2022 WI 39

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2021AP1222-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Matthew R. Meyer, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Matthew R. Meyer,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MEYER

OPINION FILED: June 8, 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. ANN WALSH 

BRADLEY, J., filed a dissenting opinion. 

NOT PARTICIPATING:

 

ATTORNEYS:
2022 WI 39

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2021AP1222-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Matthew R. Meyer, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Matthew R. Meyer,

 Respondent.

FILED

JUN 8, 2022

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

revoked. 

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

A. DiMotto concluding, based on a stipulation filed by the 

Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Matthew R. Meyer, 

that Attorney Meyer committed two counts of professional 

misconduct as alleged in the OLR's complaint. The referee 

agreed with the parties that a two-year suspension of Attorney 

Meyer's license to practice law in Wisconsin is an appropriate 

level of discipline for the misconduct. The referee also 

recommended, consistent with the stipulation, that the court 
No. 2021AP1222-D 

2

impose the following conditions on Attorney Meyer's 

reinstatement:

a. Provide the OLR with signed releases for any mental 

health and alcohol and other drug abuse (AODA) 

treatment provider who is providing or has provided 

treatment to Attorney Meyer within the last four 

years prior to his filing of a reinstatement 

petition.

b. Provide proof of participation in mental health 

counseling.

c. Comply with all terms and conditions of his 

probation related to Milwaukee County Case 

No. 2019CF4573.

d. Provide documentation of the completion of an anger 

management program.

e. Provide documentation of the completion of a 

certified batterers' treatment program.

¶2 In addition, the referee recommended that Attorney 

Meyer's reinstatement be conditioned on his submitting to an 

examination by a psychiatric or psychological expert of the 

OLR's choosing who shall evaluate the effectiveness of Attorney 

Meyer's rehabilitation. Finally, the referee recommended that 

Attorney Meyer be assessed the full costs of this proceeding, 

which are $1,891.81 as of November 17, 2021. Attorney Meyer has 

filed an objection to the recommended costs.

¶3 While we accept the referee's factual findings and 

conclusions of law, we conclude Attorney Meyer's serious and 
No. 2021AP1222-D 

3

disturbing conduct, in which he used his position as an attorney 

to intimidate and threaten a woman with whom he had been in a 

relationship, warrants the revocation of his Wisconsin law 

license. In the event Attorney Meyer seeks the reinstatement of 

his license to practice law, we agree with the conditions 

recommended by the referee, except for the requirement that 

Attorney Meyer undergo a psychological or psychiatric 

examination. We deny Attorney Meyer's objection to costs and 

order him to pay the full costs of this proceeding.

¶4 Attorney Meyer was admitted to the practice of law in 

Wisconsin in 2012 and practices in Milwaukee. He has no prior 

disciplinary history.

¶5 On July 15, 2021, the OLR filed a complaint against 

Attorney Meyer alleging two counts of misconduct arising out of 

felony convictions for threatening to communicate derogatory 

information and stalking. The victim in the case was H.S., who 

had been in a dating relationship with Attorney Meyer. 

¶6 According to the OLR's complaint, in late October 

2017, H.S. broke off her approximately nine-month dating 

relationship with Attorney Meyer. Attorney Meyer subsequently 

engaged in a pattern of conduct aimed at H.S. to cause her to 

believe that Attorney Meyer would ruin her life, commit acts of 

violence against her and her family and friends, damage her 

property, interfere with future relationships she may have, and 

leave her without a job and money. Attorney Meyer also made 

threats to H.S. to ruin her reputation with her employer.
No. 2021AP1222-D 

4

¶7 On April 14, 2018, during an argument in Attorney 

Meyer's apartment, Attorney Meyer punched H.S. in the face, 

resulting in a concussion and facial bruising significant enough 

for her to miss approximately two weeks of work. At the time of 

this incident, Attorney Meyer and H.S. had separate apartments 

in the same building. H.S. returned to her apartment and called 

the police. When police arrived, H.S. informed them she did not 

want to pursue criminal charges because she feared Attorney 

Meyer.

¶8 On multiple occasions after April 2018, Attorney Meyer 

made unwelcome and persistent phone calls to H.S. On at least 

one occasion, he made in excess of 120 calls in one day. H.S. 

was employed as a physician assistant and was required to keep 

her phone on at all times. Attorney Meyer also sent H.S. 

hundreds of unwelcome email messages. He made threats of harm 

to her, appeared at her apartment unannounced, and refused to 

leave.

