Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. James M. Schoenecker
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2015AP000275-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: April 22, 2016

2016 WI 27 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
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. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SCHOENECKER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 22, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
CONCURRED/DISSENTED:              
 
ABRAHAMSON, J. concurs and dissents, joined by 
BRADLEY, A. W., J. 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 27
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  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, 
 
     v. 
 
James M. Schoenecker, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
APR 22, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding.    Attorney's license 
suspended.    
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of the referee, 
Attorney Hannah C. Dugan, recommending that the court suspend 
the Wisconsin law license of Attorney James M. Schoenecker for 
professional misconduct for a period of one year, effective 
February 10, 2015, which is the date the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) filed its complaint in this matter.   The 
No. 
2015AP275-D   
 
2 
 
referee 
also 
recommended 
that 
the 
court 
order 
Attorney 
Schoenecker to pay one-half of the costs of this disciplinary 
proceeding.  The referee wrote the report following the entry of 
a 
stipulation 
between 
Attorney 
Schoenecker 
and 
the 
OLR 
concerning Attorney Schoenecker's dishonest business activities 
as a member of a limited liability company that he helped to 
form.  Neither party has appealed from the referee's report and 
recommendation, and thus our review proceeds under Supreme Court 
Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney 
Schoenecker engaged in professional misconduct, and that the 
seriousness of this misconduct warrants a one-year suspension of 
Attorney Schoenecker's law license.  We part ways with the 
referee in holding that, given the timing and seriousness of 
Attorney Schoenecker's misconduct, the suspension of his law 
license should not be retroactive, but rather should be made 
effective as of the date of this order.  Finally, we agree with 
                                                 
1 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. 
2015AP275-D   
 
3 
 
the referee that Attorney Schoenecker should pay one-half of the 
OLR's $8,500.59 in costs, for a total of $4,250.30.   
¶3 
Attorney Schoenecker was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2004.  On July 15, 2011, we suspended Attorney 
Schoenecker's 
law 
license 
for 
misconduct 
that 
included 
attempting to defraud his client through law firm invoices; 
engaging in a pattern of attempted and completed thefts from his 
client's bank accounts, for which he pled guilty to one felony 
count of identity theft; and failing to inform his law firm 
employer that he had set up his own separate law firm on the 
side.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Schoenecker, 2011 
WI 
76, 
336 
Wis. 2d 253, 
804 
N.W.2d 686. 
The 
three-year 
suspension, which went into effect on August 15, 2011, would 
have ended on August 15, 2014.  Attorney Schoenecker's license 
remains suspended. 
¶4 
On February 10, 2015, the OLR filed a two-count 
complaint in this case, which alleged that Attorney Schoenecker 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, contrary to SCR 
10.03(4)(a)2 and SCR 22.26(2),3 as enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f),4 
                                                 
2 SCR 10.03(4)(a) provides:  "No individual other than an 
enrolled active member of the state bar may practice law in this 
state or in any manner purported to be authorized or qualified 
to practice law." 
3 SCR 22.26(2) provides:  "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." 
No. 
2015AP275-D   
 
4 
 
and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 2:8.4(c).5  Attorney 
Schoenecker answered and denied all misconduct.  In August 2015, 
the OLR amended its complaint by dropping the unauthorized 
practice of law charge, while maintaining the charge of engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation.  See SCR 20:8.4(c).   
¶5 
The OLR's amended complaint alleged, and the parties 
ultimately stipulated, that the misconduct in this case concerns 
Attorney Schoenecker's involvement in a business partnership 
that he entered into in 2012 with two other individuals, M.M. 
and T.H. Attorney Schoenecker, on behalf of himself and his 
partners, 
established 
a 
limited 
liability 
company 
named 
GameMaster, LLC.  Attorney Schoenecker drafted and filed the 
organizing documents, including the Articles of Organization and 
the Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement.   
¶6 
In May 2012, T.H. gave Attorney Schoenecker $25,000 in 
cash as his capital contribution. In August 2012, M.M. made a 
$20,000 capital contribution.  
                                                                                                                                                             
