared Attorney 
Meyer. 
¶8 
On multiple occasions after April 2018, Attorney Meyer 
made unwelcome and persistent phone calls to H.S.  On at least 
one occasion, he made in excess of 120 calls in one day.  H.S. 
was employed as a physician assistant and was required to keep 
her phone on at all times.  Attorney Meyer also sent H.S. 
hundreds of unwelcome email messages.  He made threats of harm 
to her, appeared at her apartment unannounced, and refused to 
leave. 
¶9 
On March 2, 2019, Attorney Meyer threatened H.S. with 
violence in her apartment, and she barricaded herself in the 
bathroom.  Attorney Meyer locked H.S. in the bathroom and she 
called police.  She stated the bathroom door can be locked from 
the outside, and it cannot be easily unlocked from the inside.  
H.S. was able to free herself before the police arrived, and she 
again told police she did not want to press charges against 
Attorney Meyer because she was afraid of him. 
¶10 Attorney Meyer also threatened to send negative 
information about H.S. to her employer, her family and friends, 
No. 
2021AP1222-D   
 
5 
 
and the news media if she did not perform various tasks for him.  
Those tasks included payments of debts he claimed to be owed, to 
reveal intimate details of H.S.'s relationships with others, and 
to have sex with Attorney Meyer. 
¶11 In early June 2019, H.S. again attempted to break up 
with Attorney Meyer and cut off all communication with him.  On 
June 23, 2019, Attorney Meyer followed H.S. into the underground 
parking garage of her apartment.  At this time, Attorney Meyer 
and H.S. no longer lived in the same building.  Attorney Meyer 
opened the door to H.S.'s car, yelled at her and poured an 
energy drink on her vehicle.  H.S. reported this incident to 
police. 
¶12 During and after the relationship, Attorney Meyer 
communicated 
his 
intent 
to 
harm 
H.S. 
by 
using 
criminal 
defendants to enact violence on her family and men Attorney 
Meyer believed she had been intimate with; by employing a 
private investigator to follow H.S.; and threatening to sue H.S. 
for $20,000 for posting a negative Google review of Attorney 
Meyer's law practice.  Attorney Meyer repeatedly told H.S. he 
was insulated from legal consequences because of his position as 
a criminal defense lawyer. 
¶13 On August 23, 2019, H.S. broke up with Attorney Meyer 
for the last time.  During an argument in Attorney Meyer's 
apartment, Attorney Meyer grabbed H.S. by the back of her head, 
covered her mouth with his other hand and told her to shut up.  
H.S. tried to call 911, but Attorney Meyer broke her phone by 
No. 
2021AP1222-D   
 
6 
 
smashing it to the ground.  He then pushed H.S., who fell and 
injured her elbow. 
¶14 After August 23, 2019, H.S. received hundreds of text 
and email messages from Attorney Meyer despite H.S.'s requests 
that Attorney Meyer cease attempting to communicate with her. 
¶15 The criminal investigation revealed an extremely high 
number of calls to H.S. from blocked phone numbers in rapid 
succession, including from phone numbers listed to Attorney 
Meyer.  On October 8, 2019, H.S. received 68 calls from blocked 
or spoofed phone numbers, 41 WhatsApp text messages, 12 WhatsApp 
phone/video calls, and 12 emails from Attorney Meyer. 
¶16 By using SpoofCard, Attorney Meyer was able to call 
and send H.S. text messages that appeared to be sent from other 
numbers in her contact list, such as friends and family. 
¶17 During and after the relationship, Attorney Meyer 
threatened to damage and did, in fact, damage H.S.'s vehicle.  
On October 4, 2019, H.S. received emails and texts from Attorney 
Meyer saying there was damage to her vehicle.  H.S. later 
observed that her vehicle had a flat tire and dents on the 
passenger side.  She reported this incident to the police.   
¶18 Attorney Meyer told H.S. he had a key to her apartment 
despite the fact she had never given him one. 
¶19 On October 6, 2019, Attorney Meyer sent H.S. a photo 
of the screen of his laptop, showing a draft email he had 
created appearing to be sent from H.S.'s father's email address.  
The email purporting to be from H.S.'s father, but in fact 
drafted by Attorney Meyer, alleged that H.S. had violated Health 
No. 
2021AP1222-D   
 
