Case Title: OLR v. James M. Schoenecker

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2019-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
2019 WI 105 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP48-D & 2015AP275-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James M. Schoenecker, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
James M. Schoenecker, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SCHOENECKER  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 13, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2019 WI 105
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against James M. Schoenecker, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
James M. Schoenecker, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
FILED 
 
DEC 13, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY Reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of Referee James J. Winiarski recommending that James M. 
Schoenecker's 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin 
be 
reinstated.  After careful review of the matter, we agree that 
Attorney Schoenecker's license should be reinstated with certain 
conditions recommended by the referee.  We further agree with 
the referee that, consistent with our general practice, Attorney 
Schoenecker should be required to pay the full costs of this 
reinstatement proceeding, which are $14,754.78 as of October 7, 
2019.   
No. 
2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Attorney Schoenecker was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2004.  He is a graduate of Boston College and 
Columbia University Law School.  He practiced briefly in New 
York, then practiced at Quarles and Brady in Milwaukee for a 
time, and finally practiced at the Clair Law Offices, a small 
law firm in Delevan. 
¶3 
In 2011, Attorney Schoenecker's license was suspended 
for three years.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Schoenecker (Schoenecker I), 2011 WI 76, 336 Wis. 2d 253, 804 
N.W.2d 686.  Much of the misconduct in that case arose out of 
Attorney Schoenecker's personal and professional relationship 
with his former fiancée.  In late 2007, Attorney Schoenecker and 
his fiancée opened a joint checking account and the fiancée 
obtained a home equity line of credit and loaned Attorney 
Schoenecker $48,500.  Attorney Schoenecker executed a promissory 
note whereby he promised to repay the loan with interest.  Two 
days later, the fiancée learned Attorney Schoenecker had made 
cash withdrawals from her checking account at a casino, 
resulting in a $1,500 negative balance in her account.  She 
closed the joint checking account and ended her engagement to 
Attorney Schoenecker. 
¶4 
Attorney Schoenecker repaid part of the loan balance.  
At some point the former fiancée filed a collection action 
against him.  The parties reached a settlement, and Attorney 
Schoenecker paid the former fiancée over $32,000 as part of a 
full resolution of their financial issues. 
No. 
2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
In December 2008, Attorney Schoenecker used the former 
fiancée's personal information to enter her business account 
without her permission and made checks payable to himself.  As a 
result of these actions, he was charged in two separate criminal 
proceedings, one in Walworth County where he pled guilty to one 
felony count of identity theft and was placed on two years of 
probation and ordered to make restitution and pay court costs, 
and one in Waukesha County where he pled guilty to a misdemeanor 
charge of Theft-Moveable Property.  The Waukesha County circuit 
court imposed and stayed a four-month jail sentence and placed 
Attorney Schoenecker on probation for one year.  In addition, 
Attorney Schoenecker was required to pay restitution to the 
former fiancée and pay court costs.   
¶6 
In 2008, Attorney Schoenecker became an associate at 
the Clair Law Offices.  He told the law firm he was representing 
his former fiancée, so she was considered a firm client.  He 
sent invoices to the former fiancée in the fall of 2008 showing 
that she owed over $13,000.  A substantial number of the entries 
on the invoices were fraudulent.  
¶7 
Attorney Schoenecker also set up his own separate law 
firm on the side while he was working as an associate at the 
Clair Law Offices.  He did not inform the law firm of this fact.  
In addition to the incidents involving the former fiancée and 
the Clair Law Office, Attorney Schoenecker's 2011 suspension 
also arose out of his making fraudulent statements in his own 
personal bankruptcy proceeding. 
No. 
2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
In 2016, Attorney Schoenecker received an additional 
one-year license suspension.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Schoenecker 
(Schoenecker 
II), 
2016 
WI 
27, 
368 
Wis. 2d 57, 878 N.W.2d 163.  The misconduct at issue in that 
case arose out of Attorney Schoenecker's involvement in a 
business partnership he entered into in 2012 with two other men.  
The men established a limited liability company.  One man gave 
Attorney 
Schoenecker 
$25,000 
in 
cash 
as 
his 
capital 
contribution, and the other man contributed $20,000.  Instead of 
immediately depositing the $25,000 capital contribution into a 
business account, Attorney Schoenecker deposited the bulk of 
that money into his own personal checking account.  He also used 
company funds to pay personal credit card bills without 
preapproval from his partners, and he withdrew funds from 
company accounts in order to gamble at Potawatomi Casino in 
Milwaukee. 
¶9 
Attorney Schoenecker filed his first petition for 
reinstatement of his law license in early 2017.  In 2018, this 
court denied the petition, agreeing with the referee that 
Attorney Schoenecker had failed to meet his burden of proof to 
establish the requirements of reinstatement at that time.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Schoenecker, 2018 WI 58, 381 
Wis. 2d 644, 912 N.W.2d 847.  This court stated that Attorney 
Schoenecker could again file a petition for reinstatement six 
months after the date of its decision.   
¶10 In November 2018, Attorney Schoenecker filed a second 
petition for reinstatement.  A public hearing was held before 
No. 
2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D   
 
