Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James M. Schoenecker

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2018 WI 58 
 
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, 
     v. 
James M. Schoenecker, 
          Respondent. 
------------------------------------------------ 
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. 
 
 
 
 
ON THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF SCHOENECKER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 25, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
March 12, 2018 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, J., concurs (opinion filed). 
ZIEGLER, J., concurs, joined by ABRAHAMSON, J., 
(opinion filed). 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the respondent-appellant, there were briefs filed by 
Richard J. Cayo, Stacie H. Rosenzweig, and Halling & Cayo, S.C., 
Milwaukee.  There was an oral argument by Richard J. Cayo. 
 
 
 
2 
For the complainant-respondent, there was a brief filed by 
Julie M. Spoke, William J. Weigel, and Office of Lawyer 
Regulation, Madison.  There was an oral argument by William J. 
Weigel. 
 
 
2018 WI 58
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
Nos.   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 
 
May 25, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement denied. 
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   Attorney 
James 
M. 
Schoenecker 
has 
appealed Referee James W. Mohr Jr.'s recommendation that 
Attorney Schoenecker's petition for the reinstatement of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin be denied.  Upon careful 
review, we agree with the referee that Attorney Schoenecker has 
failed to meet his burden of proof to establish the requirements 
for reinstatement at this time.  Accordingly, we accept the 
referee's recommendation that the petition for reinstatement be 
denied.  However, we determine that Attorney Schoenecker can 
Nos. 2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D 
2 
 
again petition for reinstatement six months after the date of 
this opinion.  As is our usual practice, we further conclude 
that Attorney Schoenecker should be required to pay the full 
costs of this reinstatement proceeding, which are $6,809.66 as 
of March 23, 2018.  
¶2 
Attorney Schoenecker was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2004.  He is a graduate of Boston College and 
Columbia Law School.  He practiced briefly in New York, 
practiced at Quarles & Brady in Milwaukee for a time, and then 
went to a small law firm in Delavan called the Clair Law 
Offices.  In 2011, Attorney Schoenecker's license was suspended 
for three years.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Schoenecker, 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 fiancé, M.F.  In December 2007, Attorney Schoenecker and 
M.F. opened a joint checking account.  M.F. also obtained a home 
equity line of credit and made a loan of $48,500 to Attorney 
Schoenecker.  Attorney Schoenecker executed a promissory note 
whereby he promised to repay the loan with interest.  Two days 
after making the loan, M.F. learned that Attorney Schoenecker 
had made cash withdrawals from her checking account at a casino, 
resulting 
in 
a 
$1,500 
negative 
balance 
in 
her 
account.  
Thereafter, M.F. closed the joint checking account and ended her 
engagement to Attorney Schoenecker.  
¶3 
Attorney Schoenecker repaid some of the loan balance.  
At some point, M.F. filed a collection action against Attorney 
Nos. 2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D 
3 
 
Schoenecker.  The parties reached a settlement and Attorney 
Schoenecker paid M.F. some $32,000 as part of a full resolution 
of the financial issues between them. 
¶4 
In December 2008 Attorney Schoenecker used M.F.'s 
personal information to enter her business account without her 
permission and make checks payable to himself.  He was able to 
cash a $950 check, but an attempt to cash two more checks was 
apparently unsuccessful.  As a result of those actions, Attorney 
Schoenecker was charged in two separate criminal proceedings.  
In a Walworth County case, 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.  In a separate 
Waukesha County case, he pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of 
theft-moveable property.  The Waukesha court imposed and stayed 
a sentence of four months in jail and placed Attorney 
Schoenecker on probation for one year.  He was also required to 
pay M.F. restitution as well as pay court costs.  
¶5 
In 2008, Attorney Schoenecker became an associate at 
the Clair Law Offices.  He informed the law firm he was 
representing M.F., so she was considered a client of the firm.  
Contrary to Clair Law Offices' policy, Attorney Schoenecker sent 
invoices to M.F. in the fall of 2008 showing that she owed over 
$13,000.  A substantial number of the entries on the invoices 
were fraudulent. 
¶6 
In addition to the misconduct involving M.F., Attorney 
Schoenecker also set up his own separate law firm on the side 
Nos. 2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D 
4 
 
