Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Godfrey Y. Muwonge

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2017-02-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
2017 WI 12 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP776-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Medical Incapacity Proceedings 
Against Godfrey Y. Muwonge, Attorney at Law:   
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Godfrey Y. Muwonge, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MUWONGE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 17, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2017 WI 12
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2007AP776-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Medical Incapacity Proceedings 
Against Godfrey Y. Muwonge, Attorney at Law:   
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Godfrey Y. Muwonge, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 17, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.   Conditions imposed.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of Referee Dennis J. Flynn approving a stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Godfrey Y. 
Muwonge.  Attorney Muwonge stipulated to the facts underlying 43 
counts of misconduct as alleged in the OLR's amended complaint, 
and Attorney Muwonge and the OLR jointly recommend certain 
conditions and restitution as discipline for the admitted 
misconduct.  The referee determined there was an adequate 
factual basis to establish the alleged misconduct and concluded 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
2 
 
that the parties' joint recommendation for discipline was 
appropriate.  
¶2 
Upon careful review of this matter, we uphold the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, as derived 
from the parties' stipulation, and agree that imposition of 
conditions 
and 
restitution 
are 
sufficient 
discipline 
for 
Attorney Muwonge's misconduct.  We impose the full costs of this 
proceeding on Attorney Muwonge, which are $2,053.07, as of 
November 21, 2016.  
¶3 
This is an unusual disciplinary proceeding.  It 
commenced in 2007 but was held in abeyance because Attorney 
Muwonge was deemed to have a medical incapacity.  That medical 
incapacity has been removed so the disciplinary proceeding can 
proceed.   
¶4 
Attorney Muwonge was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1997, and practiced immigration law in the 
Milwaukee area.  
¶5 
In April 2007, the OLR filed a disciplinary complaint 
against Attorney Muwonge alleging 43 counts of misconduct and 
seeking revocation of Attorney Muwonge's law license.  
¶6 
On September 29, 2008, the OLR and Attorney Muwonge 
stipulated that Attorney Muwonge had a medical incapacity and 
that, because of the medical incapacity, Attorney Muwonge could 
not successfully defend against the allegations of professional 
misconduct. 
 
On 
October 
22, 
2008, 
a 
referee 
agreed, 
recommending, consistent with this court's rules, that we 
suspend Attorney Muwonge's law license indefinitely, pursuant to 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
3 
 
SCR 22.16(4), and that we hold the pending disciplinary 
proceeding in abeyance.  On December 23, 2008, we issued an 
order adopting the referee's findings and conclusions; the 2007 
disciplinary proceeding was held in abeyance.  In re Medical 
Incapacity 
Proceedings 
Against 
Muwonge, 
No. 
2007AP776, 
unpublished order (S. Ct. Dec. 23, 2008). 
¶7 
In the following years, Attorney Muwonge successfully 
sought and obtained treatment for his mental health and 
substance abuse issues.  
¶8 
In June 2015, Attorney Muwonge sought reinstatement of 
his license to practice law, asserting that his medical 
incapacity 
had 
been 
removed. 
 
An 
extensive 
evidentiary 
proceeding ensued.  The referee agreed, and ultimately this 
court concluded that Attorney Muwonge had demonstrated by clear, 
satisfactory and convincing evidence that he is no longer 
medically incapacitated and that he is fit to practice law.  In 
re Medical Incapacity Proceedings Against Muwonge, 2016 WI 55, 
369 Wis. 2d 658, 881 N.W.2d 25.  On July 1, 2016, we reinstated 
Attorney Muwonge's law license subject to a number of stringent 
conditions designed to monitor his continued fitness to practice 
law and to ensure protection of the public.  Id.  
¶9 
Upon reinstating Attorney Muwonge's law license, we 
also 
issued 
an 
order 
pertaining 
to 
the 
underlying 
2007 
disciplinary proceeding that had been held in abeyance during 
his period of medical incapacity.  See SCR 22.16(4)(d) ("[u]pon 
reinstatement, the court shall direct the referee to proceed 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
4 
 
