Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Patrick S. Sweeney
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2015AP001370-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 19, 2019

2019 WI 13 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP1370-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  Patrick S. Sweeney, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Patrick S. Sweeney, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SWEENEY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 19, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2019 WI 13
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2015AP1370-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Patrick S. Sweeney, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Patrick S. Sweeney, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 19, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee, James C. Boll, that Attorney Patrick S. Sweeney's 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
should 
be 
revoked 
due 
to 
his 
professional misconduct.  The referee also recommended that 
Attorney Sweeney be ordered to pay restitution consistent with 
the terms of an order imposed in a related criminal matter, and 
pay the costs of this proceeding which are $10,338.75 as of 
No. 
2015AP1370-D   
 
2 
 
August 17, 2018.  Attorney Sweeney opted not to pursue an appeal 
of the referee's report and recommendation.1     
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and agree that the seriousness of Attorney 
Sweeney's professional misconduct warrants the revocation of his 
law license.  We further agree that he should pay restitution, 
as recommended by the referee, and that he should pay the costs 
of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Sweeney was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1992.  He practiced in the Madison area.  He has 
not previously been subject to professional discipline but his 
law license is presently administratively suspended for failing 
to pay state bar dues and failing to certify his compliance with 
trust account record keeping requirements. 
¶4 
On July 10, 2015, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint alleging that Attorney 
Sweeney committed five counts of professional misconduct and 
seeking revocation of his law license.  Attorney Sweeney filed 
an answer and this court appointed Referee James C. Boll.  
¶5 
The disciplinary proceeding was adjourned several 
times.  On January 6, 2017, after Attorney Sweeney was indicted 
on related criminal charges, the referee determined there was 
                                                 
1 Attorney Sweeney initially filed a timely notice of appeal 
of the referee's recommendation.  However, on December 10, 2018, 
Attorney Sweeney advised the court that he would not pursue his 
appeal.  Accordingly, the court considers this matter as a 
review of the referee's report under SCR 22.17(2). 
No. 
2015AP1370-D   
 
3 
 
cause to defer the matter pending resolution of the related 
federal criminal prosecution.  See United States v. Sweeney, 
No. 16-CR-103 (W.D. Wis. 2017); SCR 22.41.     
¶6 
The federal indictment alleged that from March 2007 
until March 2011, Attorney Sweeney devised a scheme to defraud 
three limited liability companies in which he held a member's 
ownership interest.  Attorney Sweeney approached the co-members 
of the companies and proposed that the companies loan $105,000 
to $115,000 to a friend of Attorney Sweeney.  The loan was 
purportedly secured by a home mortgage.  Attorney Sweeney did 
not loan the money to his friend, but instead converted the 
funds to his own use.   
¶7 
The indictment alleged that Attorney Sweeney drew 
checks 
totaling 
approximately 
$420,000 
on 
the 
companies' 
checking accounts.  When asked for the original promissory note, 
Attorney Sweeney provided a false document bearing the forged 
signature of his friend.  The indictment also alleged that on 
February 14, 2013, Sweeney made a false declaration in a 
bankruptcy matter when he submitted a sworn "List of Creditors" 
that falsely listed the embezzled funds as "loans to debtor" in 
an effort to obtain a discharge in bankruptcy of his obligation 
to repay the funds he had embezzled.  Finally, the indictment 
alleged that in March 2011, Attorney Sweeney committed identify 
theft during and in relation to the alleged scheme to defraud.  
¶8 
Attorney Sweeney ultimately entered a guilty plea to 
Count Two, the bankruptcy charge.  On November 17, 2017, the 
federal court sentenced Attorney Sweeney to five years of 
No. 
2015AP1370-D   
 
