Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Alexis L. Michael

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2011 WI 96 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP2337-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Alexis L. Michael, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Alexis L. Michael, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MICHAEL 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 4, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2011 WI 96
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2008AP2337-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Alexis L. Michael, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Alexis L. Michael, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 4, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   On May 10, 2011, Referee Richard M. 
Esenberg issued a report recommending that Attorney Alexis L. 
Michael be declared in default, concluding that Attorney Michael 
engaged in numerous counts of professional misconduct, and 
recommending that her license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
revoked. 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  Since 
No. 
2008AP2337-D   
 
2 
 
Attorney Michael failed to present a defense despite being given 
multiple opportunities to do so, we declare her to be in 
default.  We further determine that the seriousness of Attorney 
Michael's misconduct warrants the revocation of her license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  We also conclude that the full costs 
of the proceeding, which are $6,853.80 as of May 31, 2011, 
should be assessed against Attorney Michael. 
¶3 
Attorney Michael was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2004.  On October 31, 2007, Attorney Michael's 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin 
was 
suspended 
for 
nonpayment of state bar dues.  Her license remains suspended. 
¶4 
On September 19, 2008, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) issued a complaint against Attorney Michael alleging 34 
counts of misconduct in violation of 14 separate Rules of 
Professional Conduct for Attorneys.   
¶5 
The allegations in the 59-page OLR complaint, which 
are discussed in great detail in the 52-page referee's report, 
will not be extensively recited or repeated here.  The counts of 
misconduct all arose out of Attorney Michael's operation of a 
bed and breakfast in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, and an apartment 
building in Watertown, Wisconsin.  Attorney Michael and her 
husband, Frederick Decker, formed a variety of legal entities, 
some of which had been involved in running the bed and breakfast 
and apartment building.  In her management of the bed and 
breakfast, Attorney Michael used a variety of aliases in dealing 
with employees and the Oconomowoc Police Department often in an 
effort to evade payment of the bed and breakfast's obligations.  
No. 
2008AP2337-D   
 
3 
 
At various times, Attorney Michael told bed and breakfast 
employees that her name was "Jennifer," "Monica," "Rochelle," 
"Sarah," and "Ally."  Attorney Michael told one employee that 
her philosophy was "if they can't find you they can't serve 
you."  Employees figured out that the person who called herself 
by these various names was actually Attorney Michael because 
Waukesha County sheriff's deputies and process servers came to 
the bed and breakfast frequently to serve Attorney Michael with 
process or to collect money. 
¶6 
The OLR's complaint alleged that Attorney Michael 
engaged in professional misconduct in an effort to avoid paying 
wages to bed and breakfast employees.  The complaint alleged 
that Attorney Michael failed to pay $408 to a 14-year-old boy 
who worked at the bed and breakfast in late 2006.  The boy's 
mother did not allow her son to return to work because he had 
not been paid for work he had already performed.  Attorney 
Michael asserted to other employees that federal law required 
her to withhold an employee's pay unless specific identification 
was provided.  This claim was untrue since a representative of 
the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Equal Rights 
Division, advised the boy's mother that his work permit was 
sufficient identification for him to be paid.   
¶7 
In late 2006 the boy's mother made numerous telephone 
calls and visits to the bed and breakfast trying to collect her 
son's pay.  Although Attorney Michael did not pay the boy, she 
attempted to deter his mother from seeking compensation on his 
behalf.  Attorney Michael filed written statements with the 
No. 
2008AP2337-D   
 
