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

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2016-07-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
2016 WI 55 
 
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. 
 
 
 
 
MEDICAL INCAPACITY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MUWONGE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 1, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, J. concurs (Opinion filed). 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:     
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 55
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 
 
JUL 1, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
reinstated, with conditions.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report filed by Referee 
Dennis J. Flynn, recommending that the court reinstate, with 
conditions, Attorney Godfrey Y. Muwonge's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin. After careful consideration we adopt the 
referee's recommendation.  We agree that Attorney Muwonge met 
his burden under Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.36(6) to show by 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
2 
 
clear, 
satisfactory, 
and 
convincing 
evidence 
that 
he 
is 
currently fit to resume the practice of law, with conditions. 
Accordingly, we grant his reinstatement petition. We impose the 
full costs of this proceeding, which are $8,118.32 as of 
April 27, 2016.  We also impose certain conditions on Attorney 
Muwonge's license to practice law, as set forth herein. 
¶2 
Attorney Muwonge was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1997.  He practiced immigration law in the 
Milwaukee area. In April 2007, the OLR filed a disciplinary 
complaint against Muwonge, alleging 43 counts of misconduct and 
seeking the revocation of Muwonge's law license. Ultimately, it 
became apparent that Attorney Muwonge suffered from a medical 
incapacity and his license was indefinitely suspended. 
¶3 
Attorney Muwonge's early life experiences are highly 
relevant to his chosen area of legal practice and also provide 
context for his medical incapacity.  As a young man in Uganda, 
Muwonge was arrested, interrogated, and tortured due to his 
perceived involvement in a resistance group. He sought and 
eventually received asylum in the United States. Shortly after 
arriving in Wisconsin, he matriculated at Marquette University, 
earning an undergraduate degree in journalism in 1994 and a law 
degree in 1997. Given his own experiences, he chose to practice 
immigration law. He married and has children. Personally, 
however, he struggled with post traumatic stress disorder 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
3 
 
(PTSD), alcoholism, and chemical addictions which adversely 
affected his ability to practice law, leading to the 2007 OLR 
complaint. 
¶4 
When the disciplinary complaint was filed, Muwonge 
initially opted to file a petition for voluntary revocation of 
his law license and a referee recommended we accept that 
petition and revoke Muwonge's law license.  Muwonge then 
appealed, asking this court to consider his medical issues.  
Following additional proceedings, on April 9, 2008, this court 
temporarily suspended Muwonge's license pursuant to SCR 22.21.1 
¶5 
On September 29, 2008, the OLR and Muwonge stipulated 
that Muwonge had a medical incapacity that precluded him from 
defending against the disciplinary charges. On October 22, 2008, 
a referee concurred, concluding that Muwonge had a medical 
incapacity due to PTSD, alcoholism, chemical addictions, social 
phobia, suicide ideation, and migraine headaches, making his 
defense of the disciplinary proceeding impossible.  The referee 
recommended we abate the pending disciplinary proceedings and 
suspend Muwonge's license. On December 23, 2008, the court 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.21 provides:  "(1)  The supreme court, on its own 
motion, upon the motion of the director, or upon the motion of a 
special investigator acting under SCR 22.25, may suspend 
temporarily an attorney's license to practice law where it 
appears that the attorney's continued practice of law poses a 
threat to the interests of the public and the administration of 
justice." 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
4 
 
issued an order adopting the referee's findings and conclusions. 
We suspended Muwonge's license to practice law indefinitely 
pursuant to SCR 22.16(4)2 and SCR 22.36.3  
                                                 
