Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Laura R. Schwefel
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2022AP000673-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 26, 2022

2022 WI 35 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2022AP673-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Laura R. Schwefel, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Laura R. Schwefel, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SCHWEFEL  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 26, 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.  
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2022 WI 35
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2022AP673-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Laura R. Schwefel, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Laura R. Schwefel, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
MAY 26, 2022 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Laura R. Schwefel has filed a 
petition for the consensual revocation of her license to 
practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 
22.19.1  In her petition Attorney Schwefel states that she cannot 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.19 provides:   
(1) An 
attorney 
who 
is 
the 
subject 
of 
an 
investigation 
for 
possible 
misconduct 
or 
the 
respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme 
court a petition for the revocation by consent or his 
or her license to practice law. 
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
2 
 
successfully defend against multiple allegations of misconduct 
in connection with a grievance investigated by the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR).   
¶2 
Attorney Schwefel was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1995.  Her current mailing address is in Sussex, 
Wisconsin.  Attorney Schwefel's disciplinary history consists of 
a public reprimand issued in 2014.  Public Reprimand of Laura R. 
Schwefel, 
No. 
2014-6 
(electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002676.html). 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) The petition shall state that the petitioner 
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of 
misconduct.  
(3) If a complaint has not been filed, the 
petition shall be filed in the supreme court and shall 
include the director's summary of the misconduct 
allegations being investigated.  Within 20 days after 
the date of filing of the petition, the director shall 
file in the supreme court a recommendation on the 
petition. Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme 
court may extend the time for filing a recommendation.  
(4) If a complaint has been filed, the petition 
shall be filed in the supreme court and served on the 
director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has 
been assigned. Within 20 days after the filing of the 
petition, the director shall file in the supreme court 
a response in support of or in opposition to the 
petition and serve a copy on the referee.  Upon a 
showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend 
the time for filing a response.  The referee shall 
file a report and recommendation on the petition in 
the supreme court within 30 days after receipt of the 
director's response. 
(5) The supreme court shall grant the petition 
and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or 
deny the petition and remand the matter to the 
director or to the referee for further proceedings. 
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
3 
 
¶3 
Attached 
to 
Attorney 
Schwefel's 
petition 
for 
revocation by consent is a copy of the disciplinary complaint 
that the OLR intended to file against her.  The six counts of 
misconduct set forth in the complaint all arise out of Attorney 
Schwefel's relationship with H.K., an elderly woman born in 
1931.  H.K.'s husband died in 2003.  H.K. met Attorney Schwefel 
around 2007 while both were visiting Florida.  After H.K. 
returned to Wisconsin, the two women formed a friendship and 
went on social outings and vacations together. 
¶4 
Sometime between 2007 and 2009, Attorney Schwefel 
introduced H.K. to Attorney Sandra Ruffalo.  H.K. and Attorney 
Ruffalo also formed a friendship that included social outings 
and visits in Wisconsin and Florida.   
¶5 
As of November 2009, H.K. was living independently in 
a condominium that she owned in Mequon, Wisconsin.  In or about 
November 2009, H.K. suffered a capillary stroke that required 
hospitalization.  After a few days in a hospital, she moved to a 
rehabilitation facility.  While H.K. was hospitalized or in the 
rehabilitation facility, Attorney Schwefel suggested that H.K. 
should name Attorney Schwefel as her agent to make health care 
decisions in the event H.K. became incapacitated.  Attorney 
Schwefel also suggested H.K. allow Attorney Schwefel to manage 
H.K.'s 
financial 
affairs, 
including 
managing 
H.K.'s 
bank 
accounts and paying H.K.'s bills.  Attorney Schwefel suggested 
that H.K. sign a power of attorney naming Attorney Schwefel as 
her agent for financial matters. 
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
H.K. trusted Attorney Schwefel to assist her with her 
financial affairs because Attorney Schwefel had held herself out 
to H.K. as an attorney who had acted as an agent or fiduciary 
for other people in the past and because H.K. considered 
Attorney Schwefel to be a friend.  H.K. believed that Attorney 
Schwefel would act in H.K.'s best interests as H.K.'s fiduciary 
with regard to H.K.'s assets and that Attorney Schwefel would 
keep records of her handling of H.K.'s assets and financial 
affairs. 
¶7 
Around January 2010, Attorney Schwefel opened a 
checking account at M&I Bank.  Rather than opening the account 
in 
H.K.'s 
name 
with 
Attorney 
Schwefel 
designated 
as 
an 
authorized signatory or agent, Attorney Schwefel titled the 
account jointly in her and H.K.'s names.  The account was opened 
without obtaining H.K.'s informed consent to title the account 
jointly, explaining to H.K. that she would be giving Attorney 
Schwefel co-ownership of H.K.'s funds, or advising H.K. that 
Attorney Schwefel could manage H.K.'s finances and pay her bills 
without jointly titling the account.  At the time the account 
was opened, H.K. did not intend to give Attorney Schwefel an 
ownership interest in the account or her funds.  Rather, she 
believed and intended that any funds or accounts Attorney 
Schwefel accessed on H.K.'s behalf would remain H.K.'s sole 
assets. 
¶8 
On January 18, 2010, H.K. signed a durable power of 
attorney for health care and a basic power of attorney for 
finances and property.  The health care power of attorney named 
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
5 
 