5 
 
the referee on June 18 and 19, 2019.  Numerous witnesses 
testified at the hearing in favor of Attorney Schoenecker's 
reinstatement petition.   
¶11 One of the witnesses who testified on Attorney 
Schoenecker's behalf was James Harrison, a clinical substance 
abuse counselor, licensed professional counselor, international 
certified 
gambling 
addiction 
counselor, 
and 
board-approved 
clinical consultant.  Mr. Harrison testified that he began 
seeing Attorney Schoenecker in April of 2015.  Mr. Harrison said 
Attorney Schoenecker has gone above and beyond what many people 
do in outpatient treatment and has voluntarily continued his 
counseling sessions for over four years, whereas Mr. Harrison 
normally sees clients for only two to four months in counseling 
sessions.  Mr. Harrison testified that Attorney Schoenecker's 
willingness to continue the counseling sessions was indicative 
of how seriously he takes his situation.  As a result of this 
dedication, Mr. Harrison opined that Attorney Schoenecker's risk 
level to return to his previous behavior and actions has 
diminished.  
¶12 Mr. Harrison testified that Attorney Schoenecker has 
come to the conclusion that gambling can no longer be part of 
his life and he has been bet-free for over four years.  
Mr. Harrison said:  
It should be noted that Attorney Schoenecker has a 
disease.  A disease of gambling addition.  It is a 
disease that often results in good people making 
inappropriate decisions and poor choices. 
No. 
2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D   
 
6 
 
Not to be used as an excuse by any means for his 
behavior, but certainly a contributing factor to what 
he did.  It is also a disease that can be brought 
under control if treated immediately and continue to 
be treated.  Attorney Schoenecker is definitely an 
example of this. 
But with the continued support of his family, friends, 
co-workers, and counseling, and by continuing with his 
counseling sessions, Attorney Schoenecker can and will 
make a positive difference in his life as well as the 
lives of others.  
Therefore, if he follows his treatment plan, continues 
to make the changes that are necessary and needed in 
his life, continues with his counseling sessions; 
develops, utilizes, and maintains a positive support 
system and network and acts and lives responsibly, 
Attorney Schoenecker can and will make sure that he 
will not put himself or others in this predicament 
again. 
¶13 While Mr. Harrison agreed that there is no guarantee 
Attorney Schoenecker would not relapse, he stated the chances of 
relapse were very minimal so long as Attorney Schoenecker 
continues what he has been doing for the past four years.  When 
asked if had any opinion regarding whether anything outside of 
the gambling addiction might explain Attorney Schoenecker's 
conduct, Mr. Harrison said that lying and misconceptions were 
part of a gambling addiction.  He said, "it is a body rush.  
They will do anything they can to obtain that, whether it's 
lying, whether it's stealing, whether it's embezzling.  So this 
is part of the addiction."   
¶14 Other 
witnesses, 
including 
friends 
of 
Attorney 
Schoenecker, his sister, and father also testified that Attorney 
Schoenecker has been humbled by his downfall, has become 
No. 
2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D   
 