4 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to: . . . . (f) violate a statute, supreme court 
rule, supreme court order or supreme court decision regulating 
the conduct of lawyers." 
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to:  . . . . (c) engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2015AP275-D   
 
5 
 
¶7 
Attorney Schoenecker set up a business checking 
account in the name of GameMaster, LLC. The bank issued Attorney 
Schoenecker a bank card allowing him to charge to the account as 
well as withdraw funds.  Attorney Schoenecker also had the bank 
issue him an American Express corporate card to use for business 
expenses. 
¶8 
Attorney 
Schoenecker 
did 
not 
immediately 
deposit 
T.H.'s $25,000 cash contribution into any GameMaster, LLC 
account. Instead, Attorney Schoenecker deposited the bulk of 
T.H.'s cash into his own personal checking account. 
¶9 
The OLR conducted an investigation of the GameMaster, 
LLC business account statements for the period of May 30, 2012 
through October 2013. The investigation revealed that: 
(a) 
Attorney 
Schoenecker 
repeatedly 
charged 
personal 
expenses to the company. 
(b) Attorney Schoenecker repeatedly used company funds to 
pay his own credit card bills. 
(c) Attorney Schoenecker repeatedly wrote company checks to 
pay his own personal expenses. 
(d) Attorney Schoenecker used the company debit card to 
make ATM withdrawals at Potawatomi Casino. 
(e) 
Attorney 
Schoenecker 
repeatedly 
charged 
personal 
expenses to the company American Express card. 
(f) Attorney Schoenecker undertook use of company funds 
without preapproval from either of his business partners. 
(g) 
Attorney 
Schoenecker 
charged 
significant 
personal 
expenses to the GameMaster, LLC business account. Included in 
No. 
2015AP275-D   
 
6 
 
those expenses were charges to Potawatomi Casino, Apple iTunes, 
a cellular telephone company, and a variety of fast food, 
gasoline, and other businesses, all without preapproval from his 
partners. 
¶10 On September 2, 2015, the OLR and Attorney Schoenecker 
filed a stipulation whereby Attorney Schoenecker withdrew his 
answer to the original complaint and pled no contest to the 
single SCR 20:8.4(c) violation alleged in the OLR's amended 
complaint.  In so doing, Attorney Schoenecker agreed not to 
dispute the OLR's charge that, as Chief Executive Manager of 
GameMaster, LLC, he failed to account clearly or timely for 
capital contributions made by other members, withdrew excessive 
funds from GameMaster, LLC, and charged personal expenses to 
GameMaster, LLC, all without preapproval from his business 
partners, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).  Attorney Schoenecker 
and the OLR jointly recommended that the court order a one-year 
license suspension imposed retroactively to the date he became 
eligible 
for 
reinstatement 
from 
his 
earlier 
disciplinary 
suspension, August 15, 2014, so that his earliest reinstatement 
date would be in August 2015.  The stipulation did not explain 
the basis for the retroactive nature of the suspension. 
¶11 The referee filed her report and recommendation on 
December 3, 2015.  The referee found that Attorney Schoenecker 
had engaged in the one count of misconduct alleged in the OLR's 
amended complaint.  The referee agreed with the parties that a 
one-year license suspension was of appropriate length, citing In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cotter, 213 Wis. 2d 196, 570 
No. 
2015AP275-D   
 
