2016 WI 55

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2007AP776-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Medical Incapacity Proceedings 

Against Godfrey Y. Muwonge, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant-Respondent,

 v.

Godfrey Y. Muwonge,

 Respondent-Appellant.

MEDICAL INCAPACITY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MUWONGE

OPINION FILED: July 1, 2016

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED: ABRAHAMSON, J. concurs (Opinion filed).

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2016 WI 55

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2007AP776-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Medical Incapacity Proceedings

Against Godfrey Y. Muwonge, Attorney at Law: 

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant-Respondent,

 v.

Godfrey Y. Muwonge,

 Respondent-Appellant.

FILED

JUL 1, 2016

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

reinstated, with conditions. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed by Referee 

Dennis J. Flynn, recommending that the court reinstate, with 

conditions, Attorney Godfrey Y. Muwonge's license to practice 

law in Wisconsin. After careful consideration we adopt the 

referee's recommendation. We agree that Attorney Muwonge met 

his burden under Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.36(6) to show by 
No. 2007AP776-D 

2

clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he is 

currently fit to resume the practice of law, with conditions. 

Accordingly, we grant his reinstatement petition. We impose the 

full costs of this proceeding, which are $8,118.32 as of 

April 27, 2016. We also impose certain conditions on Attorney 

Muwonge's license to practice law, as set forth herein.

¶2 Attorney Muwonge was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1997. He practiced immigration law in the 

Milwaukee area. In April 2007, the OLR filed a disciplinary 

complaint against Muwonge, alleging 43 counts of misconduct and 

seeking the revocation of Muwonge's law license. Ultimately, it 

became apparent that Attorney Muwonge suffered from a medical 

incapacity and his license was indefinitely suspended.

¶3 Attorney Muwonge's early life experiences are highly 

relevant to his chosen area of legal practice and also provide 

context for his medical incapacity. As a young man in Uganda, 

Muwonge was arrested, interrogated, and tortured due to his 

perceived involvement in a resistance group. He sought and 

eventually received asylum in the United States. Shortly after 

arriving in Wisconsin, he matriculated at Marquette University, 

earning an undergraduate degree in journalism in 1994 and a law 

degree in 1997. Given his own experiences, he chose to practice 

immigration law. He married and has children. Personally, 

however, he struggled with post traumatic stress disorder
No. 2007AP776-D 

3

(PTSD), alcoholism, and chemical addictions which adversely 

affected his ability to practice law, leading to the 2007 OLR 

complaint.

¶4 When the disciplinary complaint was filed, Muwonge 

initially opted to file a petition for voluntary revocation of 

his law license and a referee recommended we accept that 

petition and revoke Muwonge's law license. Muwonge then 

appealed, asking this court to consider his medical issues. 

Following additional proceedings, on April 9, 2008, this court 

temporarily suspended Muwonge's license pursuant to SCR 22.21.1

¶5 On September 29, 2008, the OLR and Muwonge stipulated 

that Muwonge had a medical incapacity that precluded him from 

defending against the disciplinary charges. On October 22, 2008, 

a referee concurred, concluding that Muwonge had a medical 

incapacity due to PTSD, alcoholism, chemical addictions, social 

phobia, suicide ideation, and migraine headaches, making his 

defense of the disciplinary proceeding impossible. The referee 

recommended we abate the pending disciplinary proceedings and 

suspend Muwonge's license. On December 23, 2008, the court 

 

1 SCR 22.21 provides: "(1) The supreme court, on its own 

motion, upon the motion of the director, or upon the motion of a 

special investigator acting under SCR 22.25, may suspend 

temporarily an attorney's license to practice law where it 

appears that the attorney's continued practice of law poses a 

threat to the interests of the public and the administration of 

justice."
No. 2007AP776-D 

4

issued an order adopting the referee's findings and conclusions. 

We suspended Muwonge's license to practice law indefinitely 

pursuant to SCR 22.16(4)2 and SCR 22.36.3

 

2 SCR 22.16(4) provides: 

(4)(a) If in the course of the proceeding the 

respondent claims to have a medical incapacity that 

makes the defense of the proceedings impossible, the 

referee shall conduct a hearing and make findings 

concerning whether a medical incapacity makes defense 

of the proceeding impossible. The referee may order 

the examination of the respondent by qualified medical 

or psychological experts. 