4 
 
Oconomowoc Police Department claiming the boy's mother had made 
well over 150 phone calls to Attorney Michael's private, 
business, and family phones in the past few days and had gone to 
Attorney Michael's residence six to ten times per day, staying 
at the property 20 to 30 minutes each time.  On two occasions in 
early December 2006, Attorney Michael filed written statements 
with the Oconomowoc Police Department accusing the boy's mother 
of trespassing at the bed and breakfast.  Attorney Michael later 
claimed the boy's mother "is a tyrant and has been coming to the 
bed-and-breakfast at least six to 10 times a day and has placed 
at least 200 phone calls in the last month.  . . . " 
¶8 
On December 8, 2006, Attorney Michael filed a petition 
for a temporary restraining order and injunction against the 
boy's mother in Waukesha County Circuit Court.  A court 
commissioner issued a temporary restraining order, but the case 
was later dismissed when Attorney Michael failed to appear for a 
hearing.  Although Attorney Michael testified during the initial 
hearing in the Waukesha County case that she had "received 
probably close to 250 calls" from the boy's mother between 
November 17 and December 22, 2006, the boy's mother's home and 
cellular telephone records showed only four calls made to three 
telephone numbers associated with Attorney Michael between 
November 17 and December 22, 2006.   
¶9 
In May 2007 Attorney Michael filed another petition 
for a temporary restraining order and injunction against the 
boy's mother, this time in Jefferson County.  The petition 
alleged that the boy's mother was harassing Attorney Michael in 
No. 
2008AP2337-D   
 
5 
 
a variety of ways.  The petition asked that the court order the 
boy's mother to "stop calling, destroying mine and tenants' 
property . . . Remain 200 feet from my places of work . . . Do 
not contact (personally, written, phone, etc.) any of the 
tenants I manage.  Immediately dismantle defamatory website."  
Attorney Michael asked one of the court commissioner's staff if 
the commissioner assigned to the case would alter the order to 
be more specific about the location where Attorney Michael owns 
property.  The staff member informed the commissioner that 
Attorney Michael was requesting that he include additional 
language in the order.  The commissioner declined to do so and 
said the matter would be clarified at the hearing with all 
parties present.   
¶10 On 
May 
23, 
2007, 
the 
Jefferson 
County 
court 
commissioner issued a Notice of Hearing-Temporary Restraining 
Order.  The commissioner checked two boxes on the form but did 
not write in any additional prohibitions or directives.  After 
the commissioner refused to alter the order, he had a staff 
member record a memo to the file confirming he had refused to 
include any additional language or orders.  The staff member 
gave the paperwork back to Attorney Michael, told her the 
commissioner would not add anything to the order, and sent 
Attorney Michael to the clerk of court to file it.  Prior to 
having the notice and order served on the minor employee's 
mother, Attorney Michael altered it. 
¶11 On May 23, 2007, a Jefferson County court commissioner 
explained to Attorney Michael that she was not permitted to 
No. 
2008AP2337-D   
 
6 
 
serve defendants in matters in which she was a party or counsel.  
Notwithstanding 
that 
advice, 
Attorney 
Michael 
called 
the 
Oconomowoc Police Department to ask that an officer be present 
while she served the temporary restraining order on the minor 
employee's mother.  Police advised Attorney Michael not to go to 
the residence to serve the document herself and said that if she 
attempted to serve the document herself and the minor's mother 
called 
police, 
Attorney 
Michael 
would 
be 
charged 
with 
trespassing.  In spite of that admonition, Attorney Michael went 
to the residence and attempted to personally serve the minor's 
mother with the temporary restraining order.  A Jefferson County 
court commissioner subsequently dismissed the case.  
¶12 The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, 
after investigating wage claims filed on behalf of the minor and 
other former employees of the bed and breakfast, found Attorney 
Michael to be the person responsible for nonpayment of employees 
and found that $6,589.08 in unpaid wages remained outstanding, 
including $408 owed to the minor.  The Department of Workforce 
Development also found that Attorney Michael had violated child 
labor laws and that she had offered false information and used 
an alias in an effort to interfere with their investigation. 
¶13 The OLR's complaint also alleged that Attorney Michael 
engaged in a variety of misconduct to avoid paying wages to 
contractors who performed work at the bed and breakfast.  The 
complaint alleged that Attorney Michael failed to pay money owed 
to a man who hung drywall at the bed and breakfast.  The man 
took his tools and left after not receiving payment.  Attorney 
No. 
2008AP2337-D   
 