7 
 
N.W.2d 248 (1997) as support.  While both the OLR and Attorney 
Schoenecker recommended a one-year suspension retroactive to 
August 15, 2014, the referee recommended that the one-year 
suspension should be retroactive to the filing date of the OLR's 
original 
complaint, 
February 
10, 
2015, 
so 
that 
Attorney 
Schoenecker's earliest reinstatement date would be in February 
2016.  The referee wrote that this court's most common 
justification for ordering a suspension to run retroactively——
that the misconduct occurred before or during the previous 
disciplinary proceeding——is not present here, as 
Attorney 
Schoenecker committed the misconduct here well after he was 
suspended in 2011.  However, the referee still proposed a 
retroactively imposed suspension on the ground that the OLR did 
not act with sufficient promptness in pursuing and resolving 
this matter, which in turn delayed Attorney Schoenecker from 
filing for reinstatement from his previous suspension. 
¶12 As stated earlier, no appeal has been filed, so this 
matter is submitted to the court pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).  A 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
are 
affirmed 
unless 
clearly 
erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 
Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. The court may impose whatever 
sanction it sees fit regardless 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. 
¶13 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact are erroneous. Accordingly, we adopt them.  We also 
No. 
2015AP275-D   
 
8 
 
agree with the referee's conclusion of law that Attorney 
Schoenecker 
violated 
SCR 
8.4(c). 
 
Attorney 
Schoenecker's 
repeated misuse of GameMaster, LLC business funds clearly 
involved deceit and misrepresentation in violation of that rule.   
¶14 We further agree with the referee that the level of 
discipline to which the parties stipulated, a one-year law 
license suspension, is appropriate.  We, like the referee, find 
support for this length of suspension in the case of Cotter.  In 
1992, we suspended Attorney Cotter for two years for, among 
other things, retaining client fees to which he was not 
entitled, neglecting a client's legal matter and the client's 
requests for information, and failing to file income tax returns 
for several years.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Cotter, 171 Wis. 2d 373, 491 N.W.2d 475 (1992).  As of 1997, 
Attorney Cotter's law license had not been reinstated. In a 1997 
disciplinary decision, this court found that Attorney Cotter had 
pled guilty to a criminal violation of the Motor Vehicle Code——
using a false name on an application for a license. Because this 
was a criminal act that reflected adversely on Attorney Cotter's 
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, this court 
suspended him for one year, effective the date of the order.  
See SCR 20:8.4(b);6 In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Cotter, 213 Wis. 2d 196, 570 N.W.2d 248 (1997).    
                                                 
6 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides:  It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to . . . . (b) commit a criminal act that reflects 
adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as 
a lawyer in other respects."   
No. 
2015AP275-D   
 
9 
 
¶15 The present case bears enough similarities to Cotter 
that we find its principles should apply here.  Both Attorney 
Cotter and Attorney Schoenecker had previously received lengthy 
suspensions related, at least in part, to dishonest behavior.  
After receiving these suspensions, and before being reinstated 
from these suspensions, both Attorney Cotter and Attorney 
Schoenecker engaged in additional dishonest behavior unrelated 
to the practice of law.  Attorney Cotter used a false name on an 
application for a driver's license; Attorney Schoenecker misused 
the funds of a limited liability company that he helped to form.  
By 
their 
actions, 
both 
lawyers 
displayed 
behaviors 
that 
reflected poorly on their honesty and integrity.  A one-year 
suspension 
for 
such 
behavior 
was 
within 
the 
range 
of 
reasonableness for Attorney Cotter, and the same holds true for 
Attorney Schoenecker. 
¶16 Notably, however, we imposed the one-year suspension 
prospectively in Cotter, 213 Wis. 2d at 199, and we deem it 
appropriate to do the same here.  It is troubling to this court 
that, 
under 
the 
slightly 
varying 
terms 
of 
the 
parties' 
stipulation 
and 
the 
referee's 
recommendation, 
Attorney 
Schoenecker's earliest reinstatement date (August 2015 and 
February 2016, respectively) would precede the release date of 
this decision.  We are convinced that Attorney Schoenecker's 
present misconduct, when viewed together with his previous 
misconduct, warrants a sanction that does more than permit him 
to petition to return to the practice of law the instant we 
decide this case. 
No. 
2015AP275-D   
 
10 
 
¶17 More to the point, we have previously held that a 
retroactive suspension is generally not favored in the absence 
of 
some 
"compelling 
circumstance," 
and 
we 
find 
no 
such 
compelling 
circumstance 
here. 
 