with the misconduct action.")  We directed the referee and the 
parties to proceed with the 2007 disciplinary proceeding.  
¶10 The parties executed a stipulation that the referee 
has accepted.  Our task now is to review the referee's 
recommendation regarding the 2007 disciplinary proceeding. 
¶11 The misconduct alleged in the 2007 
disciplinary 
proceeding is serious.  The amended complaint alleged 43 counts 
of professional misconduct involving 15 clients, primarily in 
immigration cases.  It reflects a pattern of failure to pursue 
client matters, failure to respond to client inquiries, failure 
to communicate with clients, failure to keep clients informed, 
failure to refund retainers or costs that were not expended, and 
failure to return client files.  For example, Attorney Muwonge 
was retained to help A&W Iron Metal, Inc. (A&W) obtain permanent 
resident status for certain employees. Attorney Muwonge failed 
to meet with the clients to address their questions, failed to 
return filed documents, and "[n]one of the workers received 
permanent status."  Individual clients were also harmed when 
Attorney Muwonge failed to appear at hearings or to complete 
work he had undertaken for them. 
¶12 All told, the OLR alleged and Attorney Muwonge has 
stipulated that he violated the following supreme court rules: 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
5 
 
 Former SCR 20:1.4(a)1 as alleged in counts one 
(L.C. and J.C.), four (A.L.), seven (A.B.), ten 
(N.R.), sixteen (P.K. and K.P.), nineteen (A&W), 
twenty-three (A.K.), twenty-five (L.P.), twenty-
eight (W.W.), thirty (M.O. and K.O.), thirty-two 
(G.B.), thirty-five (P.M.), thirty-nine (M.B.), 
and forty-one (A.D. and S.D.). 
 SCR 20:1.4(b)2 as alleged in count thirty-three 
(G.B.). 
 Former SCR 20:1.16(d)3 as alleged in counts two 
(L.C. and J.C.), five (A.L.), eight (A.B.), 
twelve (N.R.), fourteen (S.M.), seventeen (P.K. 
and 
K.P.), 
twenty 
(A&W), 
twenty-one 
(A&W), 
twenty-six (L.P.), thirty-four (G.B.), thirty-six 
(P.M.), forty-two (A.D. and S.D.), and forty-
three (A.D. and S.D.). 
                                                 
1 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) applies to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2007.  It provided in pertinent part that a "lawyer 
shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter 
and 
promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information." 
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." 
3 Former SCR 20:1.16(d) applies to misconduct committed 
prior to July 1, 2007.  It provided in pertinent part that:  
 . . . upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee that has not been earned.  
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
6 
 
 SCR 20.1.34 as alleged in counts three (A.L. and 
H.N.), six (A.B.), nine (A.B.), fifteen (P.K.), 
eighteen (A&W), twenty-two (A.K.), twenty-four 
(L.P.), twenty-seven (W.W.), twenty-nine (M.O.), 
thirty-one (G.B.), thirty-eight (M.B.), and forty 
(A.D. and S.D.). 
 Former SCR 20:1.15(a), in effect until June 30, 
2004,5 as alleged in count eleven. 
 SCR 22.03(6)6 and SCR 20:8.4(f)7 as alleged in 
count thirteen. 
 SCR 20:8.4(c)8 as alleged in count thirty-seven 
(P.M.).  
¶13 In the stipulation, Attorney Muwonge represented that 
he 
fully 
understands 
the 
misconduct 
allegations; 
fully 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "a lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
5 Former SCR 20:1.15(a) applies to misconduct committed 
prior to July 1, 2004.  It will not be restated in its entirety 
but generally provided that: "a lawyer shall hold in trust, 
separate from the lawyer's own property, that property of 
clients and third persons that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation or when acting in a fiduciary 
capacity."   
6 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
7 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
8 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
7 
 
understands his right to contest the matter; fully understands 
the 
ramifications 
of 
his 
entry 
into 
the 
stipulation; 
acknowledges that he has had the representation and advice of 
counsel; and states that his entry into the stipulation is made 
knowingly and voluntarily.  
¶14 The referee found that the facts alleged in the 
amended 
complaint 
adequately 
support 
the 
allegations 
of 
misconduct.  The referee determined that Attorney Muwonge's plea 
was made freely, knowingly and voluntarily, and that Attorney 
Muwonge fully understands the misconduct allegations as well as 
his right to contest those charges.  Further, the referee 
determined that Attorney Muwonge understands the ramifications 
of his decision to stipulate to the alleged misconduct.  The 
referee concluded that the record in this case establishes by 
clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that Attorney 
Muwonge engaged in the misconduct as alleged in each of the 43 
counts set forth in the amended complaint.  The referee thus 
approved Attorney Muwonge's no contest plea to the allegations 
of misconduct in the amended complaint.   
¶15 With respect to the appropriate sanction, the parties 
agreed 
that 
the 
imposition 
of 
additional 
conditions 
and 
restitution is sufficient discipline for Attorney Muwonge's 
misconduct.  The referee agreed as well.  He noted that Attorney 
Muwonge was suspended from practice for over eight years, from 
April 2008 to July 2016, primarily due to his medical 
incapacity.  The referee acknowledged that Attorney Muwonge has 
since taken "significant and meaningful steps" to remove his 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
8 
 