(b) All papers, files, transcripts, communications, 

and proceedings on the issue of medical incapacity 

shall be confidential and shall remain confidential 

until the supreme court has issued an order suspending 

the attorney's license to practice law, or has 

otherwise authorized disclosure. 

(c) If the referee finds no medical incapacity that 

would make the defense of the proceeding impossible, 

the referee shall proceed with the misconduct action. 

(d) If the referee finds that a medical incapacity 

makes the defense of the proceeding impossible, the 

referee shall file a report promptly with the supreme 

court. If the court disapproves the referee's 

finding, the court shall direct the referee to proceed 

with the misconduct action. If the court approves the 

referee's finding, the court shall abate the 

misconduct proceeding and suspend the respondent's 

license to practice law for medical incapacity until 

the court orders reinstatement of the attorney's 

license under SCR 22.36. Upon reinstatement, the 

court shall direct the referee to proceed with the 

misconduct action. 

3 SCR 22.36 provides:

(1) An attorney whose license to practice law is 

suspended or whose practice of law is subject to 

(continued)
No. 2007AP776-D 

5

 

conditions for medical incapacity may petition the 

supreme court at any time for reinstatement of the 

license or the removal of conditions. 

(2) The supreme court shall refer the petition to the 

director for investigation to determine whether the 

attorney's medical incapacity has been removed. 

(3) The filing of a petition for reinstatement 

constitutes a waiver of any privilege existing between 

the petitioner and any psychiatrist, psychologist, 

physician or other health care provider that has 

provided care to the attorney. The petitioner shall 

disclose the name of every psychiatrist, psychologist, 

physician and other health care provider that has 

provided care following suspension or the imposition 

of conditions and shall furnish the director written 

consent to the release of information and records 

requested by the medical experts appointed by the 

director or a referee. 

(4) The director may direct a medical or psychological 

examination of the petitioner by such qualified 

experts as the director designates and may direct that 

the expense of the examination be paid by the 

petitioner. 

(5) Following the investigation, the petition shall 

be submitted to a referee selected by the clerk of the 

supreme court, based on geographic proximity to the 

respondent's place of residence, and appointed by the 

chief justice or, in his or her absence, the senior 

justice. 

(6) The petitioner has the burden of showing by 

clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that the 

medical incapacity has been removed and that the 

petitioner is fit to resume the practice of law, with 

or without conditions. 

(7) The referee shall hold a hearing on the petition, 

if necessary, and file a report and recommendation in 

the supreme court. 

(8) If an attorney whose license to practice law has 

been suspended for medical incapacity pursuant to SCR 

(continued)
No. 2007AP776-D 

6

¶6 In the following years, Muwonge sought and obtained 

treatment for his mental health and substance abuse issues. 

¶7 On June 29, 2015, Muwonge filed this petition for 

reinstatement. Referee Flynn was appointed and conducted an 

evidentiary hearing in March 2016. Referee Flynn issued his 

report and recommendation on April 11, 2016.

¶8 Reinstatement from a determination of medical 

incapacity is governed by SCR 22.36. Under SCR 22.36(6) Muwonge 

has the burden to prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing 

evidence that the medical incapacity has been removed and that 

he is fit to resume the practice of law, with or without 

conditions. 

¶9 The referee first considered whether Attorney Muwonge 

has met his burden of proving that his medical incapacity has 

been removed. The record includes favorable opinions from

Muwonge's medical and mental health treatment providers. The 

referee observed that those who have been involved in Muwonge's

treatment view him as "totally committed to maintaining his 

recovery status." His treating psychiatrist is unequivocal in 

stating that Muwonge is fit to return to the practice of law,

 

22.35 is thereafter judicially declared to be no 

longer in the condition previously determined under 

Wis. Stat. chapter 51 or chapter 880 (1997-98), the 

supreme court may direct reinstatement of the 

attorney's license, with or without conditions. 
No. 2007AP776-D 

7

but recommends that he be supervised by another attorney and 

limit his work to 40 hours per week. Another therapist concurs, 

stating that Muwonge has regained control of his life and 

effectively manages his psychological issues through 

psychotherapy and medication. 

