Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael L. Rhees
Citation: 2003 WI 110
Docket Number: 2003AP001148-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 9, 2003

2003 WI 110 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-1148-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael L. Rhees, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael L. Rhees,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RHEES 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 9, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 110 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This order is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The 
final version will appear in the 
bound volume of the official 
reports.   
 
 
 
No.  03-1148-D  
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael L. Rhees, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael L. Rhees,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 9, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Court entered the following order on this date: 
 
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Michael 
L. Rhees have stipulated, pursuant to SCR 22.12, for reciprocal 
discipline under SCR 22.22. 
 
Attorney Rhees has been licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin and Arizona since 1984.  His Wisconsin license was 
suspended 
in 
1989 
for 
noncompliance 
with 
CLE 
reporting 
requirements and remains suspended at present. 
 
Pursuant to a November 7, 2001 order of the Supreme Court 
of Arizona, Attorney Rhees’ license in that state was suspended 
for four months, retroactive to April 20, 2001.  He was found to 
have violated Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct and Arizona 
Supreme Court Rules relating to knowingly making a false 
statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; practicing law 
in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the 
No. 03-1148-D  
 
2 
legal profession in that jurisdiction; engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and 
willfully disobeying a court order.  These violations arose out 
of Attorney Rhees’ continued practice of law after his  Arizona 
license was suspended in 1998 for CLE violations. 
 
OLR has also charged Attorney Rhees with one count of 
violating SCR 22.22(1) which states that failure by an attorney 
who has been disciplined in another state to notify OLR of such 
discipline within 20 days constitutes misconduct. 
 
SCR 22.22(3) provides that this court shall impose the 
identical discipline or license suspension unless the procedure 
in the 
other 
jurisdiction 
was so 
lacking 
in 
notice or 
opportunity to be heard as to constitute a due process 
violation; there was such an infirmity of proof establishing the 
misconduct that this court should not accept as final the 
misconduct finding; or the misconduct justifies substantially 
different discipline here.  Neither OLR nor Attorney Rhees 
contend, nor does this court find, that any of these three 
exceptions exist. 
 
This court further finds, pursuant to the stipulation, that 
Attorney Rhees has violated SCR 22.22(1); 
 
Finally, although the stipulation requests this court to 
retroactively set the suspension to commence April 20, 2001, 
this court declines to do so; 
 
Accordingly, 
 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Michael L. Rhees 
to practice law in the State of Wisconsin be suspended for four 
months from the date of this order. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this suspension does not affect 
the 
existing 
1989 
suspension 
for 
noncompliance 
with 
CLE 
reporting requirements which would also have to be satisfied in 
order for his license to practice law in Wisconsin to be 
reinstated. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that he shall comply, if he has not 
already done so, with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining 
to activities following suspension. 
 
 
No. 03-1148-D  
 
2