while he was working as an associate attorney for the Clair Law 
Office and did not inform the firm of this fact.  
¶7 
The final part of Attorney Schoenecker's misconduct 
giving rise to the three-year suspension involved fraudulent 
statements on his own personal bankruptcy proceeding. 
¶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 in that case 
concerned his involvement in a business partnership he entered 
into in 2012 with M.M. and T.H.  The men established a limited 
liability company called GameMaster, LLC.  T.H. gave Attorney 
Schoenecker $25,000 in cash as his capital contribution, and 
M.M. contributed $20,000.  Instead of immediately depositing 
T.H.'s $25,000 into a GameMaster account, Attorney Schoenecker 
deposited the bulk of the money into his own personal checking 
account.  He also used company funds to pay his 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 
a 
petition 
for 
the 
reinstatement of his law license on January 30, 2017.  The Board 
of Bar Examiners filed a report saying Attorney Schoenecker had 
complied with all continuing legal education requirements for 
reinstatement. 
 
The 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
recommended against reinstatement.  A public hearing was held 
before Referee Mohr on July 18, 2017.  
Nos. 2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D 
5 
 
¶10 Attorney Schoenecker testified at the hearing that he 
is employed by a landscape maintenance, snow removal, and 
condominium property maintenance company.  The owner of the 
company submitted a letter saying that he would feel comfortable 
with Attorney Schoenecker returning to the legal profession and 
that he trusts Attorney Schoenecker with company trucks and 
credit cards.  
¶11 Attorney Schoenecker also testified that during the 
term of his suspension he has volunteered at his church, set up 
a chess club at a middle school, and assisted elderly neighbors 
with household tasks. 
¶12 Attorney Schoenecker testified that in 2015 he started 
seeing a mental health professional who specializes in gambling 
addictions, James Harrison.  Attorney Schoenecker said with Mr. 
Harrison's help he has been able to abstain from gambling.  
Attorney Schoenecker also explained that he banned himself from 
the Potawatomi Casino, and he also attends Gamblers Anonymous 
meetings.  Mr. Harrison wrote a letter saying "if [Attorney 
Schoenecker] continues with his treatment plan, utilizes his 
support system, makes the changes that are necessary in his 
life, and continues to act and live responsibly, the chance for 
the situation to re-occur is minimal."  Mr. Harrison went on to 
state 
that 
in 
his 
professional 
opinion, 
if 
Attorney 
Schoenecker's law license were reinstated, "he would continue to 
perform his duties as an attorney in an extremely professional 
manner.  His prognosis is excellent."  
Nos. 2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D 
6 
 
¶13 T.H., one of the GameMaster partners, testified 
against Attorney Schoenecker's reinstatement petition.  He said 
he did not feel his dispute with Attorney Schoenecker was 
resolved fairly, and he said he did not believe Attorney 
Schoenecker 
has 
the 
moral 
character 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin.  T.H. said, "In my personal opinion anyone who can 
treat a lifelong friend the way I have been treated, you can get 
as much as help as you want for gambling problems, that doesn't 
change the core person in my opinion."  
¶14 Edward Thompson, an attorney at Clair Law Offices, 
also 
testified 
in 
opposition 
to 
Attorney 
Schoenecker's 
reinstatement.  He said Attorney Schoenecker was employed at the 
law offices in 2008 and 2009.  When asked if Attorney 
Schoenecker would be trustworthy and have the moral character to 
practice law after having been treated for a gambling addiction, 
Attorney Thompson replied: 
I have some concern about that in regard to how he 
treated his employment relationship with Clair Law 
Offices, how he treated his ex-fiancée, and then how I 
read – with regard to the bankruptcy filings and with 
regard to GameMaster, the gentleman who was here 
earlier, I have some concerns that he's breaching 
trust with people he is closest to.  So yeah, I have a 
concern whether he would do that with clients. 
¶15 M.F. 
also 
testified 
in 
opposition 
to 
Attorney 
Schoenecker's reinstatement.  She said she was reimbursed the 
money that Attorney Schoenecker took from her, but she said she 
did not believe he had ever expressed sincere or genuine remorse 
for 
his 
misconduct. 
 
When 
asked 
if, 
assuming 
Attorney 
Nos. 2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D 
7 
 
Schoenecker has been treated for a gambling problem, she would 
deem him to be trustworthy and having the moral character to 
practice law, her response was "Certainly not . . . I'm scared 
for the public if he keeps his law license."  She went on to 
say: 
He's an opportunist.  He's shown to be an opportunist. 
[He] will take advantage at any point he can.  He has 
taken advantage of his next of kin, myself being his 
fiancée, two best friends, and the gentleman from 
Clair Law Office. 
¶16 On cross-examination, M.F. said that the opinions she 
expressed came from "information or experiences I had over ten 
years ago." 
¶17 Attorney Schoenecker's father and his sister both 
testified 
on 
Attorney 
Schoenecker's 
behalf. 
 