Attorney Schwefel as H.K.'s agent to make health care decisions 
for H.K. if H.K. became incapacitated.  H.K.'s stepdaughter-in-
law was named as the alternate health care agent.  The 2010 
health care power of attorney only authorized Attorney Schwefel 
or the alternate health care agent to act in the event H.K. was 
unable to make health care decisions for herself due to 
incapacity, which required two health care providers to examine 
H.K. and then sign a statement that she was incapacitated, or if 
H.K. 
were 
unconscious, 
comatose, 
senile, 
or 
otherwise 
"unreachable by communication." 
¶9 
Between January 2010 and September 2015, Attorney 
Schwefel held herself out and acted as H.K.'s agent under the 
financial power of attorney, including by signing documents as 
H.K.'s agent and communicating with various third parties as 
H.K.'s agent related to H.K.'s assets, property, and financial 
matters. 
¶10 At 
various 
times 
since 
2010, 
Attorney 
Schwefel 
asserted to health care providers, facility staff, the OLR, and 
other third parties that H.K. is a chronic alcoholic.  The OLR 
has not received evidence that any health care provider ever 
diagnosed H.K. as suffering from alcohol abuse or dependence at 
times relevant to this matter.  Records received by the OLR show 
several 
medical 
providers 
questioning 
Attorney 
Schwefel's 
assertions that H.K. suffered from alcohol dependence. 
¶11 On March 1, 2010, Attorney Schwefel used $72,600.51 of 
H.K.'s funds from the jointly titled bank account to fund the 
purchase of a condominium in Naples, Florida.  Attorney Schwefel 
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
6 
 
titled the unit in her own name as sole owner.  H.K. did not 
authorize Attorney Schwefel to use her funds to purchase the 
condominium unit, and H.K. was unaware that her funds had been 
used to purchase the unit until she received materials from the 
OLR during its investigation.   
¶12 In September 2010, Attorney Schwefel, as H.K.'s agent 
under 
the 
financial 
power 
of 
attorney, 
and 
with 
H.K.'s 
knowledge, sold H.K.'s Mequon condominium.  Attorney Schwefel 
deposited $176,828.54 from the proceeds of the sale into the 
jointly titled bank account.  Attorney Schwefel told H.K. the 
condominium sold for $125,000 when it actually sold for 
$194,000. 
¶13 In September 2010, Attorney Schwefel opened a second 
account at M&I Bank, again titled jointly in her and H.K.'s 
names, rather than opening the account in H.K.'s name with 
Attorney Schwefel as her authorized signatory or agent.  This 
second account was opened without obtaining H.K.'s informed 
consent to title the account jointly, explaining to H.K. that 
she would be giving Attorney Schwefel co-ownership of her funds 
and any future assets deposited in the account, or advising H.K. 
that Attorney Schwefel could manage H.K.'s finances and pay her 
bills without jointly titling the assets in Attorney Schwefel's 
name.  At the time the account was opened, H.K. did not intend 
to give Attorney Schwefel an ownership interest in her assets.  
H.K. believed and intended that any funds or accounts Attorney 
Schwefel accessed would remain H.K.'s sole assets.  Except for 
limited, discrete transactions, H.K. did not authorize Attorney 
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
7 
 