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Boyd, 2009 WI 59, ¶34, 318 Wis. 2d 281, 767 
N.W.2d 226.  Importantly, this is not a case where the present 
misconduct occurred before or at the same time as the respondent 
attorney's misconduct in a previous case, such that it might be 
equitable for the new license suspension to be made retroactive 
to the end of the prior suspension.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Cooper, 2013 WI 55, ¶25, 348 Wis. 2d 266, 
833 N.W.2d 88; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against and 
Reinstatement of Mandelman, 182 Wis. 2d 583, 592, 514 N.W.2d 11 
(1994).  
¶18 Rather, 
Attorney 
Schoenecker 
dishonestly 
handled 
business funds well after his 2011 suspension for what we 
described as "a disturbing series of illegal and dishonest 
actions, which were designed to benefit him financially to the 
injury of his client, his law firm employer, and his creditors."  
Schoenecker, 336 Wis. 2d 253, ¶27.  In our previous decision, we 
warned Attorney Schoenecker that, in order to practice law again 
in this state, he needed to demonstrate that "he has a proper 
understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are 
imposed upon members of the bar in this state and that he will 
act in conformity with those standards."  Id.  Attorney 
Schoenecker's response to that warning was to engage in what the 
referee here described as "serious and repeated violations" of 
No. 
2015AP275-D   
 
11 
 
SCR 20:8.4(c) which "mirrored, in part, . . . the misconduct 
that resulted in Attorney Schoenecker's three year suspension."   
¶19 In his filings with the referee, Attorney Schoenecker 
argued that a one-year suspension "is only made reasonable as 
'time 
served'" 
because 
he 
has 
postponed 
petitioning 
for 
reinstatement while the OLR investigated and litigated this 
matter.  We are not convinced by this argument.  We do not doubt 
Attorney Schoenecker's assertion that the pendency of the 
instant action led him to believe it would have been futile for 
him to petition for reinstatement after his earlier suspension 
ended.  We also do not doubt Attorney Schoenecker's assertion 
that the instant action took longer to resolve than he would 
have preferred.  But Attorney Schoenecker cannot properly demand 
credit for the time it took his case to work its way through the 
disciplinary process when:  (1) there is no evidence that the 
No. 
2015AP275-D   
 
12 
 
OLR failed to diligently prosecute this matter;7 and (2) Attorney 
Schoenecker's behavior post-dates and runs counter to the clear 
warning we gave him in 2011 that he must live up to the ethical 
standards of the profession.  Thus, we conclude that Attorney 
Schoenecker's 
one-year 
suspension 
should 
be 
prospective, 
commencing from the date of this decision. 
¶20 We next turn to the issue of costs.  The referee 
recommends that this court impose half of the OLR's $8,500.59 in 
costs, primarily because the OLR dropped one of the two counts 
stated in its original complaint and reduced the recommended 
sanction from revocation to a one-year suspension.  Both the OLR 
and Attorney Schoenecker agree with this recommendation.     
¶21 We agree with the referee and the parties that an 
assessment of one-half of the costs in this matter is 
appropriate.  In exercising our discretion regarding the 
                                                 
7 The referee wrote in her report that the less-than-seven-
month span between the OLR's filing of the original complaint 
(February 10, 2015) and the parties' entry into a stipulation 
(September 2, 2015) was a "significant period[] of time for 
[Attorney Schoenecker] to wait for OLR to 'make its case' or to 
resolve a grievance."  To the extent this statement can be 
construed as a criticism of the pace of the prosecution, we do 
not share the referee's view.  The parties' filings with the 
referee inform us that the OLR's retained counsel reviewed 
GameMaster, LLC's financial records, interviewed witnesses, 
consulted with an expert, and deposed Attorney Schoenecker.  
Attorney Schoenecker's counsel took the depositions of Attorney 
Schoenecker's two business partners.  Based on the parties' 
evolving understanding of the facts, the OLR amended its 
complaint and the parties negotiated the stipulation that formed 
the basis for the referee report now before us.  A less-than-
seven-month period for accomplishing these tasks does not strike 
us as dilatory. 
No. 
2015AP275-D   
 