medical incapacity.  The referee noted that this court has 
already imposed a "significant number of monitoring strategies 
and restrictions intended to provide safeguards to the public 
who may utilize his services."  The referee recommended this 
court accept the parties' joint recommendation as to the 
sanctions, impose additional conditions, and order payment of 
restitution to three clients.   
¶16 No appeal has been filed, so we review the referee's 
report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).  We will adopt a referee's 
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. 
¶17 We adopt the referee's findings of fact and his 
conclusion that Attorney Muwonge violated the supreme court 
rules as alleged in the OLR's amended complaint, and as admitted 
in the stipulation.  
¶18 Typically, misconduct as serious as that alleged here 
would warrant a lengthy license suspension or revocation, which 
bars an attorney from seeking reinstatement for at least five 
years.9  Here, Attorney Muwonge's law license was suspended for 
                                                 
9 SCR 22.29(2) provides:  "A petition for reinstatement of a 
license that is revoked may be filed at any time commencing five 
years after the effective date of revocation." 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
9 
 
eight years, from 2008 until 2016, when he successfully 
demonstrated that his medical incapacity had been removed.  
¶19 To suspend or revoke Attorney Muwonge's law license 
again, for misconduct that occurred prior to the lengthy 
suspension for medical incapacity, would not serve the interests 
of justice and is not necessary to protect the public.  Under 
the specific facts of this case, we are satisfied that the 
imposition 
of 
additional 
conditions 
and 
restitution, 
as 
stipulated by the parties and recommended by the referee, is 
sufficient discipline for the misconduct described in the 2007 
disciplinary proceeding.  
¶20 We accept the conditions recommended by the referee.  
We agree that Attorney Muwonge shall continue to comply with all 
conditions previously imposed by this court in our order of 
July 1, 2016, conditionally reinstating Attorney Muwonge's law 
license.10   
                                                 
10 The conditions imposed on Attorney Muwonge in this 
court's July 1, 2016 order are summarized here: 
(1)  WisLAP Monitoring.  Continued participation in 
the WisLAP monitoring program for a period of two 
years following the date of this order;  
(2)  Law Practice Supervision and Status Reports. 
Supervision of his law practice for a period of two 
years following the date of this order;  
(3)  Treatment and Status Reports. Continued treatment 
as 
recommended 
by 
Attorney 
Muwonge's 
treatment 
providers to address mental health issues, with at 
least one mental health treatment provider sending the 
OLR a written status report in January and July 2017, 
and in January and July 2018;  
(continued) 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
10 
 
¶21 The parties have stipulated and the referee recommends 
that Attorney Muwonge should be ordered to pay restitution to 
three former clients, A.B., A.K., and A&W.  Apparently the 
parties were unable to reach agreement on the precise amount of 
restitution that Attorney Muwonge should pay to each client.  
This is evidenced by language in the parties' stipulation 
stating that the $2,500 and $800 in restitution due to A.B. and 
A.K., respectively, may be "reduced by any amount Muwonge can 
establish to the satisfaction of OLR that represents the value 
of services he actually performed" for each of these clients.  
The parties also stipulate that restitution is due to A&W 
employees in an amount "believed to be $11,800 to $16,800" that 
should be "determined by an accounting of the value of the 
services 
[Attorney 
Muwonge] 
actually 
performed 
for 
[the 
clients], that Muwonge must provide to the satisfaction of OLR." 
¶22 This court is not a fact finder and we are disinclined 
to accept indeterminate restitution recommendations.  We are 
also disinclined to accept a recommendation that does not impose 
a time frame for the parties to resolve the amount of 
                                                                                                                                                             
