2022 WI 35

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2022AP673-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against 

Laura R. Schwefel, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Laura R. Schwefel,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SCHWEFEL 

OPINION FILED: May 26, 2022 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: 

COUNTY: 

JUDGE: 

JUSTICES:

Per Curiam. ZIEGLER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion in which 

REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., and HAGEDORN, J., joined. 

NOT PARTICIPATING:

 

ATTORNEYS:
2022 WI 35

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2022AP673-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Laura R. Schwefel, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Laura R. Schwefel,

 Respondent.

FILED

MAY 26, 2022

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

revoked. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. Attorney Laura R. Schwefel has filed a 

petition for the consensual revocation of her license to 

practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 

22.19.1 In her petition Attorney Schwefel states that she cannot 

 

1 SCR 22.19 provides: 

(1) An attorney who is the subject of an 

investigation for possible misconduct or the 

respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme 

court a petition for the revocation by consent or his 

or her license to practice law.
No. 2022AP673-D 

2

successfully defend against multiple allegations of misconduct 

in connection with a grievance investigated by the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation (OLR). 

¶2 Attorney Schwefel was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1995. Her current mailing address is in Sussex, 

Wisconsin. Attorney Schwefel's disciplinary history consists of 

a public reprimand issued in 2014. Public Reprimand of Laura R. 

Schwefel, No. 2014-6 (electronic copy available at 

https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002676.html).

 

(2) The petition shall state that the petitioner 

cannot successfully defend against the allegations of 

misconduct. 

(3) If a complaint has not been filed, the 

petition shall be filed in the supreme court and shall 

include the director's summary of the misconduct 

allegations being investigated. Within 20 days after 

the date of filing of the petition, the director shall 

file in the supreme court a recommendation on the 

petition. Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme 

court may extend the time for filing a recommendation. 

(4) If a complaint has been filed, the petition 

shall be filed in the supreme court and served on the 

director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has 

been assigned. Within 20 days after the filing of the 

petition, the director shall file in the supreme court 

a response in support of or in opposition to the 

petition and serve a copy on the referee. Upon a 

showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend 

the time for filing a response. The referee shall 

file a report and recommendation on the petition in 

the supreme court within 30 days after receipt of the 

director's response.

(5) The supreme court shall grant the petition 

and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or 

deny the petition and remand the matter to the 

director or to the referee for further proceedings.
No. 2022AP673-D 

3

¶3 Attached to Attorney Schwefel's petition for 

revocation by consent is a copy of the disciplinary complaint 

that the OLR intended to file against her. The six counts of 

misconduct set forth in the complaint all arise out of Attorney 

Schwefel's relationship with H.K., an elderly woman born in 

1931. H.K.'s husband died in 2003. H.K. met Attorney Schwefel 

around 2007 while both were visiting Florida. After H.K. 

returned to Wisconsin, the two women formed a friendship and 

went on social outings and vacations together.

¶4 Sometime between 2007 and 2009, Attorney Schwefel 

introduced H.K. to Attorney Sandra Ruffalo. H.K. and Attorney 

Ruffalo also formed a friendship that included social outings 

and visits in Wisconsin and Florida. 

¶5 As of November 2009, H.K. was living independently in 

a condominium that she owned in Mequon, Wisconsin. In or about 

November 2009, H.K. suffered a capillary stroke that required 

hospitalization. After a few days in a hospital, she moved to a 

rehabilitation facility. While H.K. was hospitalized or in the 

rehabilitation facility, Attorney Schwefel suggested that H.K. 

should name Attorney Schwefel as her agent to make health care 

decisions in the event H.K. became incapacitated. Attorney 

Schwefel also suggested H.K. allow Attorney Schwefel to manage 

H.K.'s financial affairs, including managing H.K.'s bank 

accounts and paying H.K.'s bills. Attorney Schwefel suggested 

that H.K. sign a power of attorney naming Attorney Schwefel as 

her agent for financial matters.
No. 2022AP673-D 

4

¶6 H.K. trusted Attorney Schwefel to assist her with her 

financial affairs because Attorney Schwefel had held herself out 

to H.K. as an attorney who had acted as an agent or fiduciary 

for other people in the past and because H.K. considered 

Attorney Schwefel to be a friend. H.K. believed that Attorney 

Schwefel would act in H.K.'s best interests as H.K.'s fiduciary 

with regard to H.K.'s assets and that Attorney Schwefel would 

keep records of her handling of H.K.'s assets and financial 

affairs.