7 
 
Insurance 
Portability 
and 
Accountability 
Act 
(HIPAA) 
by 
discussing confidential patient information in public, and 
claimed that H.S.'s father had an audio recording of this.   
¶20 Subsequent text messages from Attorney Meyer to H.S. 
threatened to send the email to H.S.'s employer if H.S. did not 
give into Attorney Meyer's demands.  Attorney Meyer later sent 
the email to H.S.'s employer.  The email indicated that H.S.'s 
father desired to meet the employer and turn over an audio 
recording in which H.S. allegedly discussed confidential patient 
information in public.  No such audio recording existed. 
¶21 On October 15, 2019, Attorney Meyer was charged with 
four felonies:  substantial battery, threatening to communicate 
derogatory information, intimidation of a victim, and stalking.  
During plea discussions, Attorney Meyer's attorney submitted a 
settlement offer and a packet of documents to the assistant 
district attorney (ADA) who was prosecuting Attorney Meyer.  The 
packet included character reference letters.  The ADA rejected 
Attorney Meyer's attorney's settlement offer.  Attorney Meyer's 
attorney then sent the same packet of documents to the district 
attorney and the deputy chief district attorney.  One of the 
reference letters in the packet purported to be from Sergio 
Rodriguez, who worked at Attorney Meyer's apartment building.  
Another purportedly was from Noah Taylor, a friend of Attorney 
Meyer.  The criminal investigation concluded that the two 
character letters purportedly authored by Rodriguez and Taylor 
had in fact been fabricated by Attorney Meyer.  Rodriguez and 
Taylor both denied writing letters on Attorney Meyer's behalf.  
No. 
2021AP1222-D   
 
8 
 
As part of the final plea agreement, the State agreed not to 
issue bail jumping charges for obstruction of justice based on 
the fabricated letters.   
¶22 On June 24, 2020, Attorney Meyer pled guilty to felony 
charges of threatening to communicate derogatory information and 
stalking.  The substantial battery and intimidation of a victim 
charges were dismissed.  On July 30, 2020, Attorney Meyer was 
sentenced to 18 months of initial confinement and two years of 
extended 
supervision, 
which 
sentence 
was 
stayed, 
on 
the 
threatening to communicate derogatory information charge.  He 
was sentenced to one year of straight time in the House of 
Corrections on the stalking charge.   
¶23 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct: 
Count 1:  By engaging in conduct leading to a felony 
conviction of threatening to communicate derogatory 
information, and by engaging in conduct leading to a 
felony conviction of stalking, Attorney Meyer in each 
instance violated Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 20:8.4(b).1 
Count 2:  By creating fabricated character reference 
letters for submission to the district attorney's 
office 
during 
plea 
negotiations, 
Attorney 
Meyer 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c).2  
                                                 
1 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. 
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation. 
No. 
2021AP1222-D   
 
9 
 
¶24 James Friedman was appointed referee on August 4, 
2021.  Attorney Meyer filed a motion for substitution of referee 
on August 9, 2021.  The motion was granted, and the Honorable 
Jean A. DiMotto was appointed referee on August 10, 2021.  On 
October 8, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation in which 
Attorney Meyer pled no contest to the two counts of misconduct 
alleged in the OLR's complaint.  Attorney Meyer agreed that the 
referee could use the allegations of the complaint as an 
adequate factual basis to support the allegations of misconduct.  
The parties agreed that the appropriate level of discipline to 
be imposed for Attorney Meyer's misconduct was a two-year 
suspension of his Wisconsin law license, with various conditions 
for reinstatement. 
¶25 The referee issued her report and recommendation on 
October 28, 2021.  The referee adopted the allegations in the 
complaint as her findings of fact, and she found that by 
engaging 
in 
conduct 
leading 
to 
a 
felony 
conviction 
of 
threatening to communicate derogatory information, and by 
engaging in conduct leading to a felony conviction of stalking, 
Attorney Meyer violated SCR 20:8.4(b) and that by creating 
fabricated reference letters for submission to the district 
attorney's office during plea negotiations, Attorney Meyer 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶26 The 
referee 
said 
she 
was 
satisfied 
a 
two-year 
suspension of Attorney Meyer's license to practice law was an 
appropriate level of discipline.  In addition, the referee said:   
No. 
2021AP1222-D   
 