7 
 
Michael and her husband went to the man's residence unannounced 
and demanded that the man give them the tools necessary to 
complete the drywall work.  The tools belonged to the man and he 
refused to turn them over.  A physical altercation ensued 
involving Attorney Michael's husband and the man, in which the 
man suffered a broken elbow and a bruised hip.  The man filed a 
petition for a temporary restraining order against Attorney 
Michael and her husband.   
¶14 Attorney Michael sent a fax to the circuit judge 
saying that the man had an extensive drinking and drug problem 
and claimed to be the largest distributor of THC in Dodge and 
Waukesha counties.  Attorney Michael's husband was charged with 
battery and criminal damage to property stemming from the 
incident.  The district attorney later amended the battery 
charge to disorderly conduct in exchange for Attorney Michael's 
husband pleading guilty to the amended charge.  The criminal 
damage to property charge was dismissed and read in.  The 
drywaller received a three-year injunction against Attorney 
Michael and her husband.  A circuit court commissioner sent a 
letter to Attorney Michael reminding her that supreme court 
rules prohibit a lawyer from communicating ex parte with a judge 
about a matter pending before the court.   
¶15 The OLR's complaint also alleged that Attorney Michael 
engaged in a course of conduct intending to avoid paying money 
to a man who did some remodeling work on the upper apartment 
located adjacent to the bed and breakfast and that Attorney 
Michael took tools that belonged to the man.  The complaint also 
No. 
2008AP2337-D   
 
8 
 
alleged that Attorney Michael misrepresented that another bed 
and breakfast employee had received free lodging and that she 
was responsible for utility bills. 
¶16 The OLR's complaint further alleged that Attorney 
Michael engaged in misconduct to avoid paying money owed to 
onsite 
managers 
of 
an 
apartment 
building 
in 
Watertown, 
Wisconsin, owned by an LLC in which Attorney Michael and her 
husband had an interest.  The couple served as the onsite 
managers for the apartments from June 1, 2006, through April 1, 
2007.  On or about April 1, 2007, the couple advised Attorney 
Michael they had decided to stop managing the apartments.  At 
Attorney Michael's request the couple promptly returned all keys 
for the apartments other than their own.  They gave Attorney 
Michael their timesheets for work they had performed in March of 
2007 managing the apartments and getting some of the apartments 
ready to be rented.  The couple was not paid for the work they 
had performed.   
¶17 Attorney Michael demanded that the couple return tools 
she had provided for the remodeling work.  The couple refused to 
return the tools until they had been paid wages they were owed.  
Attorney Michael called the Watertown Police Department saying 
the couple was not owed any wages because the agreement was that 
the couple would receive reduced rent if they would work around 
the complex.  A Watertown Police Department sergeant reported 
that he had been shown hours the couple had worked and had been 
shown where Attorney Michael's tools were.  The tools were 
subsequently turned in to the police. 
No. 
2008AP2337-D   
 
9 
 
¶18 On April 3, 2007, Attorney Michael filed a summons and 
complaint for eviction against the couple as well as a summons 
and complaint for replevin seeking possession of their van.  On 
both summons and complaint forms Attorney Michael identified the 
man as "[J.G.] AKA 'Cokehead'" and identified the woman as 
"[K.G.] AKA 'June Stupid.'"  As of April 3, 2007, Attorney 
Michael had not provided written notice to the couple that any 
rent was overdue or allowed them five days to cure the asserted 
overdue rent as required by Wis. Stat. § 704.17.  The couple 
believed they did not owe any rent because their time sheets for 
the management work showed wages due for managing the apartments 
that exceeded the rent due.  In fact, the couple believed they 
were owed in excess of $2,600.   
¶19 On or about April 7, 2007, Attorney Michael used her 
vehicle to push the man's truck onto the lawn of the apartment 
complex so that it hit an electrical box.  When police 
investigated Attorney Michael's report that the man had driven 
his truck into the electrical box, police identified damage to 
Attorney Michael's car and the transfer of paint from her car to 
the man's truck and determined that Attorney Michael had used 
her car to push the man's truck onto the grass and into the 
electrical box.  Police also arrested Attorney Michael for 
having glued five large stickers onto the man's truck.  
¶20 After April 10, 2007, Attorney Michael posted notices 
around the complex in public areas making misrepresentations 
about the couple, including claiming the man suffered from 
severe 
alcohol 
and 
cocaine 
addiction. 
 