¶7 Around January 2010, Attorney Schwefel opened a 

checking account at M&I Bank. Rather than opening the account 

in H.K.'s name with Attorney Schwefel designated as an 

authorized signatory or agent, Attorney Schwefel titled the 

account jointly in her and H.K.'s names. The account was opened 

without obtaining H.K.'s informed consent to title the account 

jointly, explaining to H.K. that she would be giving Attorney 

Schwefel co-ownership of H.K.'s funds, or advising H.K. that 

Attorney Schwefel could manage H.K.'s finances and pay her bills 

without jointly titling the account. At the time the account 

was opened, H.K. did not intend to give Attorney Schwefel an 

ownership interest in the account or her funds. Rather, she 

believed and intended that any funds or accounts Attorney 

Schwefel accessed on H.K.'s behalf would remain H.K.'s sole 

assets.

¶8 On January 18, 2010, H.K. signed a durable power of 

attorney for health care and a basic power of attorney for 

finances and property. The health care power of attorney named 
No. 2022AP673-D 

5

Attorney Schwefel as H.K.'s agent to make health care decisions 

for H.K. if H.K. became incapacitated. H.K.'s stepdaughter-inlaw was named as the alternate health care agent. The 2010 

health care power of attorney only authorized Attorney Schwefel 

or the alternate health care agent to act in the event H.K. was 

unable to make health care decisions for herself due to 

incapacity, which required two health care providers to examine 

H.K. and then sign a statement that she was incapacitated, or if 

H.K. were unconscious, comatose, senile, or otherwise 

"unreachable by communication."

¶9 Between January 2010 and September 2015, Attorney 

Schwefel held herself out and acted as H.K.'s agent under the 

financial power of attorney, including by signing documents as 

H.K.'s agent and communicating with various third parties as 

H.K.'s agent related to H.K.'s assets, property, and financial 

matters.

¶10 At various times since 2010, Attorney Schwefel 

asserted to health care providers, facility staff, the OLR, and 

other third parties that H.K. is a chronic alcoholic. The OLR 

has not received evidence that any health care provider ever 

diagnosed H.K. as suffering from alcohol abuse or dependence at 

times relevant to this matter. Records received by the OLR show 

several medical providers questioning Attorney Schwefel's 

assertions that H.K. suffered from alcohol dependence.

¶11 On March 1, 2010, Attorney Schwefel used $72,600.51 of 

H.K.'s funds from the jointly titled bank account to fund the 

purchase of a condominium in Naples, Florida. Attorney Schwefel 
No. 2022AP673-D 

6

titled the unit in her own name as sole owner. H.K. did not 

authorize Attorney Schwefel to use her funds to purchase the 

condominium unit, and H.K. was unaware that her funds had been 

used to purchase the unit until she received materials from the 

OLR during its investigation. 

¶12 In September 2010, Attorney Schwefel, as H.K.'s agent 

under the financial power of attorney, and with H.K.'s 

knowledge, sold H.K.'s Mequon condominium. Attorney Schwefel 

deposited $176,828.54 from the proceeds of the sale into the 

jointly titled bank account. Attorney Schwefel told H.K. the 

condominium sold for $125,000 when it actually sold for 

$194,000.

¶13 In September 2010, Attorney Schwefel opened a second 

account at M&I Bank, again titled jointly in her and H.K.'s 

names, rather than opening the account in H.K.'s name with 

Attorney Schwefel as her authorized signatory or agent. This 

second account was opened without obtaining H.K.'s informed 

consent to title the account jointly, explaining to H.K. that 

she would be giving Attorney Schwefel co-ownership of her funds 

and any future assets deposited in the account, or advising H.K. 

that Attorney Schwefel could manage H.K.'s finances and pay her

bills without jointly titling the assets in Attorney Schwefel's 

name. At the time the account was opened, H.K. did not intend 

to give Attorney Schwefel an ownership interest in her assets. 