Attorney 
Schoenecker's 
sister 
said 
he 
has 
overcome 
his 
gambling 
addiction.  A childhood friend of Attorney Schoenecker's also 
testified on Attorney Schoenecker's behalf.  In addition, 
Attorney 
Schoenecker 
submitted 
a 
number 
of 
letters 
from 
acquaintances who supported his reinstatement petition. 
¶18 The referee issued his report on August 18, 2017.  The 
referee termed the case "a difficult matter" since on one hand 
it was quite clear Attorney Schoenecker desires his law license 
back and wishes he could atone for his past misconduct, but on 
the other hand, "the gravity and extent of his past conduct is 
troubling."  The referee said all of Attorney Schoenecker's 
misconduct amounted to "selfish and either illegal or immoral 
acts."  The referee said while Attorney Schoenecker blamed all 
Nos. 2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D 
8 
 
of the misconduct on his gambling addiction, clearly a number of 
the instances of misconduct have nothing to do with gambling, 
i.e., "lying to the partners of the law firm, improperly 
obtaining the firm's financial records, setting up a separate, 
undisclosed 
business 
operation, 
and 
lying 
under 
oath 
in 
bankruptcy court."  The referee said all three of the OLR's 
witnesses testified they have serious doubts about Attorney 
Schoenecker's trustworthiness, and all said he never expressed 
any sense of apology or remorse to them for his conduct. 
¶19 The referee said reinstatement hearings are not only 
an examination of what has taken place from the time of the 
original discipline until reinstatement is sought, but also an 
attempt to predict the future.  The referee noted that this 
court has admonished referees that the primary focus of a 
reinstatement hearing should be on the petitioner's conduct 
between the suspension and the hearing.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Carroll, 2004 WI 19, ¶16, 269 Wis. 2d 172, 
675 N.W.2d 792.  However, the referee said the facts of the 
original misconduct must also be taken in to account to help 
predict whether, going forward, the petitioner will satisfy the 
requirements of moral character.  The referee said: 
It is my considered opinion that given the seriousness 
of his past conduct; given his failure to account for 
moral lapses other than blaming a gambling addiction; 
given 
his 
failure 
to 
explain 
how 
moral 
lapses 
unrelated to the gambling addiction have been cured; 
and given his failure to present any significant 
testimony necessary to overcome the strong testimony 
of three of his victims, I cannot in good conscience 
Nos. 2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D 
9 
 
say that Schoenecker has met the high burden of proof 
imposed on him by SCR 22.31.  
¶20 Schoenecker's appeal argues that the OLR, in opposing 
reinstatement, has submitted only the testimony of individuals 
who were harmed by conduct that has already been accounted for 
and who have no first hand knowledge of anything of substance 
that has occurred since the suspensions.  Attorney Schoenecker 
argues that in essence what the OLR is now saying is that it 
regrets its decision to stipulate to the level of discipline in 
the two underlying cases, and it believes the suspensions should 
have been longer. 
¶21 Attorney 
Schoenecker 
argues 
that 
the 
referee's 
recommendation against reinstatement is not supported by the 
evidence.  He says that the referee's findings about him were, 
overall, favorable, and he points out that the referee found 
Attorney Schoenecker's testimony to be sincere; that he admitted 
engaging 
in 
some 
"really 
bad 
behavior;" 
that 
he 
sought 
counseling; he paid restitution; he has been working as a 
laborer and was promoted to supervisor; and that he never 
realized "how privileged he was to have been a lawyer."  
¶22 Attorney Schoenecker argues the only testimony in 
opposition 
to 
his 
reinstatement 
was 
based 
on 
outdated 
information and hearsay.  He says while past conduct can be 
relevant to a determination as to whether a petitioner has the 
moral character to resume the practice of law, this court has 
said that a hearing "should not amount to a retrial of the 
Nos. 2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D 
10 
 
