Title: OLR v. Matthew R. Schwitzer

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2017 WI 53 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP675-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Matthew R. Schwitzer, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Matthew R. Schwitzer, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SCHWITZER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 1, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
     
 
 
2017 WI 53
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2015AP675-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Matthew R. Schwitzer, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Matthew R. Schwitzer, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 1, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of Referee Jonathan V. Goodman that the license of Attorney 
Matthew 
R. 
Schwitzer 
be 
suspended 
for 
six 
months 
for 
professional misconduct and that Attorney Schwitzer pay the full 
costs of this proceeding, which are $1,661.68 as of May 25, 
2017.   
¶2 
After careful review of the matter, we adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  We agree 
No. 
2015AP675-D   
 
2 
 
with the referee that a six-month suspension of Attorney 
Schwitzer's law license is an appropriate sanction for his 
professional misconduct.  We further agree that the full costs 
of the proceeding should be assessed against Attorney Schwitzer. 
¶3 
Attorney Schwitzer was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2007.  He practiced in Green Bay.  His Wisconsin 
law license was suspended in 2013 for failure to pay State Bar 
dues and failure to file required trust account certifications.  
His Wisconsin law license was also suspended in 2014 for failure 
to 
comply 
with 
continuing 
legal 
education 
reporting 
requirements.  On September 25, 2014, Attorney Schwitzer's law 
license was additionally suspended for willful failure to 
cooperate 
with 
an 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
investigation concerning his conduct.  His law license remains 
suspended.   
¶4 
The OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Schwitzer 
on April 6, 2015.  On July 13, 2015 the OLR filed an amended 
complaint alleging five counts of misconduct.  The complaint 
alleged that on February 4, 2014, Attorney Schwitzer was 
convicted in Brown County of unlawful phone use – threatens 
harm, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 947.012(1)(a), a Class B 
misdemeanor; Possession of THC, in violation of Wis. Stat. 
§ 961.41(3g)(e), an unclassified misdemeanor; and Possession of 
Cocaine/Coca, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 961.41(3g)(c), an 
unclassified misdemeanor.  Other charges relating to possession 
of 
drug 
paraphernalia, 
narcotics, 
and 
illegally 
obtained 
prescription drugs were dismissed but read in.  The Brown County 
No. 
2015AP675-D   
 
3 
 
circuit court withheld sentence and placed Attorney Schwitzer on 
two years' probation, conditioned on thirty days in jail, to run 
concurrently on each of the three counts.  Attorney Schwitzer 
was also ordered to comply with his healthcare provider's 
recommendations, continue psychological and medical treatment, 
take all prescription medications, surrender a firearm, and have 
no contact with anyone who uses, sells, or possesses illegal 
drugs. 
¶5 
On October 20, 2014, Attorney Schwitzer fell asleep or 
lost consciousness while driving his car, drifted out of his 
lane of travel, and sideswiped another driver's car.  The police 
officer who interacted with Attorney Schwitzer at the scene 
observed that Attorney Schwitzer had an unsteady balance, was 
shaking and sweating, his pupils were dilated, and he was having 
a hard time forming sentences and was slurring his words.   
¶6 
When the officer asked Attorney Schwitzer to turn off 
his car, the officer noticed there was a female passenger in the 
car.  The female passenger was not breathing.  The officer 
performed CPR until Fire and Rescue arrived.  Fire and Rescue 
administered Narcan to the passenger, at which time she regained 
consciousness. 
 
The 
female 
passenger 
told 
a 
firefighter 
transporting her to the hospital that she had snorted heroin in 
Attorney Schwitzer's car and had lost consciousness.  Upon 
searching Attorney Schwitzer's car, officers found a plastic 
baggie containing cocaine and a rolled up $20 bill which tested 
positive for cocaine.   
No. 
2015AP675-D   
 
4 
 
¶7 
On April 3, 2015, in Washington County circuit court, 
Attorney Schwitzer pled guilty and was convicted of possession 
of cocaine, as a party to a crime, an unclassified misdemeanor, 
in violation of Wis. Stat. § 961.41(3g)(c).  A second count for 
possession of drug paraphernalia was dismissed but read in.  The 
Washington County circuit court sentenced Attorney Schwitzer to 
five months in jail.   
¶8 
The OLR's amended complaint alleged the following 
count of misconduct with respect to Attorney Schwitzer's 
convictions: 
Count 1:  By engaging in the conduct leading to his 
convictions 
of 
three 
misdemeanors 
in 
State 
v. 
Schwitzer, Brown County Case No. 2013 CF 1142, and one 
misdemeanor in State v. Schwitzer, Marinette County 
Case No. 2014 CF 1150, Attorney Schwitzer violated SCR 
20:8.4(b).1 
¶9 
The OLR's amended complaint also alleged that prior to 
his August 2013 arrest, Attorney Schwitzer practiced law with 
Attorneys Todd G. Simon and Timothy J. Feldhausen as part of the 
law firm Schwitzer Simon, LLC.  Attorney Schwitzer and his 
brother, Kevan Schwitzer created a website used by the law firm.  
Attorney Schwitzer's partners had no control or access to the 
content of the website.  Following Attorney Schwitzer's arrest, 
Attorneys Simon and Feldhausen negotiated a separation from 
Schwitzer Simon, LLC, which was completed in May 2014 by the 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides: "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects." 
No. 
2015AP675-D   
 