H.K. believed and intended that any funds or accounts Attorney 

Schwefel accessed would remain H.K.'s sole assets. Except for 

limited, discrete transactions, H.K. did not authorize Attorney 
No. 2022AP673-D 

7

Schwefel to use her funds in either of the bank accounts for 

Attorney Schwefel's benefit or personal use. 

¶14 On September 21, 2010, Attorney Schwefel transferred 

$190,000 from the first bank account to the second account, 

leaving only $1,604.13 in the first account.

¶15 In January 2012, Attorney Schwefel obtained and filled 

out change of beneficiary forms naming herself as beneficiary of 

two of H.K.'s individual retirement accounts and H.K.'s AXA 

Equitable Equivest account.

¶16 In March of 2012, H.K. executed a new durable power of 

attorney for health care naming Attorney Schwefel as her agent 

to make health care decisions in the event H.K. became 

incapacitated. H.K. named Attorney Ruffalo as her alternate 

health care agent. The 2012 health care power of attorney only 

authorized Attorney Schwefel or the alternate health care agent 

to act if H.K. was unable to make health care decisions for 

herself due to incapacity. H.K. was never declared incompetent 

or incapacitated, and the 2012 health care power of attorney was 

never activated. 

¶17 By 2012, H.K. had begun to be afraid of Attorney 

Schwefel and the control Attorney Schwefel exerted over H.K.'s 

life. Attorney Schwefel was sometimes verbally harsh with H.K. 

and was also sometimes rough in her physical treatment of H.K. 

H.K.'s fear of Attorney Schwefel and the control she had over 

H.K.'s life contributed to H.K. experiencing periods of 

worsening depression between 2012 and 2014. 
No. 2022AP673-D 

8

¶18 In July 2012, Attorney Schwefel wired $100,000 of 

H.K.'s funds to Bay Breeze Title Services LLC. The transfer 

represented a loan to Attorney Ruffalo to fund a real estate 

transaction for Attorney Ruffalo's benefit, which Attorney 

Ruffalo was to repay within one year. H.K. did not know, 

understand, or consent to her funds being loaned to Attorney 

Ruffalo.

¶19 In or about March or April 2013, Attorney Ruffalo told 

Attorney Schwefel and H.K. about a condominium that was 

available in Naples, Florida. Attorney Ruffalo believed that 

H.K. wanted to purchase the unit and agreed to represent her in 

the purchase. At the time, H.K. did not have sufficient funds 

in the two bank accounts opened by Attorney Schwefel to purchase 

the unit. Attorney Ruffalo agreed to repay her July 2012 loan 

by providing the funds necessary to purchase the condominium 

unit on the day of closing. In or about April 2013, Attorney 

Schwefel entered into an offer to purchase the condominium unit 

in her own name, on terms negotiated with the sellers by 

Attorney Ruffalo, including the purchase price of $110,000. On 

May 3, 2013, Attorney Schwefel assigned the contract to purchase 

the unit to H.K. The assignment asserted that there was an 

agreement between H.K. and Attorney Schwefel that the 

condominium unit would be purchased with a transfer on death 

deed naming Attorney Schwefel as the beneficiary, or with a deed 

that titled the property in both H.K.'s and Attorney Schwefel's 

names as joint tenants with right of survivorship. 
No. 2022AP673-D 

9

¶20 H.K. did not sign the assignment. Attorney Ruffalo 

signed it as H.K.'s agent. H.K. was not provided with a copy of 

the assignment at the time Attorney Ruffalo signed it on her 

behalf. H.K. did not understand that her funds were being used 

to purchase the condominium unit. Instead, H.K. believed that 

she was only investing approximately $20,000 in Attorney 

Schwefel's purchase of the unit. The purchase of the unit 

closed on May 17, 2013. The unit was titled jointly in Attorney 

Schwefel's and H.K.'s names, with right of survivorship. 

Attorney Schwefel did not contribute any funds toward the 

purchase of the unit. All or substantially all of the funds 

used to purchase the unit came from H.K.'s funds, including the 

transfer of funds from Attorney Ruffalo, as repayment of the 

July 2012 loan from H.K.'s funds.

¶21 Attorney Schwefel undertook an extensive renovation of 

the unit using H.K.'s funds. 