13 
 
assessment of costs, we consider the following factors: (a) the 
number of counts charged, contested, and proven; (b) the nature 
of the misconduct; (c) the level of discipline sought by the 
parties and recommended by the referee; (d) the respondent's 
cooperation with the disciplinary process; (e) prior discipline, 
if any; and (f) other relevant circumstances.  See SCR 
22.24(1m).8 
¶22 Applying 
these 
factors, 
we 
observe 
that 
SCRs 
22.24(1m)(a), (b), (c), and (d) weigh in favor of a reduction in 
                                                 
8 SCR 22.24(1m) provides as follows: 
(1m) The court's general policy is that upon a 
finding of misconduct it is appropriate to impose all 
costs, including the expenses of counsel for the 
office of lawyer regulation, upon the respondent.  In 
some cases the court may, in the exercise of its 
discretion, reduce the amount of costs imposed upon a 
respondent.  In exercising its discretion regarding 
the assessment of costs, the court will consider the 
statement of costs, any objection and reply, the 
recommendation 
of 
the 
referee, 
and 
all 
of 
the 
following factors:   
 
(a) the number of counts charged, contested, and 
proven.  
 
(b) The nature of the misconduct. 
 
(c) The level of discipline sought by the parties 
and recommended by the referee.  
 
(d) 
The 
respondent's 
cooperation 
with 
the 
disciplinary process.  
 
(e) Prior discipline, if any. 
 
(f) Other relevant circumstances.  
No. 
2015AP275-D   
 
14 
 
costs.  The original complaint alleged two counts of misconduct 
and sought revocation of Attorney Schoenecker's license to 
practice law.  Consistent with the parties' stipulation, the 
referee concluded, and we agree, that Attorney Schoenecker 
committed one count of misconduct, warranting a one-year 
suspension.  These facts suggest that Attorney Schoenecker's 
misconduct, 
while 
serious, 
was 
of 
a 
lesser 
nature 
than 
originally alleged.  We note, too, that the OLR reports that 
Attorney Schoenecker was cooperative with the disciplinary 
process.  SCR 22.24(1m)(d).   
¶23 A few facts weigh against a reduction in costs.  One 
is that Attorney Schoenecker has once before received a lengthy 
disciplinary suspension.  Another is that there is no evidence 
that the charges in the OLR's original complaint were wholly 
without prosecutorial merit or that the OLR's costs in pursuing 
those charges were unreasonable or unnecessary.  
¶24 Ultimately, we agree with the referee and the parties 
that a one-half reduction in costs is warranted.  Our 
determination is not the result of the application of a precise 
mathematical formula, but is based on our thorough consideration 
No. 
2015AP275-D   
 
15 
 
of the record, the manner in which this case developed, and the 
factors set forth in SCR 22.24(1m).9 
¶25 The OLR does not seek restitution, so we award none. 
¶26 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James M. Schoenecker 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one 
year, effective the date of this order. 
¶27 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 one-half of the costs of this proceeding. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
already done so, James M. Schoenecker shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
 
 
 
                                                 
9 We note that, on February 22, 2016, the referee filed a 
"Supplementary Statement of Fees," in which she requested 
$413.02 
for 
her 
time 
spent 
preparing 
a 
"Report 
and 
Recommendation on Costs," filed on February 18, 2016.  We 
decline this request.  The referee's costs report, which 
recommended a one-half costs assessment, was belated and 
duplicative of both her December 3, 2015 report and the parties' 
shared position on costs.   
No.  2015AP275-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
 
¶29 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   (concurring in part and 
dissenting in part).  I join all but footnote 9 of the opinion 
of the court.  I would grant the fees requested by the referee 
in her "Supplementary Statement of Fees."  
¶30 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY joins this opinion. 
 
 
No.  2015AP275-D.ssa 
 
 
 
1