7 
 
compassionate toward others, and has gone out of his way to help 
other people.  
¶15 Attorney 
Schoenecker 
testified 
that 
if 
he 
were 
reinstated he wanted to help others and might be interested in 
working as a public defender given what he has learned going 
through his own criminal proceedings. 
¶16 The parties stipulated to the admission into evidence 
of the transcript from the first reinstatement hearing, which 
was held in July 2017.  The transcript from that hearing 
included testimony from Attorney Schoenecker's former fiancée, 
one of Attorney Schoenecker's business partners, and an attorney 
from the Clair Law Offices.  All three of those individuals 
testified in the first reinstatement hearing that, in their 
opinion, Attorney Schoenecker does not have the moral character 
to have his law license reinstated.   
¶17 The referee in this reinstatement proceeding issued 
his report and recommendation on September 18, 2019.  Referee 
Winiarski echoed the opinion of the referee from the first 
reinstatement 
proceeding 
that 
"this 
is 
a 
most 
difficult 
reinstatement case."  The referee noted that the sheer number 
and nature of Attorney Schoenecker's moral lapses, which led to 
the two disciplinary proceedings, indicated that there was more 
than a simple gambling addiction problem involved.  However, the 
referee noted that Attorney Schoenecker fully admits to his 
misconduct, does not blame others for the misconduct, and 
expresses a degree of disbelief that he committed the acts of 
misconduct.  The referee opined that, "such reflection on his 
No. 
2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D   
 
8 
 
part is certainly an indication that he has gone through 
considerable self-examination of his misconduct."  The referee 
noted 
that 
according 
to 
many 
of 
Attorney 
Schoenecker's 
witnesses, he has expressed genuine remorse for his actions; he 
has made restitution to his victims; and there was also 
testimony regarding the spiritual reflections and actions he has 
taken since the time of his misconduct. 
¶18 The referee concluded that Attorney Schoenecker, "as a 
result of his misconduct, experienced tumultuous changes in his 
life and he is not likely to ever repeat such misconduct, given 
the consequences." 
¶19 The referee noted that this court has indicated that 
the primary focus of a reinstatement hearing should be on the 
petitioner's conduct between the start of the suspension and the 
reinstatement.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Carroll, 2004 WI 19, ¶16, 269 Wis. 2d 172, 675 N.W.2d 792.  
Accordingly, the referee recommends that Attorney Schoenecker's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin be reinstated.  The referee 
further recommends that as a condition of reinstatement, 
Attorney Schoenecker be required to continue monthly counseling 
sessions with either his current counselor or a counselor with 
similar credentials.  The referee recommends the counseling 
should 
address 
not 
only 
Attorney 
Schoenecker's 
gambling 
addiction, but also any other possible causes for his previous 
misconduct.  The referee recommends that the counselor be 
required to file semi-annual progress reports with the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and that such counseling be required to 
No. 
2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D   
 
9 
 
continue 
for 
a 
period 
of 
at 
least 
three 
years 
after 
reinstatement.  Finally, the referee recommends that Attorney 
Schoenecker be responsible for all costs of the reinstatement 
proceeding.   
¶20 No appeal has been filed from the referee's report and 
recommendation.  Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.31(1) provides the 
standard to be met for reinstatement.  The petitioner must show 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or she 
has the moral character to practice law; that his or her 
resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the 
administration of justice or subversive of the public interest; 
and that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of 
the suspension.  In addition to these requirements, SCR 22.29(4) 
states related requirements that the petition for reinstatement 
"shall show."  All of these additional requirements are 
effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1).   
¶21 This court 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 
Jennings, 2009 WI 26, ¶22, 316 Wis. 2d 6, 762 N.W.2d 648. 
¶22 After careful review of this matter, we adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree with 
the referee that Attorney Schoenecker has demonstrated he has 
met the burden of proof imposed upon him by our Supreme Court 
Rules.  We agree with the referee that, in order to ensure, to 
the extent possible, that Attorney Schoenecker will not relapse, 
he should be required to continue monthly counseling either with 
No. 
2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D   
 
10 
 
Mr. Harrison or a counselor with similar credentials for a 
period of three years, with the counselor being required to file 
semi-annual progress reports with the OLR.  We also agree with 
the referee that Attorney Schoenecker should be responsible for 
the full costs of this reinstatement proceeding.   
¶23 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 
the license of James M. Schoenecker to practice law in Wisconsin 
is granted, effective the date of this order. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for a period of three 
years from the date of this order, James M. Schoenecker shall be 
required to continue monthly counseling, either with his current 
counselor or a counselor with similar credentials.  The 
counseling should address not only James M. Schoenecker's 
gambling addiction, but also other possible causes for his 
previous misconduct.  The counselor shall file semi-annual 
progress reports with the Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 60 days of the date 
of this order, James M. Schoenecker shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$14,754.78 as of October 7, 2019.   
 
 
No. 
2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D   
 
 
 
1