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