¶10 In addition, Muwonge joined Alcoholics Anonymous in 

May 2013, attends AA meetings at least three times a week; his 

sponsor offered a positive reference. Linda Albert, 

Administrator of the State Bar of Wisconsin Lawyer Assistance 

Program (WisLAP) also provided a written statement and appeared 

at the evidentiary hearing. Ms. Albert reported that under her 

guidance and monitoring, Muwonge now voluntarily participates in 

the WisLAP monitoring program under a formal written contract. 

Ms. Albert testified that it is her opinion that Muwonge is in 

full compliance with the WisLAP program and will likely continue 

to be in compliance in the future. She recommended that, if 

Muwonge is reinstated, he should be required to remain in the 

WisLAP program for at least two years. 

¶11 Demonstrating that the medical incapacity has been 

removed is not enough to warrant reinstatement. With respect to 

the "fitness" requirement in a medical incapacity reinstatement, 

we have stated: 

The term "fit," as used in 22.36(6) with the phrase 

"to practice law," encompasses more than the removal 

of a medical incapacity or being in a physically, 
No. 2007AP776-D 

8

mentally, or morally sound state. The term "fit" is 

sufficiently broad to imply a state of preparedness to 

render competent legal services; that is, to be 

prepared to provide the measure of expertise to ensure 

the attorney may be safely recommended to the 

community as a person to be consulted by and to 

represent others in legal matters. 

In re Medical Incapacity Proceedings Against Schlieve, 2010 WI 

22, ¶24, 323 Wis. 2d 654 780 N.W.2d 516 (2010). As the referee 

correctly observed, Muwonge must demonstrate that he has reached 

a state of preparedness to render competent legal services and 

that he can be safely recommended to the community as a person 

to be consulted by and represent others. 

¶12 To assess this, the referee addressed certain concerns

identified by the OLR during this proceeding. 

¶13 First, Muwonge intends to resume an immigration 

practice. This is potentially concerning because it was, in 

part, his immigration practice that triggered his PTSD to the 

point of incapacitation. More specifically, when faced with his 

clients' immigration problems and the prospect of their 

deportation, he would relive his own horrific traumas. 

¶14 Second, Muwonge has been unemployed since 2008. This 

is potentially concerning because his ability to handle the dayto-day stress of a law practice remains an open question. 

Muwonge has explained that he did not obtain outside employment 

because he was unable to earn a sufficient salary to meet his 

family's needs and also provide and pay for appropriate care for 
No. 2007AP776-D 

9

his son, who is severely autistic. Accordingly, he served as 

the primary caretaker for his children, including his autistic 

son, during his suspension. 

¶15 Notably, however, the OLR does not oppose Attorney 

Muwonge's reinstatement but rather recommends the court impose 

certain conditions on his practice intended to address both the 

aforementioned concerns. Muwonge acknowledges that conditions 

are appropriate to address lingering concerns about his fitness 

to practice law. 

¶16 In addition to considering specific concerns, the 

referee made general observations about Muwonge's reinstatement 

and his fitness to practice law. Muwonge has acknowledged that 

he should have sought treatment sooner, but the referee found

that the credible evidence indicates that he accepts 

responsibility for wrongful conduct toward clients during the 

period leading up to his suspension in December 2008. Muwonge 

submitted numerous impressive and highly favorable character 

references in support of his petition. He has entered into an 

agreement with the OLR to repay the costs assessed against him 

relating to his prior disciplinary and medical incapacity 

proceedings, in the amount of $5,586.82. He has stated his 

intent to make restitution for sums paid to former clients by 

the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, which total 

$47,743.35, subject to his ability to pay. The record also 
No. 2007AP776-D 

10

reflects that in January 2016, the Board of Bar Examiners filed 

a letter indicating that Muwonge is currently in compliance with 

the Supreme Court's CLE and EPR requirements for reinstatement. 

¶17 The referee concluded that Muwonge has met his legal 

burden of establishing by credible evidence that is clear, 

satisfactory, and convincing that the medical incapacity noted 

in the Supreme Court's December 23, 2008 order, has been removed 

and that he is now fit to resume the practice of law in 

Wisconsin with conditions. The referee expressed his belief that 

Muwonge's reinstatement can be structured so as to provide 

Muwonge the opportunity to resume the practice of law, while 

also insuring the public is protected, by imposing certain 

conditions on his law practice.