¶9 On March 2, 2019, Attorney Meyer threatened H.S. with 

violence in her apartment, and she barricaded herself in the 

bathroom. Attorney Meyer locked H.S. in the bathroom and she 

called police. She stated the bathroom door can be locked from 

the outside, and it cannot be easily unlocked from the inside. 

H.S. was able to free herself before the police arrived, and she 

again told police she did not want to press charges against 

Attorney Meyer because she was afraid of him.

¶10 Attorney Meyer also threatened to send negative 

information about H.S. to her employer, her family and friends, 
No. 2021AP1222-D 

5

and the news media if she did not perform various tasks for him. 

Those tasks included payments of debts he claimed to be owed, to 

reveal intimate details of H.S.'s relationships with others, and 

to have sex with Attorney Meyer.

¶11 In early June 2019, H.S. again attempted to break up 

with Attorney Meyer and cut off all communication with him. On 

June 23, 2019, Attorney Meyer followed H.S. into the underground 

parking garage of her apartment. At this time, Attorney Meyer 

and H.S. no longer lived in the same building. Attorney Meyer 

opened the door to H.S.'s car, yelled at her and poured an 

energy drink on her vehicle. H.S. reported this incident to 

police.

¶12 During and after the relationship, Attorney Meyer 

communicated his intent to harm H.S. by using criminal 

defendants to enact violence on her family and men Attorney 

Meyer believed she had been intimate with; by employing a 

private investigator to follow H.S.; and threatening to sue H.S. 

for $20,000 for posting a negative Google review of Attorney 

Meyer's law practice. Attorney Meyer repeatedly told H.S. he 

was insulated from legal consequences because of his position as 

a criminal defense lawyer.

¶13 On August 23, 2019, H.S. broke up with Attorney Meyer 

for the last time. During an argument in Attorney Meyer's 

apartment, Attorney Meyer grabbed H.S. by the back of her head, 

covered her mouth with his other hand and told her to shut up. 

H.S. tried to call 911, but Attorney Meyer broke her phone by 
No. 2021AP1222-D 

6

smashing it to the ground. He then pushed H.S., who fell and 

injured her elbow.

¶14 After August 23, 2019, H.S. received hundreds of text 

and email messages from Attorney Meyer despite H.S.'s requests 

that Attorney Meyer cease attempting to communicate with her.

¶15 The criminal investigation revealed an extremely high 

number of calls to H.S. from blocked phone numbers in rapid 

succession, including from phone numbers listed to Attorney 

Meyer. On October 8, 2019, H.S. received 68 calls from blocked 

or spoofed phone numbers, 41 WhatsApp text messages, 12 WhatsApp 

phone/video calls, and 12 emails from Attorney Meyer.

¶16 By using SpoofCard, Attorney Meyer was able to call 

and send H.S. text messages that appeared to be sent from other 

numbers in her contact list, such as friends and family.

¶17 During and after the relationship, Attorney Meyer 

threatened to damage and did, in fact, damage H.S.'s vehicle. 

On October 4, 2019, H.S. received emails and texts from Attorney 

Meyer saying there was damage to her vehicle. H.S. later 

observed that her vehicle had a flat tire and dents on the 

passenger side. She reported this incident to the police. 

¶18 Attorney Meyer told H.S. he had a key to her apartment 

despite the fact she had never given him one.

¶19 On October 6, 2019, Attorney Meyer sent H.S. a photo 

of the screen of his laptop, showing a draft email he had 

created appearing to be sent from H.S.'s father's email address. 

The email purporting to be from H.S.'s father, but in fact 

drafted by Attorney Meyer, alleged that H.S. had violated Health 
No. 2021AP1222-D 

7

Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) by 

discussing confidential patient information in public, and 

claimed that H.S.'s father had an audio recording of this. 

¶20 Subsequent text messages from Attorney Meyer to H.S. 

threatened to send the email to H.S.'s employer if H.S. did not 

give into Attorney Meyer's demands. Attorney Meyer later sent 

the email to H.S.'s employer. The email indicated that H.S.'s 

father desired to meet the employer and turn over an audio 

recording in which H.S. allegedly discussed confidential patient 

information in public. No such audio recording existed.

¶21 On October 15, 2019, Attorney Meyer was charged with 

four felonies: substantial battery, threatening to communicate 

derogatory information, intimidation of a victim, and stalking. 

During plea discussions, Attorney Meyer's attorney submitted a 

settlement offer and a packet of documents to the assistant 

district attorney (ADA) who was prosecuting Attorney Meyer. The 

packet included character reference letters. The ADA rejected 

Attorney Meyer's attorney's settlement offer. Attorney Meyer's 

attorney then sent the same packet of documents to the district 

attorney and the deputy chief district attorney. One of the 

reference letters in the packet purported to be from Sergio 

Rodriguez, who worked at Attorney Meyer's apartment building. 