2 SCR 22.16(4) provides:   
(4)(a) If in the course of the proceeding the 
respondent claims to have a medical incapacity that 
makes the defense of the proceedings impossible, the 
referee shall conduct a hearing and make findings 
concerning whether a medical incapacity makes defense 
of the proceeding impossible.  The referee may order 
the examination of the respondent by qualified medical 
or psychological experts.  
(b) All papers, files, transcripts, communications, 
and proceedings on the issue of medical incapacity 
shall be confidential and shall remain confidential 
until the supreme court has issued an order suspending 
the attorney's license to practice law, or has 
otherwise authorized disclosure.   
(c)  If the referee finds no medical incapacity that 
would make the defense of the proceeding impossible, 
the referee shall proceed with the misconduct action.  
(d)  If the referee finds that a medical incapacity 
makes the defense of the proceeding impossible, the 
referee shall file a report promptly with the supreme 
court.  If the court disapproves the referee's 
finding, the court shall direct the referee to proceed 
with the misconduct action.  If the court approves the 
referee's 
finding, 
the 
court 
shall 
abate 
the 
misconduct proceeding and suspend the respondent's 
license to practice law for medical incapacity until 
the court orders reinstatement of the attorney's 
license under SCR 22.36.  Upon reinstatement, the 
court shall direct the referee to proceed with the 
misconduct action.   
3 SCR 22.36 provides: 
(1) An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or whose practice of law is subject to 
(continued) 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
5 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
conditions for medical incapacity may petition the 
supreme court at any time for reinstatement of the 
license or the removal of conditions.   
(2) The supreme court shall refer the petition to the 
director for investigation to determine whether the 
attorney's medical incapacity has been removed.   
(3) The filing of a petition for reinstatement 
constitutes a waiver of any privilege existing between 
the petitioner and any psychiatrist, psychologist, 
physician or other health care provider that has 
provided care to the attorney.  The petitioner shall 
disclose the name of every psychiatrist, psychologist, 
physician and other health care provider that has 
provided care following suspension or the imposition 
of conditions and shall furnish the director written 
consent to the release of information and records 
requested by the medical experts appointed by the 
director or a referee.   
(4) The director may direct a medical or psychological 
examination of the petitioner by such qualified 
experts as the director designates and may direct that 
the expense of the examination be paid by the 
petitioner.   
(5)  Following the investigation, the petition shall 
be submitted to a referee selected by the clerk of the 
supreme court, based on geographic proximity to the 
respondent's place of residence, and appointed by the 
chief justice or, in his or her absence, the senior 
justice.   
(6)  The petitioner has the burden of showing by 
clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that the 
medical incapacity has been removed and that the 
petitioner is fit to resume the practice of law, with 
or without conditions.   
(7)  The referee shall hold a hearing on the petition, 
if necessary, and file a report and recommendation in 
the supreme court.   
(8)  If an attorney whose license to practice law has 
been suspended for medical incapacity pursuant to SCR 
(continued) 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
6 
 
¶6 
In the following years, Muwonge sought and obtained 
treatment for his mental health and substance abuse issues.  
¶7 
On June 29, 2015, Muwonge filed this petition for 
reinstatement. Referee Flynn was appointed and conducted an 
evidentiary hearing in March 2016.  Referee Flynn issued his 
report and recommendation on April 11, 2016. 
¶8 
Reinstatement 
from 
a 
determination 
of 
medical 
incapacity is governed by SCR 22.36. Under SCR 22.36(6) Muwonge 
has the burden to prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing 
evidence that the medical incapacity has been removed and that 
he is fit to resume the practice of law, with or without 
conditions.  
¶9 
The referee first considered whether Attorney Muwonge 
has met his burden of proving that his medical incapacity has 
been removed.  The record includes favorable opinions from 
Muwonge's medical and mental health treatment providers.  The 
referee observed that those who have been involved in Muwonge's 
treatment view him as "totally committed to maintaining his 
recovery status." His treating psychiatrist is unequivocal in 
stating that Muwonge is fit to return to the practice of law, 
                                                                                                                                                             