5 
 
signing of a formal separation agreement.  Before the separation 
was complete, Attorneys Simon and Feldhausen had asked Attorney 
Schwitzer to remove their information from the website.  A 
formal separation agreement signed in May 2014 required Attorney 
Schwitzer to remove Simon and Feldhausen's information from the 
website. 
¶10 The website, as controlled by Attorney Schwitzer, 
continued to operate and be accessible by the public following 
Attorney Schwitzer's suspension until at least November 10, 
2014.  Sometime between January 4, 2014, and August 11, 2014, 
Attorney Schwitzer caused the website to be modified to 
advertise a law firm called Matthew R. Schwitzer, LLC, of which 
Attorney Schwitzer was the only attorney.  There is no 
registered Wisconsin limited liability company named Matthew R. 
Schwitzer, LLC, or any similarly named company other than 
Schwitzer Simon, LLC.   
¶11 As of October 30, 2014, the website continued to state 
that Attorney Schwitzer was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin as a member of the Wisconsin Bar Association and was 
also admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.  
As of that date, the website invited website visitors to "Call 
today . . . for a free initial consultation."  The website 
identified the address for Matthew R. Schwitzer, LLC, as P.O. 
Box 8413, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54308, which was the same address 
provided to the OLR by Attorney Schwitzer for communications 
during the OLR's investigation.   
No. 
2015AP675-D   
 
6 
 
¶12 The OLR's amended complaint alleged the following 
count of misconduct with respect to the website: 
Count 2:  By causing the website to be modified to 
hold Attorney Schwitzer out as an attorney admitted to 
practice law in Wisconsin at a time when his license 
to practice law was suspended, Attorney Schwitzer 
violated SCR 20:5.5(b)(2)2 and SCR 20:7.1(a)3 
¶13 The 
OLR's 
amended 
complaint 
also 
alleged 
that 
beginning in 2013, the OLR began to investigate Attorney 
Schwitzer in connection with the criminal charges filed against 
him in Brown County.  At Attorney Schwitzer's request, the OLR 
agreed to put its investigation on hold pending resolution of 
the Brown County criminal case.  In May 2014, after the OLR's 
file was reopened, an OLR investigator wrote to Attorney 
Schwitzer inquiring about the circumstances surrounding his 
convictions.  Attorney Schwitzer failed to respond to the 
investigator's initial letter, and he further failed to respond 
to either a second letter sent by both certified and regular 
mail or an order from this court requiring him to show cause in 
writing why this court should not grant the OLR's motion seeking 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:5.5(b)(2) provides: "A lawyer who is not admitted 
to practice in this jurisdiction shall not.. .Hold out to the 
public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to the 
practice of law in this jurisdiction." 
3 SCR 20:7.1(a) provides: "A lawyer shall not make a false 
or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's 
services. 
A 
communication 
is 
false 
or 
misleading 
if 
it...contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or 
omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a 
whole not materially misleading..."  
No. 
2015AP675-D   
 
7 
 
an order suspending his license to practice law for a willful 
failure to cooperate with the OLR's investigation concerning his 
conduct.  As noted above, on September 25, 2014, this court 
granted the OLR's motion and temporarily suspended Attorney 
Schwitzer's law license. 
¶14 The OLR's amended complaint stated the following count 
with respect to Attorney Schwitzer's failure to cooperate with 
the OLR's investigation into his conduct: 
Count 3:  By failing to provide the information 
requested by the OLR's May 12, 2014 correspondence, 
Attorney Schwitzer violated SCR 22.03(6),4 via SCR 
20:8.4(h).5 
¶15 The final two counts of misconduct alleged in the 
OLR's amended complaint arose out of Attorney Schwitzer's 
attempt to transfer funds to himself from his law firm's trust 
account.  The amended complaint alleged that as of August 19, 
2013, the date Attorney Schwitzer was arrested in Brown County, 
Schwitzer Simon, LLC, maintained a client trust account at BMO 
Harris Bank.  Attorneys Schwitzer, Simon, and Feldhausen were 
                                                 
4 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's willful 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..." 
5 SCR 20:8.4(h) 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 22.03(2), SCR 22:03(6)..." 
No. 
2015AP675-D   
 
8 
 
the only people authorized to disburse money from or otherwise 
access the trust account. 
¶16 On August 20, 2013, while incarcerated in the Brown 
County 
Jail, 
Attorney 
Schwitzer 
used 
a 
fellow 
inmate's 
contraband cell phone to access the trust account and initiated 
a transfer of $2,000 from the trust account to a personal 
account belonging to Attorney Schwitzer.  Attorney Simon and/or 
Attorney Feldhausen learned of Attorney Schwitzer's attempt to 
transfer trust account proceeds and caused BMO Harris Bank to 
reverse the transaction.  In correspondence to the OLR, Attorney 
Schwitzer admitted attempting to transfer funds from the trust 
account to his personal account while incarcerated in the Brown 
County Jail.  The OLR's investigation was unable to determine 
whether Attorney Schwitzer used another inmate's telephone to 
access the trust account by phone or whether he attempted to 
transfer funds by using the internet connection through the 
contraband 
phone. 
 