original disciplinary case."  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Penn, 2002 WI 5, ¶7, 249 Wis. 2d 667, 673 N.W.2d 287. 
¶23 Attorney Schoenecker says all three OLR witnesses were 
clearly still upset and all had formed subjective beliefs based 
on old or second hand information.  Attorney Schoenecker says 
that while it is understandable those witnesses would still be 
upset, they each testified they had no useful knowledge of his 
conduct since the time of his suspensions and instead based 
their conclusions about his current fitness to practice law on 
their prior experience with him and on what they learned from 
other OLR witnesses.  Attorney Schoenecker argues that the OLR 
did not offer a single piece of competent evidence that 
contradicted Attorney Schoenecker's evidence about his conduct 
and character since the time of his offenses, and he says the 
fact people aggrieved by his prior conduct are still aggrieved 
by it is not a reasonable basis to oppose his reinstatement. 
¶24 Attorney Schoenecker argues he has met his burden of 
proof to show that he can safely be reinstated to the practice 
of law.  He says his witnesses have first-hand, recent 
information about his character, fitness, and abilities.  He 
says he has taken steps to learn what was driving his negative 
behavior and how to avoid repeating it, including attending 
Gamblers Anonymous meetings and seeking counseling from a 
licensed professional.  He says he intends to remain in 
treatment, and he says he has taken responsibility for his 
actions and is truly sorry for the harm he has caused others. 
Attorney Schoenecker argues that denying him reinstatement at 
Nos. 2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D 
11 
 
this point would serve only to punish him, not to protect the 
public.   
¶25 The OLR argues that the referee correctly concluded 
that Attorney Schoenecker failed to meet his burden of proof for 
reinstatement. 
 
Specifically, 
the 
OLR 
says 
the 
referee 
appropriately found that Attorney Schoenecker failed to show the 
requisite moral character for reinstatement and failed to 
present adequate evidence or testimony that his moral lapses 
have been cured.  The OLR also says the referee properly found 
that Attorney Schoenecker continued to blame his behavior on his 
gambling addiction and failed to explain that the moral lapses 
unrelated to gambling have been addressed.  The OLR says Mr. 
Harrison's report, which says that Attorney Schoenecker's 
prognosis with regard to relapsing with respect to his gambling 
problem is excellent if he continues with his treatment plan, is 
insufficient to support a finding of fitness for reinstatement 
because "Harrison's report is only as good as the information 
provided to him by Schoenecker.  If Schoenecker was not truthful 
with his therapist or did not provide him with all the necessary 
background information, then this court should not rely solely 
on the report as a sufficient basis for reinstatement." 
¶26 The OLR says contrary to Attorney 
Schoenecker's 
claims, the OLR did not present Attorney Schoenecker's victims 
as witnesses in order to retry the prior disciplinary matters, 
but rather to rebut Attorney Schoenecker's claim that he has the 
current moral character to practice law in Wisconsin.  The OLR 
Nos. 2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D 
12 
 
also 
argues 
that 
Attorney 
Schoenecker's 
reinstatement 
presentation exhibited a lack of remorse for his victims.  
¶27 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1)1 provides the standard to 
be met for reinstatement.  Specifically, 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 22.262 and the terms of 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.31(1) provides: 
The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all 
of the following: 
(a) That he or she has the moral character to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
(b) 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. 
(c) That his or her representations in the 
petition, including the representations required by 
SCR 22.29(4)(a) to (m) and 22.29(5) are substantiated.  
(d) That he or she has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
with the requirements of SCR 22.26. 
2 SCR 22.26 provides:  
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
(continued) 
Nos. 2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D 
13 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere. 
(c) Promptly provide written notification to the 
court of administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation.  The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence. 
(d) Within the first 15 days after the effective 
date 
of 
suspension 
or 
revocation, 
make 
all 
arrangements for the temporary or permanent closing or 
winding up of the attorney's practice.  The attorney 
may assist in having others take over client's work in 
progress. 
(e) Within 25 days after the effective date of 
suspension or revocation, file with the director an 
affidavit showing all of the following: 
(i) Full compliance with the provisions of the 
suspension or revocation order and with the rules and 
procedures regarding the closing of the attorney's 
practice.   
(ii) A list of all jurisdictions, including the 
state, federal and administrative bodies, before which 
the attorney is admitted to practice.  
(iii) A list of clients in all pending matters 
and a list of all matters pending before any court or 
administrative agency, together with the case number 
of each matter. 
(f) Maintain records of the various steps taken 
under this rule in order that, in any court or 
administrative agency, together with the case number 
of each matter. 
(continued) 
Nos. 2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D 
14 
 
the suspension.  In addition to these requirements, SCR 22.29(4)3 
states related requirements that the petition for reinstatement 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law.  
(3) Proof of compliance with this rule is a 
condition precedent to reinstatement of the attorney's 
license to practice law. 
3 SCR 22.29(4) provides: 
The petition shall show all of the following: 
(a) The 
petitioner 
desires 
to 
have 
the 
petitioner's license reinstated. 
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during 
the period of suspension or revocation.  
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
will 
continue 
to 
comply 
with 
them 
until 
the 
petitioner's license is reinstated. 
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and 
learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities. 
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension 
or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach. 
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of 
and attitude toward the standards that are imposed 
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with the standards. 
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to 
the legal profession, the courts and the public as a 
(continued) 
Nos. 2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D 
15 
 