Schwefel to use her funds in either of the bank accounts for 
Attorney Schwefel's benefit or personal use.  
¶14 On September 21, 2010, Attorney Schwefel transferred 
$190,000 from the first bank account to the second account, 
leaving only $1,604.13 in the first account. 
¶15 In January 2012, Attorney Schwefel obtained and filled 
out change of beneficiary forms naming herself as beneficiary of 
two of H.K.'s individual retirement accounts and H.K.'s AXA 
Equitable Equivest account. 
¶16 In March of 2012, H.K. executed a new durable power of 
attorney for health care naming Attorney Schwefel as her agent 
to make health care decisions in the event H.K. became 
incapacitated.  H.K. named Attorney Ruffalo as her alternate 
health care agent.  The 2012 health care power of attorney only 
authorized Attorney Schwefel or the alternate health care agent 
to act if H.K. was unable to make health care decisions for 
herself due to incapacity.  H.K. was never declared incompetent 
or incapacitated, and the 2012 health care power of attorney was 
never activated.  
¶17 By 2012, H.K. had begun to be afraid of Attorney 
Schwefel and the control Attorney Schwefel exerted over H.K.'s 
life.  Attorney Schwefel was sometimes verbally harsh with H.K. 
and was also sometimes rough in her physical treatment of H.K.  
H.K.'s fear of Attorney Schwefel and the control she had over 
H.K.'s 
life 
contributed 
to 
H.K. 
experiencing 
periods 
of 
worsening depression between 2012 and 2014.   
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
8 
 
¶18 In July 2012, Attorney Schwefel wired $100,000 of 
H.K.'s funds to Bay Breeze Title Services LLC.  The transfer 
represented a loan to Attorney Ruffalo to fund a real estate 
transaction for Attorney Ruffalo's benefit, which Attorney 
Ruffalo was to repay within one year.  H.K. did not know, 
understand, or consent to her funds being loaned to Attorney 
Ruffalo. 
¶19 In or about March or April 2013, Attorney Ruffalo told 
Attorney Schwefel and H.K. about a condominium that was 
available in Naples, Florida.  Attorney Ruffalo believed that 
H.K. wanted to purchase the unit and agreed to represent her in 
the purchase.  At the time, H.K. did not have sufficient funds 
in the two bank accounts opened by Attorney Schwefel to purchase 
the unit.  Attorney Ruffalo agreed to repay her July 2012 loan 
by providing the funds necessary to purchase the condominium 
unit on the day of closing.  In or about April 2013, Attorney 
Schwefel entered into an offer to purchase the condominium unit 
in her own name, on terms negotiated with the sellers by 
Attorney Ruffalo, including the purchase price of $110,000.  On 
May 3, 2013, Attorney Schwefel assigned the contract to purchase 
the unit to H.K.  The assignment asserted that there was an 
agreement 
between 
H.K. 
and 
Attorney 
Schwefel 
that 
the 
condominium unit would be purchased with a transfer on death 
deed naming Attorney Schwefel as the beneficiary, or with a deed 
that titled the property in both H.K.'s and Attorney Schwefel's 
names as joint tenants with right of survivorship.   
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
9 
 