¶22 Sometime between May 2013 and October 2013, H.K. began 

to decline Attorney Schwefel's visits and telephone calls. In 

late 2013 or early 2014, H.K. experienced a period of worsening 

depression, at least in part because she felt afraid of Attorney 

Schwefel and the control Attorney Schwefel had exerted over her 

life.

¶23 At various times, H.K. lived in Attorney Schwefel's 

home. On or about July 31, 2014, Attorney Schwefel moved H.K. 

from Attorney Schwefel's home to a memory care unit in Sussex, 

Wisconsin. H.K. did not require the level of care provided in a 

memory care unit. Even though H.K. had not been declared 
No. 2022AP673-D 

10

incompetent, Attorney Schwefel signed documents holding herself 

out as H.K.'s agent under the financial power of attorney. On 

July 31, 2014, staff at the memory care unit met with H.K. and 

Attorney Schwefel, at which time it was agreed that H.K. was 

independent in all aspects of life. Despite the fact that H.K. 

was competent and the management of the facility agreed that she 

was independent in all aspects of life, staff at the facility 

often treated H.K. as if Attorney Schwefel had authority to 

control aspects of H.K.'s life, such as providing Attorney 

Schwefel with notice of H.K.'s activities and actions as H.K.'s 

power of attorney, requiring Attorney Schwefel's permission for 

certain activities, and following Attorney Schwefel's directives 

as to communications with and treatment of H.K. as H.K.'s power

of attorney. Attorney Schwefel did not tell staff at the 

facility that H.K. was permitted to make her own decisions.

¶24 H.K. was unhappy living at the facility, especially 

due to the number of residents with dementia and cognitive 

issues, and the lack of appropriate social and intellectually 

stimulating activities for H.K. While H.K. resided at the 

facility, Attorney Schwefel withheld funds from H.K. and 

misrepresented that H.K. had used up a lot of her money and 

could not afford purchases such as cigarettes. 

¶25 In September 2014, H.K. was seen and assessed at a 

senior health center. Although Attorney Schwefel had claimed 

H.K. suffered from memory loss, the medical professionals 

assessing H.K. did not note any forgetfulness and opined that 

H.K. could live in a more independent setting. Attorney 
No. 2022AP673-D 

11

Schwefel did not inform the memory care facility staff that H.K. 

was competent to make her own decisions.

¶26 In or about December 2014, based at least in part on 

misrepresentations of H.K.'s mental condition, Attorney Schwefel 

asked Attorney Ruffalo to draft a quit claim deed to transfer 

H.K.'s interest in the Florida condominium unit to Attorney 

Schwefel for the stated consideration of $20,000. Attorney 

Schwefel led Attorney Ruffalo to believe that H.K. had already 

agreed to the terms of the transfer. Attorney Schwefel told 

H.K. that if she signed the quit claim deed, Attorney Schwefel 

would return the $20,000 investment H.K. had made in the 

condominium unit. H.K. signed the quit claim deed on December 

11, 2014. Attorney Ruffalo notarized H.K.'s signature. As 

H.K.'s funds had been used to purchase the condominium and pay 

for improvements on it, H.K.'s interest in the unit was valued 

at more than $20,000 as of December 2014 and potentially as much 

as the entire value of the condominium. The quit claim deed 

asserted that Attorney Schwefel paid H.K. $20,000 in 

consideration of the transfer, but as of March 2017, Attorney 

Schwefel had not paid that amount to H.K.

¶27 In March 2015, H.K.'s primary care physician saw H.K. 

for a checkup and found her to be stable and with excellent 

cognitive function, with her depression in remission.

¶28 In June 2015, H.K. moved to Florida with Attorney 

Ruffalo's assistance. Attorney Schwefel expressed anger at H.K. 

and Attorney Ruffalo that they had planned H.K.'s move without 

consulting Attorney Schwefel. In or about June 2015, Attorney 
No. 2022AP673-D 

12

Schwefel informed H.K., either directly or through Attorney 

Ruffalo or H.K.'s paid caregiver, that Attorney Schwefel would 

no longer serve as H.K.'s caregiver or agent under any powers of 

attorney. She asked that H.K. sign new powers of attorney 

naming an agent other than Attorney Schwefel. Attorney Schwefel 

did not take any action between June and August 2015 to remove 

her name from the bank accounts or ask H.K. if she should 

disburse the funds to H.K. or transfer the funds to a new 

account. Attorney Schwefel continued to manage at least some of 

H.K.'s finances and continued to use H.K.'s credit card without 

H.K.'s authorization for purchases and services unrelated to 

H.K. 