4 
 
probation, with the first year on home confinement, and ordered 
him to pay restitution of $481,970.  See Sweeney, 16-CR-103 
(W.D. Wis. 2017). 
¶9 
Shortly after Attorney Sweeney's federal sentencing 
hearing, Referee Boll scheduled a status conference in this 
disciplinary proceeding.  On January 22, 2018, the parties 
advised the referee that Attorney Sweeney had agreed to 
stipulate to the underlying counts of the disciplinary complaint 
and that both parties would submit briefs on the question of the 
appropriate sanction. 
¶10 On 
January 
31, 
2018, 
the 
parties 
executed 
a 
stipulation in which Attorney Sweeney withdrew his answer and 
pled no contest to each of the five allegations of misconduct 
alleged in the OLR's disciplinary complaint.  The parties agreed 
that the disciplinary complaint, the record in the federal 
criminal prosecution, and the terms of the stipulation could 
serve as the factual basis for the referee's factual findings 
and determination of misconduct.  
¶11 In the stipulation, Attorney Sweeney stated that he 
understood the misconduct allegations, his rights to contest the 
misconduct allegations and the factual basis for them, that his 
entry into this stipulation was made knowingly, voluntarily, 
without coercion, and without the benefit of any negotiations 
for a reduction in either charges or sanctions in this matter. 
He stipulated that his entry into the stipulation represents his 
admission to all of the misconduct charged in the OLR's 
complaint. 
No. 
2015AP1370-D   
 
5 
 
¶12 Both 
parties 
filed 
briefs 
on 
the 
question 
of 
sanctions.  The OLR maintains that revocation is warranted.  
Attorney Sweeney requested a one-year suspension of his law 
license. 
¶13 On July 30, 2018, Referee Boll filed a report, stating 
that based on the record he found by clear, satisfactory, and 
convincing evidence, that Attorney Sweeney violated the rules of 
professional conduct as alleged.  We summarize that professional 
misconduct here. 
¶14 First, the parties stipulated that on December 9, 
2013, while his law license was administratively suspended, 
Attorney Sweeney filed an answer on behalf of a defendant in a 
pending civil proceeding.  See Board of Regents of the 
University v. The Consciousness Project, Inc., Dane County 
Circuit Court, No. 2013CV3383.  The referee concluded that by 
appearing on behalf of the defendant and thereafter filing an 
answer, affirmative defense, and counterclaims in the case 
during the period of time his license was suspended, Attorney 
Sweeney violated SCR 10.03(6)2 and former SCR 20:1.15(i)(4),3 
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f)4 (Count One).   
                                                 
2 SCR 10.03(6) provides:  
Penalty for nonpayment of dues.  If the annual 
dues or assessments of any member remain unpaid 120 
days after the payment is due, the membership of the 
member may be suspended in the manner provided in the 
bylaws; and no person whose membership is so suspended 
for nonpayment of dues or assessments may practice law 
during the period of the suspension. 
No. 
2015AP1370-D   
 
6 
 
¶15 Next, the parties stipulated and the referee concluded 
that by drafting a Promissory Note to the Fairview Entities 
while he served as its managing member and had in the past 
represented the Fairview Entities, and thereafter by signing his 
friend's 
name 
to 
the 
Promissory 
Note, 
then 
personally 
guaranteeing and signing the Promissory Note as guarantor, 
Attorney Sweeney violated SCR 20:1.7(a)(2)5 (Count Two). 
                                                                                                                                                             
3 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to 
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule."  See 
S. Ct. Order 14-07, 2016 WI 21 (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 
1, 2016).  Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior 
to July 1, 2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to 
the supreme court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 
1, 2016. 
Former SCR 20:1.15(i)(4) provided: 
 
The failure of a state bar member to file the 
certificate is grounds for automatic suspension of the 
member's membership in the state bar in the same 
manner provided in SCR 10.03(6) for non payment of 
dues. 
 
The 
filing 
of 
a 
false 
certificate 
is 
unprofessional conduct and is grounds for disciplinary 
action. 
4 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." 
5 SCR 20:1.7(a)(2) provides:   
 
Except as provided in par. (b), a lawyer shall 
not represent a client if the representation involves 
a concurrent conflict of interest.  A concurrent 
conflict of interest exists if there is a significant 
risk that the representation of one or more clients 
will 
be 
materially 
limited 
by 
the 
lawyer's 
responsibilities to another client, a former client or 
(continued) 
No. 
2015AP1370-D   
 
7 
 
¶16 The parties stipulated and the referee concluded that 
by misappropriating funds of the Fairview Entities for his own 
personal use, Attorney Sweeney violated SCR 20:8.4(c)6 (Count 
Three). 
¶17 The parties stipulated and the referee concluded that 
by representing to other members of the Fairview Entities, while 
he served as its managing member, that the Fairview Entities had 
provided loans to his friend when in fact, the loan funds were 
dispersed to him for his own personal use without the knowledge 
or authorization of the other members, Attorney Sweeney again 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c) (Count Four). 
¶18 Finally, the parties stipulated and the referee 
concluded that by failing to pay filing fees in the bankruptcy 
case, even after receiving orders from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court 
Clerk 
ordering 
him 
to 
do 
so, 
Attorney 
Sweeney 
violated 
SCR 20:3.4(c)7 (Count Five). 
¶19 After making a determination of misconduct as to all 
five 
counts 
summarized 
above, 
the 
referee 
evaluated 
the 
appropriate discipline for Attorney Sweeney.  Attorney Sweeney 
                                                                                                                                                             
a third person or by a personal interest of the 
lawyer. 
6 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation."   
7 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2015AP1370-D   
 