Another purportedly was from Noah Taylor, a friend of Attorney 

Meyer. The criminal investigation concluded that the two

character letters purportedly authored by Rodriguez and Taylor 

had in fact been fabricated by Attorney Meyer. Rodriguez and 

Taylor both denied writing letters on Attorney Meyer's behalf. 
No. 2021AP1222-D 

8

As part of the final plea agreement, the State agreed not to 

issue bail jumping charges for obstruction of justice based on 

the fabricated letters. 

¶22 On June 24, 2020, Attorney Meyer pled guilty to felony 

charges of threatening to communicate derogatory information and 

stalking. The substantial battery and intimidation of a victim 

charges were dismissed. On July 30, 2020, Attorney Meyer was 

sentenced to 18 months of initial confinement and two years of 

extended supervision, which sentence was stayed, on the 

threatening to communicate derogatory information charge. He 

was sentenced to one year of straight time in the House of 

Corrections on the stalking charge. 

¶23 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 

misconduct:

Count 1: By engaging in conduct leading to a felony 

conviction of threatening to communicate derogatory 

information, and by engaging in conduct leading to a 

felony conviction of stalking, Attorney Meyer in each 

instance violated Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 20:8.4(b).1

Count 2: By creating fabricated character reference 

letters for submission to the district attorney's 

office during plea negotiations, Attorney Meyer 

violated SCR 20:8.4(c).2

 

1 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides: It is professional misconduct for 

a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 

lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 

other respects.

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

a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 

deceit or misrepresentation.
No. 2021AP1222-D 

9

¶24 James Friedman was appointed referee on August 4, 

2021. Attorney Meyer filed a motion for substitution of referee 

on August 9, 2021. The motion was granted, and the Honorable 

Jean A. DiMotto was appointed referee on August 10, 2021. On 

October 8, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation in which 

Attorney Meyer pled no contest to the two counts of misconduct 

alleged in the OLR's complaint. Attorney Meyer agreed that the 

referee could use the allegations of the complaint as an 

adequate factual basis to support the allegations of misconduct. 

The parties agreed that the appropriate level of discipline to 

be imposed for Attorney Meyer's misconduct was a two-year 

suspension of his Wisconsin law license, with various conditions 

for reinstatement.

¶25 The referee issued her report and recommendation on 

October 28, 2021. The referee adopted the allegations in the 

complaint as her findings of fact, and she found that by 

engaging in conduct leading to a felony conviction of 

threatening to communicate derogatory information, and by 

engaging in conduct leading to a felony conviction of stalking, 

Attorney Meyer violated SCR 20:8.4(b) and that by creating 

fabricated reference letters for submission to the district 

attorney's office during plea negotiations, Attorney Meyer 

violated SCR 20:8.4(c).

¶26 The referee said she was satisfied a two-year 

suspension of Attorney Meyer's license to practice law was an 

appropriate level of discipline. In addition, the referee said: 
No. 2021AP1222-D 

10

I note that Respondent Meyer's misconduct here is of 

an obsessive and character-disordered nature. This 

causes me concern about the effectiveness of 

Respondent Meyer's rehabilitation and the potential 

impact on the safety of the public should he be 

reinstated. 

¶27 As a result of the referee's concern, she added a 

recommendation to those contained in the stipulation, which was 

that Attorney Meyer submit to an examination by a psychiatric or 

psychological expert of the OLR's choosing who shall evaluate 

the effectiveness of Attorney Meyer's rehabilitation. 

¶28 No appeal has been filed from the referee's report, so 

our review proceeds under SCR 22.17(2). In conducting our 

review, we uphold a referee's findings of fact unless they are 

shown to be clearly erroneous, and we review the referee's 

conclusions of law de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 

N.W.2d 718. We determine the appropriate level of discipline to 

be imposed under the circumstances, independent of the referee's 

recommendation. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.

¶29 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 

of fact, which are derived from the parties' stipulation, are 

clearly erroneous and we adopt them. We also agree with the 

referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Meyer violated the 

Supreme Court Rules set forth above.

¶30 We now turn to the appropriate level of discipline for 

Attorney Meyer's misconduct. After careful review of the 
No. 2021AP1222-D 

11

record, we conclude that revocation of Attorney Meyer's license 

to practice law in Wisconsin is the appropriate sanction.