¶29 In or about April 2016, H.K. consulted with Attorney 

Terrance Cahill regarding Attorney Schwefel's actions during the 

time she acted as H.K.'s caregiver and agent under the financial 

power of attorney. On April 28, 2016, H.K. formally revoked any 

and all powers of attorney she had previously signed naming 

Attorney Schwefel as her agent, including the financial power of 

attorney. By letter dated April 28, 2016, H.K., through 

Attorney Cahill, notified Attorney Schwefel that H.K. had 

revoked the powers of attorney and requested an accounting from 

Attorney Schwefel. Attorney Schwefel provided Attorney Cahill 

with some records but did not provide an accounting or other 

receipts or records of her handling of H.K.'s assets.

¶30 In March 2017, H.K., through Attorney Cahill, filed a 

petition with the Waukesha County Circuit Court for review of 

Attorney Schwefel's conduct while serving as H.K.'s agent under 
No. 2022AP673-D 

13

the financial power of attorney. H.K. sought an accounting, a 

court order requiring Attorney Schwefel to restore to H.K. the 

value of her property lost due to Attorney Schwefel's breach of 

her fiduciary duties to H.K., and H.K's costs and attorney's 

fees in having to pursue court action. In June 2017, Attorney 

Schwefel filed a motion to dismiss and an affidavit in support 

of the motion in which she misrepresented her actions under the 

power of attorney. During a June 29, 2017, court hearing, 

Attorney Schwefel misled the circuit court as to the existence 

of and whether she had ever acted as H.K.'s agent under the 

financial power of attorney. 

¶31 In lieu of an accounting, in November 2017 Attorney 

Schwefel and H.K. signed a settlement agreement pursuant to 

which Attorney Schwefel paid H.K. $60,000 and H.K. released all 

claims against Attorney Schwefel related to Attorney Schwefel's 

acting as H.K.'s agent under the health care powers of attorney 

and the financial power of attorney. The Waukesha County case 

was dismissed in December 2017 pursuant to the settlement.

¶32 During the OLR's initial intake evaluation of H.K.'s 

grievance, in a letter to the OLR dated March 10, 2019, Attorney 

Schwefel misrepresented that in late 2009 or early 2010 H.K. 

stated that she sought to have her checking account titled in 

the names of H.K. and Attorney Schwefel. In a June 28, 2019, 

letter to the OLR, Attorney Schwefel made numerous 

misrepresentations in response to H.K.'s grievance. 

¶33 The OLR's draft complaint against Attorney Schwefel 

alleged the following counts of misconduct:
No. 2022AP673-D 

14

Count 1: By using her position of trust to open two 

bank accounts as jointly owned accounts, without 

H.K.'s knowing and informed consent to title the 

accounts jointly in their names, in each instance 

Attorney Schwefel violated SCR 20:8.4(c),2 and with 

regard to the second bank account, Attorney Schwefel 

also violated Wis. Stat. § 244.14(1)(b),3 Wis. Stat. 

§ 244.14(2)(a) and (b),4 and thereby violated 

SCR 20:8.4(f).5

Count 2: By (a) converting $72,600.51 of H.K.'s funds 

to purchase a condominium in her own name without 

H.K.'s knowledge or informed consent, and (b) using 

H.K.'s credit card for purchases and services that 

were not for H.K.'s benefit without H.K.'s knowledge 

or informed consent, in each instance, Attorney 

Schwefel violated SCR 20:8.4(c).

Count 3: By using her position of trust to cause H.K. 

to transfer her interest in the condominium unit in 

Naples, Florida to Attorney Schwefel for less than the 

fair market value of H.K.'s interest and investment in 

the condominium, including by not paying the $20,000 

 

2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct 

for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 

deceit or misrepresentation."