A 
circuit 
court 
No. 
2008AP2337-D   
 
10 
 
commissioner subsequently dismissed Attorney Michael's suits and 
granted the couple's counterclaims in the collective amount of 
$5,624.92.   
¶21 The OLR's complaint also alleged that Attorney Michael 
engaged in misconduct in asserting unwarranted claims against 
two tenants of the Watertown apartment building.  The couple 
were tenants of the apartment until May 31, 2007.  In February 
of 2007, the couple gave Attorney Michael written notice of 
their intent to vacate the apartment on June 1, 2007.  They 
advised Attorney Michael to keep their security deposit as rent 
for May of 2007.  On May 15, 2007, Attorney Michael filed a 
summons and complaint for eviction against the couple.  On the 
summons and complaint form, Attorney Michael identified the man 
as "[D.B.] AKA 'Mr. KKK,'" and identified the woman as "[D.F.] 
AKA 'The Oakridge Bitch.'"  A circuit court commissioner 
dismissed the case for lack of service and ordered all 
inflammatory 
information 
and 
aliases 
stricken 
from 
the 
complaint, case caption, and CCAP entries.  Attorney Michael 
later refiled the eviction action against the couple.  The case 
was again dismissed.   
¶22 The OLR's complaint also alleged that Attorney Michael 
failed to cooperate with OLR investigations and willfully failed 
to provide relevant information to the OLR.  The complaint also 
alleged that Attorney Michael made willful misrepresentations in 
the course of the OLR investigations. 
¶23 The OLR's complaint was served on Attorney Michael on 
September 19, 2008.  She failed to respond.  On January 6, 2009, 
No. 
2008AP2337-D   
 
11 
 
the referee issued an order to show cause why a default judgment 
should not be entered against her.  A telephone hearing was 
scheduled for January 21, 2009.  Attorney Michael did not 
respond to the order to show cause or participate in the 
telephone conference.  Attorney Michael subsequently retained 
counsel, who contacted the referee asking whether Attorney 
Michael could have an additional 30 days to respond to the 
complaint.  The referee gave Attorney Michael until October 8, 
2009, to file a proposed answer and motion for relief.  She did 
so.   
¶24 The OLR requested an evidentiary hearing, which was 
set for February 25, 2010.  The hearing was conducted on that 
day.  On September 1, 2010, the referee issued an order 
relieving Attorney Michael from her default.  The referee 
concluded that relief was warranted in the interest of justice. 
On November 16, 2010, the referee entered a scheduling order 
which specified that Attorney Michael's deposition would take 
place on December 8-10, 2010.  Attorney Michael failed to appear 
on those dates.  At OLR's request, the referee signed a proposed 
order rescheduling the deposition for January 19-21, 2011.  
Attorney Michael again failed to appear for her deposition.  The 
OLR renewed its motion for a default judgment, striking Attorney 
Michael's answer and entering judgment against her.   
¶25 In his May 10, 2011, report, the referee recommended 
that Attorney Michael be declared in default.  The referee said, 
"Her neglect of these proceedings is astonishing and would, in 
and of itself, warrant substantial discipline.  Her contempt for 
No. 
2008AP2337-D   
 