¶31 "Revocation of an attorney's license to practice law 

is the most severe sanction this court can impose. It is 

reserved for the most egregious cases." In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Cooper, 2013 WI 97, ¶34, 351 Wis. 2d 350, 

839 N.W.2d 857. This is one of those cases.

¶32 The undisputed facts show a clear pattern of Attorney 

Meyer using his position as an attorney to intimidate and 

threaten H.S. On more than one occasion, Attorney Meyer 

physically assaulted H.S. One of the assaults resulted in 

injuries serious enough to cause H.S. to miss approximately two 

weeks of work. On more than one occasion, although police were 

called, H.S. said she did not want to pursue criminal charges 

because she was afraid of Attorney Meyer. 

¶33 Attorney Meyer made hundreds of unwelcome telephone 

calls and sent hundreds of unwelcome email messages to H.S. 

Many of the messages and calls were sent while H.S. was working 

in a position where she was required to keep her phone on at all 

times. Attorney Meyer threatened to send negative information 

about H.S. to her employer, her family and friends, and the news 

media if she did not do what he asked, including having sex with 

him. Attorney Meyer created a fake email that purported to be 

from H.S.'s father alleging that H.S. had committed HIPAA 

violations, threatened to send the email to H.S.'s employer if 

she did not give in to his demands, and did ultimately send the 

email to the employer. Attorney Meyer communicated his intent 
No. 2021AP1222-D 

12

to harm H.S. by using criminal defendants to inflict violence on 

her family and men with whom Attorney Meyer believed H.S. had 

been intimate. 

¶34 Attorney Meyer repeatedly told H.S. he was insulated 

from legal consequences because of his position as a criminal 

defense lawyer. When criminal charges were finally filed 

against him, Attorney Meyer falsified letters of reference and 

presented them to the district attorney in an effort to gain 

leniency. 

¶35 The facts of this case demonstrate a clear pattern of 

disturbing and egregious misconduct by Attorney Meyer and a 

complete and utter disregard for his obligations as an attorney. 

He has shown himself to be unwilling or unable to conform his 

conduct to the standards that are required to practice law in 

this state. No sanction short of revocation would be sufficient 

to protect the public, deter other lawyers from similar 

behavior, and impress upon Attorney Meyer the errors of his 

ways. 

¶36 We also agree with the referee that it is appropriate 

to impose certain conditions upon Attorney Meyer's 

reinstatement. The parties stipulated to a number of 

conditions, and the referee deemed it appropriate to add an 

additional condition, that Attorney Meyer's reinstatement be 

conditioned on his submission to an examination by a psychiatric 

or psychological expert of the OLR's choosing who shall evaluate 

the effectiveness of Attorney Meyer's rehabilitation. We 

decline to impose this condition. An additional psychiatric or 
No. 2021AP1222-D 

13

psychological evaluation is unlikely to be an effective way to 

determine whether Attorney Meyer is likely to reoffend.

¶37 Finally, we address the question of costs. It is this 

court's general policy to assess the full costs of a 

disciplinary proceeding against the attorney being disciplined. 

SCR 22.24(1m). After the OLR filed its statement on costs, 

which were $1,891.81 as of November 17, 2021, Attorney Meyer 

filed a timely objection to costs in which he argues that he 

should be relieved from paying costs because he and the OLR 

filed a stipulation soon after his motion for substitution of 

the originally appointed referee had been granted and Referee 

DiMotto was appointed successor referee. 

¶38 Attorney Meyer notes that the OLR has historically 

declined to seek costs in cases involving a full stipulation 

entered into prior to the appointment of a referee, and in those 

instances this court has declined to impose costs. Attorney 

Meyer notes that after Referee DiMotto was appointed, the 

parties asked that they be permitted to file a stipulation which 

would be submitted to the court without the need of involvement 

of the referee, but this request was declined and the matter was 

submitted to Referee DiMotto.

¶39 In its response to Attorney Meyer's objection to 

costs, the OLR notes that at the outset of this proceeding, 

prior to the filing of the complaint, the OLR notified Attorney 

Meyer's counsel of the opportunity to enter into a comprehensive 

SCR 22.12 stipulation prior to the appointment of a referee and 

that waiver of costs was possible in that situation. The OLR 
No. 2021AP1222-D 

14

states that after the disciplinary complaint was filed, Attorney 

Meyer never discussed stipulating to the charged misconduct and 

sanction sought by the OLR, until after a referee had been 

appointed, and the OLR notes that by the time the comprehensive 

stipulation was filed, both parties had been made aware that 

costs had been incurred. The OLR renews its original 

recommendation that the full costs of the proceeding be assessed 

against Attorney Meyer. In the alternative, it suggests that in 

the event this court chooses to exercise its discretion to 

reduce costs, that it at least assess the referee costs against 

Attorney Meyer.