22.35 is thereafter judicially declared to be no 
longer in the condition previously determined under 
Wis. Stat. chapter 51 or chapter 880 (1997-98), the 
supreme 
court 
may 
direct 
reinstatement 
of 
the 
attorney's license, with or without conditions.   
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
7 
 
but recommends that he be supervised by another attorney and 
limit his work to 40 hours per week. Another therapist concurs, 
stating that Muwonge has regained control of his life and 
effectively 
manages 
his 
psychological 
issues 
through 
psychotherapy and medication.  
¶10 In addition, Muwonge joined Alcoholics Anonymous in 
May 2013, attends AA meetings at least three times a week; his 
sponsor 
offered 
a 
positive 
reference. 
Linda 
Albert, 
Administrator of the State Bar of Wisconsin Lawyer Assistance 
Program (WisLAP) also provided a written statement and appeared 
at the evidentiary hearing. Ms. Albert reported that under her 
guidance and monitoring, Muwonge now voluntarily participates in 
the WisLAP monitoring program under a formal written contract. 
Ms. Albert testified that it is her opinion that Muwonge is in 
full compliance with the WisLAP program and will likely continue 
to be in compliance in the future.  She recommended that, if 
Muwonge is reinstated, he should be required to remain in the 
WisLAP program for at least two years.  
¶11 Demonstrating that the medical incapacity has been 
removed is not enough to warrant reinstatement.  With respect to 
the "fitness" requirement in a medical incapacity reinstatement, 
we have stated:   
The term "fit," as used in 22.36(6) with the phrase 
"to practice law," encompasses more than the removal 
of a medical incapacity or being in a physically, 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
8 
 
mentally, or morally sound state. The term "fit" is 
sufficiently broad to imply a state of preparedness to 
render competent legal services; that is, to be 
prepared to provide the measure of expertise to ensure 
the 
attorney 
may 
be 
safely recommended 
to 
the 
community as a person to be consulted by and to 
represent others in legal matters.   
 
In re Medical Incapacity Proceedings Against Schlieve, 2010 WI 
22, ¶24, 323 Wis. 2d 654 780 N.W.2d 516 (2010). As the referee 
correctly observed, Muwonge must demonstrate that he has reached 
a state of preparedness to render competent legal services and 
that he can be safely recommended to the community as a person 
to be consulted by and represent others.   
¶12 To assess this, the referee addressed certain concerns 
identified by the OLR during this proceeding.  
¶13 First, Muwonge intends to resume an immigration 
practice. This is potentially concerning because it was, in 
part, his immigration practice that triggered his PTSD to the 
point of incapacitation. More specifically, when faced with his 
clients' 
immigration 
problems 
and 
the 
prospect 
of 
their 
deportation, he would relive his own horrific traumas.  
¶14 Second, Muwonge has been unemployed since 2008.  This 
is potentially concerning because his ability to handle the day-
to-day stress of a law practice remains an open question.  
Muwonge has explained that he did not obtain outside employment 
because he was unable to earn a sufficient salary to meet his 
family's needs and also provide and pay for appropriate care for 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
9 
 
his son, who is severely autistic.  Accordingly, he served as 
the primary caretaker for his children, including his autistic 
son, during his suspension.  
¶15 Notably, however, the OLR does not oppose Attorney 
Muwonge's reinstatement but rather recommends the court impose 
certain conditions on his practice intended to address both the 
aforementioned concerns. Muwonge acknowledges that conditions 
are appropriate to address lingering concerns about his fitness 
to practice law.  
¶16 In addition to considering specific concerns, the 
referee made general observations about Muwonge's reinstatement 
and his fitness to practice law. Muwonge has acknowledged that 
he should have sought treatment sooner, but the referee found 
that 
the 
credible 
evidence 
indicates 
that 
he 
accepts 
responsibility for wrongful conduct toward clients during the 
period leading up to his suspension in December 2008. Muwonge 
submitted numerous impressive and highly favorable character 
references in support of his petition.  He has entered into an 
agreement with the OLR to repay the costs assessed against him 
relating to his prior disciplinary and medical incapacity 
proceedings, in the amount of $5,586.82.  He has stated his 
intent to make restitution for sums paid to former clients by 
the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, which total 
$47,743.35, subject to his ability to pay. The record also 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
10 
 