"shall show."  All of these additional requirements are also 
effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1).  
¶28 This court will adopt the 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.  
¶29 Upon careful review of the matter, we adopt the 
referee's findings and conclusions and agree with the referee 
that at this time Attorney Schoenecker has failed to meet his 
burden of demonstrating that he has met the high burden of proof 
imposed upon him by SCR 22.31.  We do not reach this decision 
lightly.  Attorney Schoenecker has not practiced law since 2011.  
The record demonstrates that he has made progress toward 
addressing the root causes of the behavior that led to his two 
suspensions.  He is to be commended for attending Gamblers 
Anonymous meetings and continuing to seek treatment from Mr. 
Harrison.  His volunteer efforts in the community are also 
commendable.  However, we share the referee's concern that 
Attorney Schoenecker has failed to fully account for moral 
lapses other than his gambling addiction, and he has failed to 
explain how the moral lapses unrelated to the gambling addiction 
have been addressed to insure they will not recur in the future.  
                                                                                                                                                             
person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 
them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence and in general to aid in the administration 
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 
the courts. 
Nos. 2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D 
16 
 
In 
addition, 
we 
concur 
with 
the 
referee 
that 
Attorney 
Schoenecker's failure to present live testimony, either from Mr. 
Harrison or other character witnesses who could speak to whether 
Attorney Schoenecker has the current moral character to practice 
law in Wisconsin, impeded him in demonstrating that he has met 
his burden of proof under SCR 22.31.  
¶30 Pursuant to SCR 22.33(4), a petitioner normally may 
again file a petition for reinstatement nine months after 
denial.  However, we have the discretion to effectively reduce 
that period.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Carroll, 2004 WI 19, 269 Wis. 2d 172, 675 N.W.2d 792.  In this 
case we conclude that Attorney Schoenecker should be permitted 
to file a new petition for reinstatement six months after the 
date of this opinion.  In the new reinstatement proceeding he 
may be able to present himself in a better light and demonstrate 
through live testimony and specific examples that he is fit to 
resume the practice of law without danger to the public.  As is 
our normal practice, we deem it appropriate to impose the full 
costs of this reinstatement proceeding on Attorney Schoenecker, 
which are $6,809.66 as of March 23, 2018.  
¶31 IT 
IS 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
petition 
of 
James 
M. 
Schoenecker for the reinstatement of his license to practice law 
in Wisconsin is denied. 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Schoenecker may 
again file a petition for reinstatement six months after the 
date of this decision. 
Nos. 2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D 
17 
 
¶33 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 reinstatement proceeding, 
which are $6,809.66 as of March 23, 2018. 
 
 
No.  2011AP48-D, 2015AP275-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
 
¶34 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   (concurring).  As I wrote 
in dissent in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 
2018 WI 56, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, the court is not 
consistent in its rulings on reinstatement. 
¶35 I join the concurrence of Justice Annette Kingsland 
Ziegler 
with 
regard 
to 
the 
reinstatement 
of 
Attorney 
Schoenecker.    
 
 
Nos.  2011AP48-D & 2015AP275-D.akz 
 
1 
 
 
 
¶36 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J.   (concurring).  I agree 
with the court that at this time Attorney Schoenecker has failed 
to establish the requirements for the reinstatement of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  I write separately 
because I have concern that the court may appear to be 
suggesting that if certain things are done, Attorney Schoenecker 
will be reinstated.  See majority op., ¶30.  The majority's 
comments about what Attorney Schoenecker might do differently 
the next time around should not, in my view, be read as 
prophesying what the court's decision will be in a subsequent 
reinstatement proceeding.  At a subsequent proceeding Attorney 
Schoenecker bears the burden of demonstrating to the court that 
he should be reinstated.  The criteria the court today suggests 
may or may not prove to be sufficient.  
¶37 For the foregoing reason, I respectfully concur. 
¶38 I am authorized to state that Justice SHIRLEY S. 
ABRAHAMSON joins this concurrence.   
 
Nos.  2011AP48-D & 2015AP275-D.akz 
 
 
 
1