10 
 
I note that Respondent Meyer's misconduct here is of 
an obsessive and character-disordered nature.  This 
causes 
me 
concern 
about 
the 
effectiveness 
of 
Respondent Meyer's rehabilitation and the potential 
impact on the safety of the public should he be 
reinstated.   
¶27 As a result of the referee's concern, she added a 
recommendation to those contained in the stipulation, which was 
that Attorney Meyer submit to an examination by a psychiatric or 
psychological expert of the OLR's choosing who shall evaluate 
the effectiveness of Attorney Meyer's rehabilitation.   
¶28 No appeal has been filed from the referee's report, so 
our review proceeds under SCR 22.17(2).  In conducting our 
review, we uphold a referee's findings of fact unless they are 
shown to be clearly erroneous, and we review the referee's 
conclusions of law de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 
N.W.2d 718.  We determine the appropriate level of discipline to 
be imposed under the circumstances, independent 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. 
¶29 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact, which are derived from the parties' stipulation, are 
clearly erroneous and we adopt them.  We also agree with the 
referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Meyer violated the 
Supreme Court Rules set forth above. 
¶30 We now turn to the appropriate level of discipline for 
Attorney Meyer's misconduct.  After careful review of the 
No. 
2021AP1222-D   
 
11 
 
record, we conclude that revocation of Attorney Meyer's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin is the appropriate sanction. 
¶31 "Revocation of an attorney's license to practice law 
is the most severe sanction this court can impose.  It is 
reserved for the most egregious cases."  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Cooper, 2013 WI 97, ¶34, 351 Wis. 2d 350, 
839 N.W.2d 857.  This is one of those cases. 
¶32 The undisputed facts show a clear pattern of Attorney 
Meyer using his position as an attorney to intimidate and 
threaten H.S.  On more than one occasion, Attorney Meyer 
physically assaulted H.S.  One of the assaults resulted in 
injuries serious enough to cause H.S. to miss approximately two 
weeks of work.  On more than one occasion, although police were 
called, H.S. said she did not want to pursue criminal charges 
because she was afraid of Attorney Meyer.  
¶33 Attorney Meyer made hundreds of unwelcome telephone 
calls and sent hundreds of unwelcome email messages to H.S.  
Many of the messages and calls were sent while H.S. was working 
in a position where she was required to keep her phone on at all 
times.  Attorney Meyer threatened to send negative information 
about H.S. to her employer, her family and friends, and the news 
media if she did not do what he asked, including having sex with 
him.  Attorney Meyer created a fake email that purported to be 
from H.S.'s father alleging that H.S. had committed HIPAA 
violations, threatened to send the email to H.S.'s employer if 
she did not give in to his demands, and did ultimately send the 
email to the employer.  Attorney Meyer communicated his intent 
No. 
2021AP1222-D   
 
12 
 
to harm H.S. by using criminal defendants to inflict violence on 
her family and men with whom Attorney Meyer believed H.S. had 
been intimate.  
¶34 Attorney Meyer repeatedly told H.S. he was insulated 
from legal consequences because of his position as a criminal 
defense lawyer.  When criminal charges were finally filed 
against him, Attorney Meyer falsified letters of reference and 
presented them to the district attorney in an effort to gain 
leniency.  
¶35 The facts of this case demonstrate a clear pattern of 
disturbing and egregious misconduct by Attorney Meyer and a 
complete and utter disregard for his obligations as an attorney.  
He has shown himself to be unwilling or unable to conform his 
conduct to the standards that are required to practice law in 
this state.  No sanction short of revocation would be sufficient 
to protect the public, deter other lawyers from similar 
behavior, and impress upon Attorney Meyer the errors of his 
ways.   
¶36 We also agree with the referee that it is appropriate 
to 
impose 
certain 
conditions 
upon 
Attorney 
Meyer's 
reinstatement. 
 