reflects that in January 2016, the Board of Bar Examiners filed 
a letter indicating that Muwonge is currently in compliance with 
the Supreme Court's CLE and EPR requirements for reinstatement.  
¶17 The referee concluded that Muwonge has met his legal 
burden of establishing by credible evidence that is clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing that the medical incapacity noted 
in the Supreme Court's December 23, 2008 order, has been removed 
and that he is now fit to resume the practice of law in 
Wisconsin with conditions. The referee expressed his belief that 
Muwonge's reinstatement can be structured so as to provide 
Muwonge the opportunity to resume the practice of law, while 
also insuring the public is protected, by imposing certain  
conditions on his law practice. 
¶18 No appeal has been filed, so we consider this matter 
pursuant to SCR 22.33(3).4 A referee's findings of fact will not 
be overturned unless clearly erroneous. In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶ 5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 
675 N.W.2d 747. We independently review the referee's legal 
conclusion, noting that whether the petitioner has demonstrated 
fitness to resume the practice of law presents a legal question 
                                                 
4 SCR 22.33(3) provides:  "If no appeal is timely filed, the 
supreme 
court 
shall 
review 
the 
referee's 
report, 
order 
reinstatement, with or without conditions, deny reinstatement, 
or order the parties to file briefs in the matter." 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
11 
 
which we review de novo. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Chavez, 2012 WI 83, ¶ 14, 342 Wis. 2d 419, 816 N.W.2d 265. 
¶19 We agree with the referee that Attorney Muwonge has 
met his burden under SCR 22.36(6) to establish by clear, 
convincing, 
and 
satisfactory 
evidence 
that 
his 
medical 
incapacity is removed and that he is fit to resume the practice 
of law. We agree that conditions on Attorney Muwonge's license 
to practice law are appropriate to monitor his continued fitness 
and to ensure the public is protected.   
¶20 The referee, the OLR, and Attorney Muwonge himself 
have all proposed various conditions that could be imposed on 
Attorney Muwonge's law practice.  While the level of detail and 
the wording of these various proposals differ, fundamentally, 
there is consensus.  All concur that continued WisLAP monitoring 
is critical, and we agree. All concur that Attorney Muwonge's 
practice of law should be monitored by an experienced Wisconsin 
attorney, and we agree. Attorney Muwonge has identified a 
suitable attorney willing to monitor his law practice. Attorney 
Harold Block, who has known Muwonge for over 30 years and 
represented Muwonge when he sought immigration status after 
coming to Wisconsin from Uganda, testified that he was willing 
to monitor Muwonge if he is reinstated and the referee supports 
his appointment.  
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
12 
 
¶21 The practice monitor will oversee Attorney Muwonge's 
practice of law and will seek to ensure that Attorney Muwonge 
limits his practice to no more than 40 hours per week until his 
treatment provider advises the monitor that this limit is no 
longer necessary. 
¶22 Some of the proposed conditions are typically required 
in WisLAP monitoring contracts.  WisLAP requires that attorneys 
in the monitoring program execute a written monitoring contract, 
the terms of which are modeled after industry standards for 
monitoring lawyers and other impaired professionals and are 
specific and tailored to meet the individual lawyer's needs.  
For example, a monitoring agreement may require a lawyer to 
abstain 
from 
the 
use 
of 
alcohol 
and 
all 
non-prescribed 
controlled substances, may require attendance at a requisite 
number of AA meetings each week, may require daily check-ins, 
and may require random drug and/or alcohol testing. Appropriate 
monitoring requirements will be set forth in Attorney Muwonge's 
monitoring contract with WisLAP so we decline to enumerate them 
here. 
¶23 Other proposed conditions are designed to ensure 
appropriate communication among and between Attorney Muwonge, 
his practice monitor, WisLAP, and the OLR.  We impose the 
following conditions on Attorney Muwonge's practice of law: 
  
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
13 
 
 
(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. The court 
appoints Attorney Howard Block to serve as practice 
monitor.  If Attorney Block ceases to be available to 
monitor Attorney Muwonge, his successor shall be an 
attorney approved by WisLAP.  The practice monitor 
will provide written reports to the OLR in September 
and 
December 
2016; 
March, 
June, 
September, 
and 
December 2017; and March and June 2018.  To facilitate 
effective practice monitoring, Attorney Muwonge is 
directed 
to 
provide 
his 
practice 
monitor 
with 
permission to speak with all treating mental health 
and substance abuse providers.  
 