Pursuant 
to 
supreme 
court 
rules, 
disbursements 
from 
a 
trust 
account 
may 
not 
be 
made 
telephonically or by way of internet transactions. 
¶17 The OLR's amended complaint alleged the following 
counts of misconduct with respect to the attempted trust account 
transfer: 
Count 4: By accessing his law firm's trust account 
from another inmate's contraband cell phone, Attorney 
Schwitzer made client and third party funds being held 
No. 
2015AP675-D   
 
9 
 
in trust by his firm vulnerable to third party access, 
in violation of SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).6 
Count 
5: 
 
By 
attempting 
[in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:8.4(a)7] to transfer funds to himself from his law 
firm's trust account by using a fellow inmate's 
contraband 
cell 
phone 
Attorney 
Schwitzer 
either 
attempted 
to 
make 
a 
disbursement 
by 
telephone 
transfer, in violation of SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)(b)8 or 
Attorney Schwitzer attempted to make a disbursement by 
internet 
transaction, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:1.15(e)(4)(c).9 
¶18 On October 10, 2016, Attorney Schwitzer filed an 
answer to the amended complaint admitting virtually all of 
allegations and stipulating that he be found in violation of the 
supreme court rules as alleged in the five counts of misconduct 
in the amended complaint.  Attorney Schwitzer further stipulated 
                                                 
6 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to 
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule."  See S. 
Ct. Order 14-07, (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016).  
Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 
2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme 
court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2016. 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provided:  "A lawyer shall hold in trust, 
separate from the lawyer's own property, that property of 
clients and third parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation." 
7 SCR 20:8.4(a) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to...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." 
8 SCR 
20:1.15(e)(4)(b) 
provided: 
"No 
deposits 
or 
disbursements shall be made to or from a pooled trust account by 
a telephone transfer of funds." 
9 SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)(c) provided: "A lawyer shall not make 
deposits to or disbursements from a trust account byway of an 
Internet transaction." 
No. 
2015AP675-D   
 
10 
 
that an appropriate level of discipline to impose in response to 
his misconduct was a six-month suspension of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.   
¶19 The referee issued his report and recommendation on 
January 12, 2017.  The referee found that the OLR had met its 
burden of proof by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence 
that Attorney Schwitzer committed the five counts of misconduct 
set forth in the OLR's amended complaint.  The referee further 
agreed that a six-month suspension of Attorney Schwitzer's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin was an appropriate sanction 
for his misconduct. 
¶20 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.   
¶21 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact are clearly erroneous.  Accordingly, we adopt them.  We 
further agree with the referee's conclusions of law that 
Attorney Schwitzer violated the supreme court rules enumerated 
above.  
¶22 Upon careful review of the matter, we agree with the 
referee's recommendation for a six-month suspension of Attorney 
Schwitzer's license to practice law in Wisconsin.  Although no 
two disciplinary proceedings are precisely the same, a six-month 
No. 
2015AP675-D   
 
11 
 
suspension is generally consistent with the sanction imposed in 
somewhat analogous cases.  For example, in In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Soldon, 2010 WI 27, 324 Wis. 2d 4, 782 
N.W.2d 81, an attorney who was convicted of multiple counts of 
retail theft and fleeing and eluding an officer, as well as 
failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigation of her 
conduct, received a six-month suspension.  In addition, in In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Meagher, 2003 WI 132, 266 
Wis. 2d 18, 669 N.W.2d 733, an attorney who was convicted of 
violating the federal Wire Wagering Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1084, also 
received a six-month suspension.  We find that a six-month 
suspension is an appropriate sanction in this case as well.  We 
also agree that, consistent with our usual practice, Attorney 
Schwitzer should be required to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding.    
¶23 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Matthew R. Schwitzer 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Matthew R. Schwitzer shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs 
are not paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to 
this court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, 
the license of Matthew R. Schwitzer to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of the court. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Matthew R. Schwitzer shall comply with the 
No. 
2015AP675-D   
 
12 
 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
22.28(3).10 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary suspension of 
Attorney Matthew R. Schwitzer's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, imposed on September 25, 2014 due to his willful 
failure to cooperate with the Office of Lawyer Regulation's 
investigation in this matter, is hereby lifted.  
 
                                                 
10 In 
addition 
to 
obtaining 
reinstatement 
from 
the 
disciplinary suspension imposed by this order, before he is able 
to practice law in Wisconsin, Attorney Schwitzer will also be 
required to complete the procedures for reinstatement from the 
administrative suspensions currently in effect for failure to 
comply with the mandatory CLE reporting requirements, for 
failure to pay applicable bar dues and assessments, and for 
failure to file a trust account certificate. 
No. 
2015AP675-D   
 
 
 
1