The 
parties 
stipulated 
to 
a 
number 
of 
conditions, and the referee deemed it appropriate to add an 
additional condition, that Attorney Meyer's reinstatement be 
conditioned on his submission to an examination by a psychiatric 
or psychological expert of the OLR's choosing who shall evaluate 
the effectiveness of Attorney Meyer's rehabilitation.  We 
decline to impose this condition.  An additional psychiatric or 
No. 
2021AP1222-D   
 
13 
 
psychological evaluation is unlikely to be an effective way to 
determine whether Attorney Meyer is likely to reoffend. 
¶37 Finally, we address the question of costs.  It is this 
court's 
general 
policy 
to 
assess 
the 
full 
costs 
of 
a 
disciplinary proceeding against the attorney being disciplined. 
SCR 22.24(1m).  After the OLR filed its statement on costs, 
which were $1,891.81 as of November 17, 2021, Attorney Meyer 
filed a timely objection to costs in which he argues that he 
should be relieved from paying costs because he and the OLR 
filed a stipulation soon after his motion for substitution of 
the originally appointed referee had been granted and Referee 
DiMotto was appointed successor referee.  
¶38 Attorney Meyer notes that the OLR has historically 
declined to seek costs in cases involving a full stipulation 
entered into prior to the appointment of a referee, and in those 
instances this court has declined to impose costs.  Attorney 
Meyer notes that after Referee DiMotto was appointed, the 
parties asked that they be permitted to file a stipulation which 
would be submitted to the court without the need of involvement 
of the referee, but this request was declined and the matter was 
submitted to Referee DiMotto. 
¶39 In its response to Attorney Meyer's objection to 
costs, the OLR notes that at the outset of this proceeding, 
prior to the filing of the complaint, the OLR notified Attorney 
Meyer's counsel of the opportunity to enter into a comprehensive 
SCR 22.12 stipulation prior to the appointment of a referee and 
that waiver of costs was possible in that situation.  The OLR 
No. 
2021AP1222-D   
 
14 
 
states that after the disciplinary complaint was filed, Attorney 
Meyer never discussed stipulating to the charged misconduct and 
sanction sought by the OLR, until after a referee had been 
appointed, and the OLR notes that by the time the comprehensive 
stipulation was filed, both parties had been made aware that 
costs had been incurred. 
 The OLR renews its original 
recommendation that the full costs of the proceeding be assessed 
against Attorney Meyer.  In the alternative, it suggests that in 
the event this court chooses to exercise its discretion to 
reduce costs, that it at least assess the referee costs against 
Attorney Meyer. 
¶40 We deny Attorney Meyer's objection to the assessment 
of costs and conclude that he should bear the full costs of this 
proceeding.  As the OLR points out, Attorney Meyer had the 
opportunity to enter into a comprehensive stipulation prior to 
the appointment of a referee but chose not to do so.  Although 
he did subsequently enter into a stipulation, by the time the 
stipulation was filed, costs had been incurred.  
¶41 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Matthew R. Meyer to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective July 14, 2022. 
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a condition of the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, 
Matthew R. Meyer shall be subject to the following conditions: 
1. Provide proof of participation in mental health 
counseling. 
2. Provide the Office of Lawyer Regulation with signed 
releases for any mental health and AODA treatment 
No. 
2021AP1222-D   
 
15 
 
provider who is or has been providing treatment to 
Matthew R. Meyer within the four years preceding any 
petition for reinstatement. 
3. Provide documentation of the completion of an anger 
management program. 
4. Provide 
documentation 
of 
the 
completion 
of 
a 
certified batterers' treatment program.   
5. Comply 
with 
all 
terms 
and 
conditions 
of 
his 
probation 
related 
to 
Milwaukee 
County 
Case 
No. 2019CF4573. 
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Matthew R. Meyer shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the full costs of this proceeding, which are 
$1,891.81 as of November 17, 2021. 
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Matthew R. Meyer shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
revoked. 
 