8 
 
had argued that a one-year suspension of his law license would 
suffice, asserting that he was not dishonest and did not have 
selfish motives.  He urged the referee to consider several 
mitigating factors.  The referee agreed that the absence of 
previous discipline was one mitigating factor, but rejected 
Attorney Sweeney's request that the referee consider other 
mitigating factors.  As the referee observed, Attorney Sweeney 
sought to introduce facts beyond the scope of the agreed upon 
record, and also failed to explain how these factors relate to 
his admitted misconduct.   
¶20 The referee rejected Attorney Sweeney's argument that 
a one-year suspension was adequate.  He was not swayed by 
Attorney Sweeney's apparent perception that he was treated 
harshly by the federal court, and observed that Attorney Sweeney 
provided no Wisconsin case law to support his proposal.   
¶21 The 
referee 
determined 
that 
Attorney 
Sweeney's 
misconduct 
was 
of 
a 
very 
serious 
nature 
that 
warranted 
revocation.  Indeed, the referee concluded that Attorney 
Sweeney's conduct was even more egregious than the conduct 
described in the cases offered by the OLR in support of its 
request 
for 
revocation. 
 
See, 
e.g., 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceeding Against Edgar, 230 Wis. 2d 205, 601 N.W.2d 284 (1999) 
(suspending lawyer for two years for converting $11,000 from a 
sale of a client's house to pay her own personal expenses); In 
re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Carter, 2014 WI 126, 359 
Wis. 2d 70, 856 N.W.2d 595 (suspending lawyer for three years 
for converting approximately $72,000 of client's funds held in 
No. 
2015AP1370-D   
 
9 
 
trust 
and 
attempting 
to 
conceal 
the 
conversion); 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Krombach, 2005 WI 170, 286 
Wis. 2d 589, 707 N.W.2d 146 (revoking lawyer's license for 
engaging in a series of conversions of a client's trust funds 
and for making misleading representations and providing an 
inaccurate accounting to the OLR).  The referee further 
recommends that we order Attorney Sweeney to comply with the 
restitution order imposed against him in the federal criminal 
case, and order Attorney Sweeney to pay the costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶22 The OLR did not appeal from the referee report, and, 
as mentioned earlier, Attorney Sweeney opted not to pursue an 
appeal.  Accordingly, this court's review proceeds pursuant to 
SCR 22.17(2).8  In conducting our review, we will affirm the 
referee's findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly 
erroneous, and we will review the referee's conclusions of law 
on a de novo basis.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  We 
may impose whatever sanction we see fit regardless of the 
                                                 
8 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 
 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2015AP1370-D   
 
10 
 
referee's recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶23 Based upon our review of the record, we accept the 
referee's findings and conclusions of law in this matter and 
agree that Attorney Sweeney committed the five counts of 
professional misconduct, as alleged. We determine that the 
seriousness of Attorney Sweeney's misconduct demonstrates that 
his law license must be revoked to protect the public, courts, 
and legal system from the repetition of the misconduct; to 
impress upon Attorney Sweeney the seriousness of his misconduct; 
and 
to 
deter 
other 
attorneys 
from 
engaging 
in 
similar 
misconduct.  We further accept the referee's recommendation that 
we order Attorney Sweeney to comply with the restitution order 
imposed on him in the federal court in the amount of $481,970, 
and we impose the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding on 
Attorney Sweeney. 
¶24 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Patrick S. Sweeney to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order.  
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Patrick S. Sweeney shall 
comply with the restitution order imposed on him in United States 
v. Sweeney, 16-CR-103 (W.D. Wis. 2017), in the amount of 
$481,970.   
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Patrick S. Sweeney pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which are 
$10,338.75 as of August 17, 2018.  
No. 
2015AP1370-D   
 
11 
 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Patrick S. Sweeney comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law has been revoked. 
 
No. 
2015AP1370-D   
 
 
 
1