3 Wis. Stat. § 244.14(1)(b) provides: "Notwithstanding any 

provisions to the contrary in the power of attorney, an agent 

who has accepted appointment shall act in good faith." (2019-

2020). 

All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 

the 2019-2020 version. 

4 Wis. Stat. § 244.14(2) provides: "Except as otherwise 

provided in the power of attorney, an agent who has accepted an 

appointment shall: (a) Act loyally for the principal's benefit. 

(b) Act so as not to create a conflict of interest that impairs 

the agent's ability to act impartially in the principal's best 

interest."

5 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides: "It is professional misconduct 

for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 

court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 

lawyers."
No. 2022AP673-D 

15

purchase price to H.K., Attorney Schwefel violated 

SCR 20:8.4 (c), and Attorney Schwefel also violated 

Wis. Stat. § 244.14(1)(b) and Wis. Stat. 

§ 244.14(2)(a) and (b), and thereby violated 

SCR 20:8.4(f).

Count 4: By failing to maintain records and receipts 

of all actions taken on behalf of H.K. during the time 

in which she acted as H.K.'s agent under the financial 

power of attorney, contrary to Wis. Stat. 

§ 244.14(2)(d),6 and by failing to provide H.K. with an 

accounting upon her request, contrary to Wis. Stat. 

§ 244.14(8)(a)7 and Wis. Stat. § 244.14(9),8 in each 

instance, Attorney Schwefel violated SCR 20:8.4(f). 

Count 5: By misleading the Waukesha County Circuit 

Court as to the existence of the financial power of 

attorney, Attorney Schwefel violated SCR 20:8.4(c).

Count 6: By making misrepresentations to OLR: 

a. during the OLR's initial intake evaluation of this 

matter, Attorney Schwefel violated SCR 20:8.4(c), and 

b. during the OLR's formal investigation of this 

matter, Attorney Schwefel violated SCR 22.03(6) 

 

6 Wis. Stat. § 244.14(2)(d) provides: "Except as otherwise 

provided in the power of attorney, an agent who has accepted an 

appointment shall keep a record of all receipts, disbursements, 

and transactions made on behalf of the principal."

7 Wis. Stat. § 244.14(8)(a) provides: "Except as otherwise 

provided in the power of attorney, an agent is not required to 

disclose receipts, disbursements, or transactions conducted on 

behalf of the principal unless ordered by a court or requested 

by the principal."

8 Wis. Stat. § 244.14(9) provides: "If ordered or requested 

to disclose information under sub. (8), the agent shall comply 

with the request within 30 days or provide a writing or other 

record substantiating why additional time is needed and shall 

comply with the request within an additional 30 days."
No. 2022AP673-D 

16

enforceable under the Rules of Professional Conduct 

via SCR 20:8.4(h).9

¶34 Attorney Schwefel's petition for consensual revocation 

states that she cannot successfully defend herself against the 

allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the OLR's 

draft complaint. She agrees that she should be ordered to make 

restitution of $75,298.13 to H.K. Her petition asserts that she 

is seeking consensual revocation freely, voluntarily, and 

knowingly. She states that she understands she is giving up her 

right to contest the OLR's allegations. Attorney Schwefel is 

represented by counsel in this disciplinary proceeding.

¶35 The OLR has filed a recommendation on Attorney 

Schwefel's petition for consensual license revocation. The OLR 

states that revocation is warranted and necessary. The OLR's 

recommendation also contains a restitution request asking that 

Attorney Schwefel be ordered to pay restitution in the amount of 

$75,298.13 to H.K.

¶36 Having reviewed Attorney Schwefel's petition for 

consensual revocation, the OLR's draft complaint, and the OLR's 

recommendation on Attorney Schwefel's petition, we accept 

Attorney Schwefel's petition for the revocation of her license 

to practice law in Wisconsin. Attorney Schwefel took advantage 

of her friendship with a vulnerable person and over an extended 

 

9 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 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 

or SCR 22.04(1)."
No. 2022AP673-D 

17

period of time she converted tens of thousands of dollars of 

H.K.'s funds to her own use and exerted control over all aspects 

of H.K.'s life. When confronted with evidence of her 

conversion, she lied to a circuit court and the OLR. The 

seriousness of Attorney Schwefel's misconduct demonstrates the 

need to revoke her law license in order to protect the public, 

the courts, and the legal system from repetition of her 

misconduct; to impress upon Attorney Schwefel the seriousness of 

her misconduct; and to deter other attorneys from engaging in 

similar misconduct. Revocation of Attorney Schwefel's license 

is consistent with existing precedent. This court has 

previously revoked the licenses of attorneys when they face 

allegations of converting funds to their own use and benefit. 