¶40 We deny Attorney Meyer's objection to the assessment 

of costs and conclude that he should bear the full costs of this 

proceeding. As the OLR points out, Attorney Meyer had the 

opportunity to enter into a comprehensive stipulation prior to 

the appointment of a referee but chose not to do so. Although 

he did subsequently enter into a stipulation, by the time the 

stipulation was filed, costs had been incurred. 

¶41 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Matthew R. Meyer to 

practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective July 14, 2022.

¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a condition of the 

reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, 

Matthew R. Meyer shall be subject to the following conditions:

1. Provide proof of participation in mental health 

counseling.

2. Provide the Office of Lawyer Regulation with signed 

releases for any mental health and AODA treatment 
No. 2021AP1222-D 

15

provider who is or has been providing treatment to 

Matthew R. Meyer within the four years preceding any 

petition for reinstatement.

3. Provide documentation of the completion of an anger 

management program.

4. Provide documentation of the completion of a 

certified batterers' treatment program. 

5. Comply with all terms and conditions of his 

probation related to Milwaukee County Case 

No. 2019CF4573.

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

of this order, Matthew R. Meyer shall pay to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation the full costs of this proceeding, which are 

$1,891.81 as of November 17, 2021.

¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Matthew R. Meyer 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. 2021AP1222-D.akz

1

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

concur in the court's order revoking Attorney Meyer'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).

¶46 For the foregoing reason, I respectfully concur.

¶47 I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL 

BRADLEY and BRIAN HAGEDORN, join this concurrence.
No. 2021AP1222-D.awb

1

¶48 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (dissenting). The parties 

stipulated to a two-year suspension as discipline in this case 

and the referee was in accord, deeming a two-year suspension an 

"appropriate level of discipline for the misconduct." Per 

curiam, ¶1. Yet in this per curiam opinion, the majority 

concludes otherwise and imposes instead a revocation of license.

¶49 I write separately because the per curiam opinion 

fails to tether its chosen level of discipline to any discussion 

of precedent. It is unique in its approach. I do not recall 

ever seeing an Office of Lawyer Regulation disciplinary opinion

where we imposed discipline without citing to some precedent, 

using it as a basis of discussion for the level of discipline we 

impose. 

¶50 We often begin our discussion with the caveat that no 

two cases are alike1 but nevertheless the level of discipline 

imposed stays squarely within the confines of analogous prior 

cases. And, at other times, we acknowledge the existence of the 

precedent and explain our departure from it. Here the per 

curiam does neither.

¶51 No cases are cited in the per curiam to support its 

conclusion because there is no case to cite that supports a 

revocation. As a result, the imposition of a revocation seems 

rather arbitrary. If the two-year recommended suspension is not 

 

1 See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jones, 

2008 WI 53, ¶23, 309 Wis. 2d 585, 749 N.W.2d 603; In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Parks, 2018 WI 110, ¶67, 384 

Wis. 2d 635, 920 N.W.2d 505.
No. 2021AP1222-D.awb

2

sufficient for the majority, why not a three-year suspension, or 

four years instead?

¶52 In contrast, the memo which supported the two-year 

stipulation and which the referee commended to this court lists 

several cases supporting the two-year suspension recommendation.2 

Admittedly the conduct here is egregious, but the explication of 

bad facts cannot serve as an excuse for this court's failure to 

acknowledge that it is departing from precedent and then 

offering a reasoned explanation why.

¶53 I agree with the referee's recommendation because it 

is tethered to a discussion of precedent and offers a reasoned 

explanation for the imposition of a two-year suspension. 

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

 

2 In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Evenson, 2015 WI 

38, 361 Wis. 2d 629, 861 N.W.2d 786 (approving a stipulation to 

a 30-month suspension when the attorney was convicted of one 

felony count of delivery of a controlled substance and two 

misdemeanor counts of fourth degree sexual assault); In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ritland, 2021 WI 36, 396 

Wis. 2d 509, 957 N.W.2d 540 (ordering a two-year suspension when 

the attorney was convicted of two counts of attempted adultery 

and one count of disorderly conduct); In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Schreier, 2013 WI 35, 347 Wis. 2d 92, 829 

N.W.2d 744 (ordering a 30-month suspension based on 20 counts of 

misconduct, 14 of which were for misdemeanor and felony criminal 

convictions).
No. 2021AP1222-D.awb

1