12 
 
these proceedings is of a piece with the contempt for her 
obligations as an attorney and officer of the court reflecting 
in the allegations against her which I now have no choice but to 
deem to be true."   
¶26 The referee said: 
Michael repeatedly lied——to employees, reporters and 
suppliers——about her identity; often with intent to 
avoid her financial obligations.  She repeatedly 
ignored these obligations and lashed out against those 
to whom she owed them.  She abused process; made 
misrepresentations to judicial officers and defamatory 
statements about those to whom she owed money.  She 
altered a court order and inserted scandalous material 
in pleadings, suggesting an utter lack of regard for 
the dignity of the courts and for her responsibility 
as an officer of those courts.  She failed to 
cooperate with, and made misrepresentations to, the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation.  She failed to appear and 
participate in these proceedings.  Then, when given an 
opportunity to do so, she repeatedly missed deadlines 
and failed to meet her obligations. 
 
Ms. Michael claimed only vague familiarity with a 
complaint——signed by her——that is a significant part 
of the counts against her in which she referred, in an 
official filing, to the defendants as "Oakridge Bitch" 
and "Mr. Cokehead."  None of this was very impressive 
then and it is less so now.  I tried to give Ms. 
Michael 
chances 
to 
defend 
herself 
but 
she 
has 
exhausted any reasonable concept of [forbearance]——and 
indeed the ability of the court——to accommodate her.  
She has been offered multiple choices which she just 
wouldn't take.  This is consistent with the pattern of 
behavior set forth in OLR's complaint.  She explained 
a lengthy history of default judgments with the odd 
notion that she has so many improperly filed or bogus 
lawsuits filed against her that they cannot be 
defended.  She testified that her law license was very 
important to her and then twice failed to appear at a 
deposition in the very proceeding that would determine 
whether she can keep it. 
No. 
2008AP2337-D   
 
13 
 
 
Although I decided, after a hearing, to give Ms. 
Michael another chance——a chance she squandered——her 
testimony at the hearing was consistent with this lack 
of regard for her obligations.  She contradicted the 
affidavit of service on file with the court by 
asserting that it was handed to her attorney instead 
and that, although her attorney gave it to her, she 
paid no further attention to what "turned out" to be 
OLR's complaint against her.  She blamed the multitude 
of complaints against her on the "mentally unstable" 
mother of a child who had "volunteered" at the bed and 
breakfast.  She spoke of vague and undocumented 
problems with mail delivery and unsubstantiated health 
problems and extended stays in Chicago. 
 
Given 
the 
severity 
and 
frequency 
of 
these 
violations, combined with her apparent disinterest in 
retaining her license to practice law, it is quite 
clear that to permit Michael to practice law would 
present serious risk to the public and the courts.  It 
is my recommendation that her license to practice be 
revoked. 
¶27 Attorney Michael has not filed an appeal from the 
referee's report and recommendation.  
¶28 Although 
Attorney 
Michael 
was 
given 
multiple 
opportunities to present a defense to the OLR's complaint, she 
failed to do so.  Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to strike 
her answer to the OLR's complaint and declare her in default.  
¶29 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
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.   
No. 
2008AP2337-D   
 
14 
 
¶30 There is no showing that any of the referee's detailed 
findings of fact are clearly erroneous.  Accordingly, we adopt 
them.  We also agree with the referee's conclusions of law that 
Attorney Michael violated the following supreme court rules, 
some of them in multiple instances:  SCRs 20:3.1(a)(1) and 
(a)(2);1 former SCR 20:3.1(a)(3);2 former SCRs 20:3.3(a)(1) and 
(a)(4);3 SCR 20:3.4(c);4 SCR 20:3.5(b);5 former SCR 20:4.4;6 
                                                 