¶18 No appeal has been filed, so we consider this matter 

pursuant to SCR 22.33(3).4 A referee's findings of fact will not 

be overturned unless clearly erroneous. In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶ 5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 

675 N.W.2d 747. We independently review the referee's legal 

conclusion, noting that whether the petitioner has demonstrated 

fitness to resume the practice of law presents a legal question 

 

4 SCR 22.33(3) provides: "If no appeal is timely filed, the 

supreme court shall review the referee's report, order 

reinstatement, with or without conditions, deny reinstatement, 

or order the parties to file briefs in the matter."
No. 2007AP776-D 

11

which we review de novo. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Chavez, 2012 WI 83, ¶ 14, 342 Wis. 2d 419, 816 N.W.2d 265.

¶19 We agree with the referee that Attorney Muwonge has 

met his burden under SCR 22.36(6) to establish by clear, 

convincing, and satisfactory evidence that his medical 

incapacity is removed and that he is fit to resume the practice 

of law. We agree that conditions on Attorney Muwonge's license 

to practice law are appropriate to monitor his continued fitness 

and to ensure the public is protected. 

¶20 The referee, the OLR, and Attorney Muwonge himself 

have all proposed various conditions that could be imposed on 

Attorney Muwonge's law practice. While the level of detail and 

the wording of these various proposals differ, fundamentally, 

there is consensus. All concur that continued WisLAP monitoring 

is critical, and we agree. All concur that Attorney Muwonge's 

practice of law should be monitored by an experienced Wisconsin 

attorney, and we agree. Attorney Muwonge has identified a 

suitable attorney willing to monitor his law practice. Attorney 

Harold Block, who has known Muwonge for over 30 years and 

represented Muwonge when he sought immigration status after 

coming to Wisconsin from Uganda, testified that he was willing 

to monitor Muwonge if he is reinstated and the referee supports 

his appointment.
No. 2007AP776-D 

12

¶21 The practice monitor will oversee Attorney Muwonge's 

practice of law and will seek to ensure that Attorney Muwonge

limits his practice to no more than 40 hours per week until his 

treatment provider advises the monitor that this limit is no 

longer necessary.

¶22 Some of the proposed conditions are typically required 

in WisLAP monitoring contracts. WisLAP requires that attorneys 

in the monitoring program execute a written monitoring contract, 

the terms of which are modeled after industry standards for 

monitoring lawyers and other impaired professionals and are 

specific and tailored to meet the individual lawyer's needs. 

For example, a monitoring agreement may require a lawyer to 

abstain from the use of alcohol and all non-prescribed 

controlled substances, may require attendance at a requisite 

number of AA meetings each week, may require daily check-ins, 

and may require random drug and/or alcohol testing. Appropriate 

monitoring requirements will be set forth in Attorney Muwonge's 

monitoring contract with WisLAP so we decline to enumerate them 

here.

¶23 Other proposed conditions are designed to ensure 

appropriate communication among and between Attorney Muwonge, 

his practice monitor, WisLAP, and the OLR. We impose the 

following conditions on Attorney Muwonge's practice of law:
No. 2007AP776-D 

13

(1) WisLAP Monitoring. Continued participation 

in the WisLAP monitoring program for a period of two 

years following the date of this order;

(2) Law Practice Supervision and Status Reports. 

Supervision of his law practice for a period of two 

years following the date of this order. The court

appoints Attorney Howard Block to serve as practice 

monitor. If Attorney Block ceases to be available to 

monitor Attorney Muwonge, his successor shall be an 

attorney approved by WisLAP. The practice monitor 

will provide written reports to the OLR in September 

and December 2016; March, June, September, and 

December 2017; and March and June 2018. To facilitate 

effective practice monitoring, Attorney Muwonge is 

directed to provide his practice monitor with 

permission to speak with all treating mental health 

and substance abuse providers. 