 
(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;  
 
 
(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. 
 
¶24 We emphasize that Attorney Muwonge's reinstatement is 
contingent upon his compliance with these conditions. If the OLR 
learns that Attorney Muwonge has failed to comply with these 
conditions, the OLR may petition this court for immediate 
suspension of Attorney Muwonge's license to practice law pending 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
14 
 
any further investigation or proceedings that may be necessary 
under the circumstances.  
¶25 The underlying disciplinary proceeding that brought 
Attorney Muwonge’s medical condition to this court’s attention 
in 2008 could not be resolved at that time. When Attorney 
Muwonge was deemed subject to a medical incapacity, his defense 
of the underlying proceeding was not possible and, consistent 
with our court rules, the misconduct proceeding was held in 
abeyance until such time as the court ordered reinstatement of 
his license under SCR 22.26.  See SCR 22.16(4)(d).  That day has 
arrived. 
¶26 Our rules require that, upon reinstatement, “the court 
shall direct the referee to proceed with the misconduct action.”  
Id.  The court will, consistent with the rules, issue a separate 
order 
directing 
the 
referee 
to 
proceed 
with 
the 
abated 
misconduct action.  Nearly a decade has elapsed since the OLR 
filed the disciplinary complaint and Attorney Muwonge has been 
suspended for over eight of those years so we trust that the 
parties 
will 
work 
to 
resolve 
the 
underlying 
matter 
expeditiously.   
¶27 Finally, we accept the referee's recommendation and 
impose on Attorney Muwonge the full costs of this proceeding, 
which are $8,118.32 as of April 27, 2016. 
No. 
2007AP776-D   
 
15 
 
¶28 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 
the license of Godfrey Y. Muwonge to practice law in Wisconsin 
is granted, effective the date of this order. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as conditions of the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, 
Godfrey Y. Muwonge shall comply with the following mandatory 
conditions: 
 
(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. The court 
appoints Attorney Howard Block to serve as practice 
monitor.  If Attorney Block ceases to be available to 
monitor Attorney Muwonge, his successor shall be an 
attorney approved by WisLAP.  The practice monitor 
will provide written reports to the OLR in September 
and 
December 
2016; 
March, 
June, 
September, 
and 
December 2017; and March and June 2018.  To facilitate 
effective practice monitoring, Attorney Muwonge is 
directed 
to 
provide 
his 
practice 
monitor 
with 
permission to speak with all treating mental health 
and substance abuse providers.  
 
 
(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;  
 
 
(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   
 
16 
 
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 120 days of the date 
of this order, Godfrey Y. Muwonge shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, absent a showing 
of his inability to pay. 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution is to be 
completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court will, by separate 
order, appoint a referee to proceed with the abated misconduct 
action as required by SCR 22.16(4)(d).  
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the 
terms of this order remain a condition of Godfrey Y. Muwonge's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  
 
No.  2007AP776-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶34 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   (concurring).  I join the 
per curiam, but I have reservations about ¶26. 
¶35 On April 21, 2016, the court adopted Rule Petition 14-
06 to grant more discretion to the OLR in disciplinary matters.  
I wonder why the OLR cannot exercise its discretion with regard 
to sending the old outstanding disciplinary matter to the 
referee?  Have we not given the OLR sufficient discretion? 
 
 
 
No.  2007AP776-D.ssa 
 
 
 
1