(4)  Financial obligations.  Attorney Muwonge shall, 
if he has not already done so and subject to his 
ability to pay, make arrangements with the Wisconsin 
Lawyers' 
Fund 
for 
Client 
Protection 
(Fund) 
for 
repayment of any sums due to the Fund and shall also 
make arrangements with the OLR for repayment of 
outstanding costs. 
 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
11 
 
restitution 
owed 
to 
a 
client 
injured 
by 
an 
attorney's 
misconduct. 
¶23 We direct Attorney Muwonge to make restitution of 
$2,500 to A.B.  Consistent with the terms of the parties' 
stipulation, this amount may be reduced by any amount that 
Attorney Muwonge can establish, to the satisfaction of the OLR, 
represents the value of legal services he actually performed for 
A.B.  However, any appropriate reduction in A.B.'s restitution 
award must be determined promptly.  
¶24 The parties are thus directed to advise this court, in 
writing, within 90 days of the date of this order, whether a 
reduction in the restitution award to A.B. is appropriate.  If 
the parties are unable to reach an agreement, they shall so 
advise the court and the court may submit the matter to a 
referee for a determination of appropriate restitution and for a 
recommendation as to which party should bear the costs of the 
referee's supplemental review to determine the amount of 
restitution that should be paid to A.B. 
¶25 We direct Attorney Muwonge to make restitution of $800 
to A.K.  Consistent with the terms of the parties' stipulation, 
this amount may be reduced by any amount Attorney Muwonge can 
establish, to the satisfaction of the OLR, represents the value 
of legal services actually performed for A.K.  Again, any 
appropriate reduction in A.K.'s restitution award must be 
determined promptly.  
¶26 The parties are directed to advise this court, in 
writing, within 90 days of the date of this order, whether a 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
12 
 
reduction in the amount of restitution owed to A.K is 
appropriate.  If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, 
they shall so advise the court and the court may submit the 
matter to a referee for a determination of the appropriate 
restitution and for a recommendation as to which party should 
bear the costs of the referee's supplemental review to determine 
the amount of restitution that should be paid to A.K. 
¶27 Attorney Muwonge is also ordered to make restitution 
to A&W.  The parties' stipulation indicates that the appropriate 
amount of restitution to A&W is likely between $11,800 and 
$16,800.  The parties are directed to advise this court, in 
writing, of the appropriate amount of restitution due to A&W 
within 90 days of the date of this order.  If the parties are 
unable to reach an agreement, the parties shall so advise the 
court and the court may submit the matter to a referee for a 
determination of appropriate restitution due to A&W and for a 
recommendation as to which party should bear the costs of the 
referee's supplemental review to determine the amount of 
restitution that should be paid to A&W. 
¶28 The referee also recommends we require Attorney 
Muwonge to successfully attend continuing legal education and 
legal ethics (CLE) courses as deemed appropriate by the OLR.  We 
agree that the OLR may direct Attorney Muwonge to attend 
specific CLE courses during the period it monitors Attorney 
Muwonge's 
law 
practice, 
provided 
those 
CLE 
course 
recommendations will not require overnight travel and do not 
exceed the requirements Attorney Muwonge must fulfill to satisfy 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
13 
 
his continuing legal education requirements.  See SCR Chapter 31 
(Continuing Legal Education). 
¶29 Finally, we also deem it appropriate, as is our usual 
custom, to impose the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding 
on Attorney Muwonge.  
¶30 IT IS ORDERED that compliance with all of the terms of 
this order and our July 1, 2016 order are conditions of Godfrey 
Y. Muwonge's license to practice law in Wisconsin.  
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Godfrey Y. Muwonge shall 
pay restitution of $2,500 to A.B., less any appropriate 
reduction to be determined as set forth in this order. 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties are directed to 
advise this court, in writing, of the appropriate amount of 
restitution due to A.B., within 90 days of the date of this 
order. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Godfrey Y. Muwonge shall 
pay restitution of $800 to A.K., less any appropriate reduction 
to be determined as set forth in this order. 
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties are directed to 
advise this court, in writing, of the appropriate amount of 
restitution due to A.K., within 90 days of the date of this 
order. 
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Godfrey Y. Muwonge is 
ordered to make restitution to A&W Iron Metal, Inc., in an 
amount to be determined as set forth in this order. 
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties are directed to 
advise this court, in writing, of the appropriate amount of 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
14 
 
restitution due to A&W Iron Metal, Inc., within 90 days of the 
date of this order. 
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs. 
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Godfrey Y. Muwonge shall 
attend continuing legal education and legal ethics courses as 
directed 
by 
the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
during 
its 
monitoring period, subject to the limitations set forth in this 
order. 
¶39 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Godfrey Y. Muwonge shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$2,053.07. 
 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
 
 
1