(3) Treatment and Status Reports. Continued 

treatment as recommended by Attorney Muwonge's

treatment providers to address mental health issues, 

with at least one mental health treatment provider 

sending the OLR a written status report in January and 

July 2017, and in January and July 2018;

(4) Financial obligations. Attorney Muwonge

shall, if he has not already done so and subject to 

his ability to pay, make arrangements with the 

Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Fund) 

for repayment of any sums due to the Fund and shall 

also make arrangements with the OLR for repayment of

outstanding costs.

¶24 We emphasize that Attorney Muwonge's reinstatement is 

contingent upon his compliance with these conditions. If the OLR 

learns that Attorney Muwonge has failed to comply with these 

conditions, the OLR may petition this court for immediate 

suspension of Attorney Muwonge's license to practice law pending 
No. 2007AP776-D 

14

any further investigation or proceedings that may be necessary 

under the circumstances. 

¶25 The underlying disciplinary proceeding that brought 

Attorney Muwonge’s medical condition to this court’s attention 

in 2008 could not be resolved at that time. When Attorney 

Muwonge was deemed subject to a medical incapacity, his defense 

of the underlying proceeding was not possible and, consistent 

with our court rules, the misconduct proceeding was held in 

abeyance until such time as the court ordered reinstatement of 

his license under SCR 22.26. See SCR 22.16(4)(d). That day has 

arrived.

¶26 Our rules require that, upon reinstatement, “the court 

shall direct the referee to proceed with the misconduct action.” 

Id. The court will, consistent with the rules, issue a separate 

order directing the referee to proceed with the abated 

misconduct action. Nearly a decade has elapsed since the OLR 

filed the disciplinary complaint and Attorney Muwonge has been 

suspended for over eight of those years so we trust that the 

parties will work to resolve the underlying matter 

expeditiously. 

¶27 Finally, we accept the referee's recommendation and 

impose on Attorney Muwonge the full costs of this proceeding, 

which are $8,118.32 as of April 27, 2016.
No. 2007AP776-D 

15

¶28 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 

the license of Godfrey Y. Muwonge to practice law in Wisconsin 

is granted, effective the date of this order.

¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as conditions of the 

reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, 

Godfrey Y. Muwonge shall comply with the following mandatory 

conditions:

(1) WisLAP Monitoring. Continued participation 

in the WisLAP monitoring program for a period of two 

years following the date of this order;

(2) Law Practice Supervision and Status Reports. 

Supervision of his law practice for a period of two 

years following the date of this order. The court

appoints Attorney Howard Block to serve as practice 

monitor. If Attorney Block ceases to be available to 

monitor Attorney Muwonge, his successor shall be an 

attorney approved by WisLAP. The practice monitor 

will provide written reports to the OLR in September 

and December 2016; March, June, September, and 

December 2017; and March and June 2018. To facilitate 

effective practice monitoring, Attorney Muwonge is 

directed to provide his practice monitor with 

permission to speak with all treating mental health 

and substance abuse providers. 

(3) Treatment and Status Reports. Continued 

treatment as recommended by Attorney Muwonge's

treatment providers to address mental health issues, 

with at least one mental health treatment provider 

sending the OLR a written status report in January and 

July 2017, and in January and July 2018;

(4) Financial obligations. Attorney Muwonge

shall, if he has not already done so and subject to 

his ability to pay, make arrangements with the 

Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Fund) 

for repayment of any sums due to the Fund and shall 

also make arrangements with the OLR for repayment of

outstanding costs.
No. 2007AP776-D 

16

¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 120 days of the date 

of this order, Godfrey Y. Muwonge shall pay to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, absent a showing 

of his inability to pay.

¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution is to be 

completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation.

¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court will, by separate 

order, appoint a referee to proceed with the abated misconduct 

action as required by SCR 22.16(4)(d). 

¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the 

terms of this order remain a condition of Godfrey Y. Muwonge's 

license to practice law in Wisconsin.
No. 2007AP776-D.ssa

1

¶34 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (concurring). I join the 

per curiam, but I have reservations about ¶26.

¶35 On April 21, 2016, the court adopted Rule Petition 14-

06 to grant more discretion to the OLR in disciplinary matters. 

I wonder why the OLR cannot exercise its discretion with regard 

to sending the old outstanding disciplinary matter to the 

referee? Have we not given the OLR sufficient discretion?
No. 2007AP776-D.ssa

1