¶20 H.K. did not sign the assignment.  Attorney Ruffalo 
signed it as H.K.'s agent.  H.K. was not provided with a copy of 
the assignment at the time Attorney Ruffalo signed it on her 
behalf.  H.K. did not understand that her funds were being used 
to purchase the condominium unit.  Instead, H.K. believed that 
she was only investing approximately $20,000 in Attorney 
Schwefel's purchase of the unit.  The purchase of the unit 
closed on May 17, 2013.  The unit was titled jointly in Attorney 
Schwefel's and H.K.'s names, with right of survivorship.  
Attorney Schwefel did not contribute any funds toward the 
purchase of the unit.  All or substantially all of the funds 
used to purchase the unit came from H.K.'s funds, including the 
transfer of funds from Attorney Ruffalo, as repayment of the 
July 2012 loan from H.K.'s funds. 
¶21 Attorney Schwefel undertook an extensive renovation of 
the unit using H.K.'s funds.   
¶22 Sometime between May 2013 and October 2013, H.K. began 
to decline Attorney Schwefel's visits and telephone calls.  In 
late 2013 or early 2014, H.K. experienced a period of worsening 
depression, at least in part because she felt afraid of Attorney 
Schwefel and the control Attorney Schwefel had exerted over her 
life. 
¶23 At various times, H.K. lived in Attorney Schwefel's 
home.  On or about July 31, 2014, Attorney Schwefel moved H.K. 
from Attorney Schwefel's home to a memory care unit in Sussex, 
Wisconsin.  H.K. did not require the level of care provided in a 
memory care unit.  Even though H.K. had not been declared 
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
10 
 
incompetent, Attorney Schwefel signed documents holding herself 
out as H.K.'s agent under the financial power of attorney.  On 
July 31, 2014, staff at the memory care unit met with H.K. and 
Attorney Schwefel, at which time it was agreed that H.K. was 
independent in all aspects of life.  Despite the fact that H.K. 
was competent and the management of the facility agreed that she 
was independent in all aspects of life, staff at the facility 
often treated H.K. as if Attorney Schwefel had authority to 
control aspects of H.K.'s life, such as providing Attorney 
Schwefel with notice of H.K.'s activities and actions as H.K.'s 
power of attorney, requiring Attorney Schwefel's permission for 
certain activities, and following Attorney Schwefel's directives 
as to communications with and treatment of H.K. as H.K.'s power 
of attorney.  Attorney Schwefel did not tell staff at the 
facility that H.K. was permitted to make her own decisions. 
¶24 H.K. was unhappy living at the facility, especially 
due to the number of residents with dementia and cognitive 
issues, and the lack of appropriate social and intellectually 
stimulating activities for H.K.  While H.K. resided at the 
facility, Attorney Schwefel withheld funds from H.K. and 
misrepresented that H.K. had used up a lot of her money and 
could not afford purchases such as cigarettes.   
¶25 In September 2014, H.K. was seen and assessed at a 
senior health center.  Although Attorney Schwefel had claimed 
H.K. suffered from memory loss, the medical professionals 
assessing H.K. did not note any forgetfulness and opined that 
H.K. could live in a more independent setting.  Attorney 
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
11 
 