1 SCRs 20:3.1(a)(1) and (2) state: 
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not:  
(1) knowingly advance a claim or defense that is 
unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer 
may advance such claim or defense if it can be 
supported by good faith argument for an extension, 
modification or reversal of existing law;  
(2) knowingly advance a factual position unless 
there 
is 
a 
basis 
for 
doing 
so 
that 
is 
not 
frivolous; . . . . 
2 Former SCR 20:3.1(a)(3) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
stated that in representing a client, a lawyer shall not "file a 
suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial or 
take other action on behalf of the client when the lawyer knows 
or when it is obvious that such an action would serve merely to 
harass or maliciously injure another." 
3 Former SCRs 20:3.3(a)(1) and (a)(4) (effective through 
June 30, 2007) stated that a lawyer shall not knowingly 
"(1) make 
a 
false 
statement 
of 
fact 
or 
law 
to 
a 
tribunal; . . . " and "(4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows 
to be false.  If a lawyer has offered material evidence and 
comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable 
remedial measures." 
4 SCR 20:3.4(c) states a lawyer shall not "knowingly disobey 
an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for an open 
refusal 
based 
on 
an 
assertion 
that 
no 
valid 
obligation 
exists; . . . ." 
No. 
2008AP2337-D   
 
15 
 
SCRs 20:8.4(a), 
(c), 
and 
(f),7 
and 
SCR 
20:8.4(h);8 
and 
SCRs 22.03(2) and (6).9   
                                                                                                                                                             
5 SCR 20:3.5(b) (effective July 1, 2007) provides that a 
lawyer shall not: 
communicate ex parte with such a person during the 
proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or court 
order or for scheduling purposes if permitted by the 
court.  If communication between a lawyer and judge 
has occurred in order to schedule the matter, the 
lawyer involved shall promptly notify the lawyer for 
the other party or the other party, if unrepresented, 
of such communication; . . . . 
6 Former SCR 20:4.4 (effective through June 30, 2007) 
stated:  "In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means 
that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, 
or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence 
that violate the legal rights of such a person." 
7 SCRs 20:8.4(a), (c), and (f) provide it is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to: 
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of 
Professional 
Conduct, 
knowingly 
assist 
or 
induce 
another to do so, or do so through the acts of 
another; . . .  
(c) engage 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; . . .  
(f) violate 
a 
statute, 
supreme 
court 
rule, 
supreme 
court 
order 
or 
supreme 
court 
decision 
regulating the conduct of lawyers; . . .  
8 SCR 20:8.4(h) (effective July 1, 2007) provides it is 
professional misconduct for a lawyer to "fail to cooperate in 
the investigation of a grievance filed with the office of lawyer 
regulation as required by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), 
SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or SCR 22.04(1); . . . ." 
9 SCRs 22.03(2) and (6) state as follows: 
(2) Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated unless in the opinion of the 
No. 
2008AP2337-D   
 
16 
 
¶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.  Although Attorney Michael had a 
license to practice law for only three years before her license 
was suspended for nonpayment of State Bar dues, during that 
short timeframe, she engaged in repeated, aggravated, and 
sometimes disturbing conduct that demonstrates she is apparently 
unable to conform her conduct to the standards expected of all 
members of the Wisconsin bar.  In light of the extremely 
aggravated nature of the misconduct, we conclude that no 
sanction short of revocation would be sufficient to protect the 
public, achieve deterrence, and impress upon Attorney Michael 
the seriousness of her misconduct.  We also agree that Attorney 
Michael should be assessed the full costs of the proceeding. 
                                                                                                                                                             
director the investigation of the matter requires 
otherwise.  The respondent shall fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 
by ordinary mail a request for a written response.  
The director may allow additional time to respond.  
Following receipt of the response, the director may 
conduct further investigation and may compel the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
. . .  
(6) 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. 
No. 
2008AP2337-D   
 
17 
 
¶32 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Alexis L. Michael to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Alexis L. Michael shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.   
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not 
already done so, Alexis L. Michael shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney 
whose license to practice law has been revoked.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
2008AP2337-D   
 
 
 
1