No.  2021AP1222-D.akz 
 
1 
 
¶45 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J.   (concurring).  I 
concur in the court's order revoking Attorney Meyer's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  I write separately to point out that 
in Wisconsin the "revocation" of an attorney's law license is 
not truly revocation because the attorney may petition for 
readmittance after a period of five years.  See SCR 22.29(2).  I 
believe that when it comes to lawyer discipline, courts should 
say what they mean and mean what they say.  We should not be 
creating false perceptions to both the public and to the lawyer 
seeking to practice law again.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 WI 39, 391 Wis. 2d 196, 942 
N.W.2d 302 (Ziegler, J., dissenting).  And, as I stated in my 
dissent to this court's order denying Rule Petition 19-10, In 
the Matter of Amending Supreme Court Rules Pertaining to 
Permanent Revocation of a License to Practice Law in Attorney 
Disciplinary Proceedings, I believe there may be rare and 
unusual cases that would warrant the permanent revocation of an 
attorney's license to practice law.  See S. Ct. Order 19-10 
(issued Dec. 18, 2019) (Ziegler, J., dissenting). 
¶46 For the foregoing reason, I respectfully concur. 
¶47 I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL 
BRADLEY and BRIAN HAGEDORN, join this concurrence. 
 
No.  2021AP1222-D.awb 
 
1 
 
¶48 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   (dissenting).  The parties 
stipulated to a two-year suspension as discipline in this case 
and the referee was in accord, deeming a two-year suspension an 
"appropriate level of discipline for the misconduct."  Per 
curiam, ¶1.  Yet in this per curiam opinion, the majority 
concludes otherwise and imposes instead a revocation of license. 
¶49 I write separately because the per curiam opinion 
fails to tether its chosen level of discipline to any discussion 
of precedent.  It is unique in its approach.  I do not recall 
ever seeing an Office of Lawyer Regulation disciplinary opinion 
where we imposed discipline without citing to some precedent, 
using it as a basis of discussion for the level of discipline we 
impose.  
¶50 We often begin our discussion with the caveat that no 
two cases are alike1 but nevertheless the level of discipline 
imposed stays squarely within the confines of analogous prior 
cases.  And, at other times, we acknowledge the existence of the 
precedent and explain our departure from it.  Here the per 
curiam does neither. 
¶51 No cases are cited in the per curiam to support its 
conclusion because there is no case to cite that supports a 
revocation.  As a result, the imposition of a revocation seems 
rather arbitrary.  If the two-year recommended suspension is not 
                                                 
1 See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jones, 
2008 WI 53, ¶23, 309 Wis. 2d 585, 749 N.W.2d 603; In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Parks, 2018 WI 110, ¶67, 384 
Wis. 2d 635, 920 N.W.2d 505. 
No.  2021AP1222-D.awb 
 
2 
 
sufficient for the majority, why not a three-year suspension, or 
four years instead? 
¶52 In contrast, the memo which supported the two-year 
stipulation and which the referee commended to this court lists 
several cases supporting the two-year suspension recommendation.2  
Admittedly the conduct here is egregious, but the explication of 
bad facts cannot serve as an excuse for this court's failure to 
acknowledge that it is departing from precedent and then 
offering a reasoned explanation why. 
¶53 I agree with the referee's recommendation because it 
is tethered to a discussion of precedent and offers a reasoned 
explanation for the imposition of a two-year suspension.  
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. 
 
 
                                                 
2 In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Evenson, 2015 WI 
38, 361 Wis. 2d 629, 861 N.W.2d 786 (approving a stipulation to 
a 30-month suspension when the attorney was convicted of one 
felony count of delivery of a controlled substance and two 
misdemeanor counts of fourth degree sexual assault); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ritland, 2021 WI 36, 396 
Wis. 2d 509, 957 N.W.2d 540 (ordering a two-year suspension when 
the attorney was convicted of two counts of attempted adultery 
and one count of disorderly conduct); In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Schreier, 2013 WI 35, 347 Wis. 2d 92, 829 
N.W.2d 744 (ordering a 30-month suspension based on 20 counts of 
misconduct, 14 of which were for misdemeanor and felony criminal 
convictions). 
No.  2021AP1222-D.awb 
 
1