See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Wynn, 2014 WI 

17, 353 Wis. 2d 132, 845 N.W.2d 663. 

¶37 Turning to the issue of restitution, the petition for 

revocation by consent and the OLR's memorandum in support 

thereof called for Attorney Schwefel to make restitution to H.K. 

in the amount of $75,298.13 but did not indicate how that amount 

was arrived at, nor was there a clear statement that H.K. had 

agreed to that amount of restitution. 

¶38 In response to a May 18, 2022 order of this court 

asking for additional information about restitution, the OLR 

submitted a letter noting that H.K. commenced a civil lawsuit 

against Attorney Schwefel that was ultimately settled and 

ordinarily when a respondent and grievant have entered into a 

settlement to resolve a civil action involving matters that are 
No. 2022AP673-D 

18

related to a grievance, the OLR would not seek additional 

restitution. In this case, however, H.K. and her attorney were 

unaware at the time the civil suit was settled that Attorney 

Schwefel had used $72,600.54 of H.K.'s funds in 2010 to purchase 

a condominium that Attorney Schwefel titled solely in her own 

name. The OLR also states that its investigation revealed that 

Attorney Schwefel charged $948 in airfare to H.K.'s credit card 

for Attorney Schwefel and her nephew to fly to Florida in April 

of 2015, and between May 17, 2015 and August 27, 2015, Attorney 

Schwefel used H.K.'s credit card to purchase meals, gas, and 

other products and services totaling $1,749.59 that were not for 

the benefit of H.K. The OLR states that since H.K. was unaware 

of these conversations at the time she filed her grievance, she 

did not anticipate receiving additional restitution through the 

grievance process, but having been informed of the OLR's 

investigative findings regarding these additional conversions 

that Attorney Schwefel had concealed, she agrees that it is 

appropriate to order Attorney Schwefel to make restitution to 

H.K. in the amount of $75,298.13. We, too, agree that ordering 

Attorney Schwefel to pay restitution in that amount is 

appropriate.

¶39 Because Attorney Schwefel petitioned for the 

consensual revocation of her Wisconsin law license before the 

appointment of a referee, and because the OLR has not requested 

the imposition of costs, we do not assess the costs of this 

proceeding against Attorney Schwefel.
No. 2022AP673-D 

19

¶40 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license 

revocation is granted. 

¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Laura R. 

Schwefel to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective 

July 7, 2022.

¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 

of this order, Laura R. Schwefel shall pay restitution in the 

amount of $75,298.13 to H.K.

¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Laura R. Schwefel shall 

comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 

a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 

revoked.
No. 2022AP673-D.akz

1

¶44 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J. (concurring). I 

concur in the court's order revoking Attorney Schwefel's license 

to practice law in Wisconsin. I write separately to point out 

that in Wisconsin the "revocation" of an attorney's law license 

is not truly revocation because the attorney may petition for 

readmittance after a period of five years. See SCR 22.29(2). I 

believe that when it comes to lawyer discipline, courts should 

say what they mean and mean what they say. We should not be 

creating false perceptions to both the public and to the lawyer 

seeking to practice law again. See In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 WI 39, 391 Wis. 2d 196, 942 

N.W.2d 302 (Ziegler, J., dissenting). And, as I stated in my 

dissent to this court's order denying Rule Petition 19-10, In 

the Matter of Amending Supreme Court Rules Pertaining to 

Permanent Revocation of a License to Practice Law in Attorney 

Disciplinary Proceedings, I believe there may be rare and 

unusual cases that would warrant the permanent revocation of an 

attorney's license to practice law. See S. Ct. Order 19-10 

(issued Dec. 18, 2019) (Ziegler, J., dissenting).

¶45 I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL 

BRADLEY and BRIAN HAGEDORN join this concurrence.
No. 2022AP673-D.akz

1