Schwefel did not inform the memory care facility staff that H.K. 
was competent to make her own decisions. 
¶26 In or about December 2014, based at least in part on 
misrepresentations of H.K.'s mental condition, Attorney Schwefel 
asked Attorney Ruffalo to draft a quit claim deed to transfer 
H.K.'s interest in the Florida condominium unit to Attorney 
Schwefel for the stated consideration of $20,000.  Attorney 
Schwefel led Attorney Ruffalo to believe that H.K. had already 
agreed to the terms of the transfer.  Attorney Schwefel told 
H.K. that if she signed the quit claim deed, Attorney Schwefel 
would return the $20,000 investment H.K. had made in the 
condominium unit.  H.K. signed the quit claim deed on December 
11, 2014.  Attorney Ruffalo notarized H.K.'s signature.  As 
H.K.'s funds had been used to purchase the condominium and pay 
for improvements on it, H.K.'s interest in the unit was valued 
at more than $20,000 as of December 2014 and potentially as much 
as the entire value of the condominium.  The quit claim deed 
asserted 
that 
Attorney 
Schwefel 
paid 
H.K. 
$20,000 
in 
consideration of the transfer, but as of March 2017, Attorney 
Schwefel had not paid that amount to H.K. 
¶27 In March 2015, H.K.'s primary care physician saw H.K. 
for a checkup and found her to be stable and with excellent 
cognitive function, with her depression in remission. 
¶28 In June 2015, H.K. moved to Florida with Attorney 
Ruffalo's assistance.  Attorney Schwefel expressed anger at H.K. 
and Attorney Ruffalo that they had planned H.K.'s move without 
consulting Attorney Schwefel.  In or about June 2015, Attorney 
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
12 
 
Schwefel informed H.K., either directly or through Attorney 
Ruffalo or H.K.'s paid caregiver, that Attorney Schwefel would 
no longer serve as H.K.'s caregiver or agent under any powers of 
attorney.  She asked that H.K. sign new powers of attorney 
naming an agent other than Attorney Schwefel.  Attorney Schwefel 
did not take any action between June and August 2015 to remove 
her name from the bank accounts or ask H.K. if she should 
disburse the funds to H.K. or transfer the funds to a new 
account.  Attorney Schwefel continued to manage at least some of 
H.K.'s finances and continued to use H.K.'s credit card without 
H.K.'s authorization for purchases and services unrelated to 
H.K.  
¶29 In or about April 2016, H.K. consulted with Attorney 
Terrance Cahill regarding Attorney Schwefel's actions during the 
time she acted as H.K.'s caregiver and agent under the financial 
power of attorney.  On April 28, 2016, H.K. formally revoked any 
and all powers of attorney she had previously signed naming 
Attorney Schwefel as her agent, including the financial power of 
attorney.  By letter dated April 28, 2016, H.K., through 
Attorney Cahill, notified Attorney Schwefel that H.K. had 
revoked the powers of attorney and requested an accounting from 
Attorney Schwefel.  Attorney Schwefel provided Attorney Cahill 
with some records but did not provide an accounting or other 
receipts or records of her handling of H.K.'s assets. 
¶30 In March 2017, H.K., through Attorney Cahill, filed a 
petition with the Waukesha County Circuit Court for review of 
Attorney Schwefel's conduct while serving as H.K.'s agent under 
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
13 
 
the financial power of attorney.  H.K. sought an accounting, a 
court order requiring Attorney Schwefel to restore to H.K. the 
value of her property lost due to Attorney Schwefel's breach of 
her fiduciary duties to H.K., and H.K's costs and attorney's 
fees in having to pursue court action.  In June 2017, Attorney 
Schwefel filed a motion to dismiss and an affidavit in support 
of the motion in which she misrepresented her actions under the 
power of attorney.  During a June 29, 2017, court hearing, 
Attorney Schwefel misled the circuit court as to the existence 
of and whether she had ever acted as H.K.'s agent under the 
financial power of attorney.   
¶31 In lieu of an accounting, in November 2017 Attorney 
Schwefel and H.K. signed a settlement agreement pursuant to 
which Attorney Schwefel paid H.K. $60,000 and H.K. released all 
claims against Attorney Schwefel related to Attorney Schwefel's 
acting as H.K.'s agent under the health care powers of attorney 
and the financial power of attorney.  The Waukesha County case 
was dismissed in December 2017 pursuant to the settlement. 
¶32 During the OLR's initial intake evaluation of H.K.'s 
grievance, in a letter to the OLR dated March 10, 2019, Attorney 
Schwefel misrepresented that in late 2009 or early 2010 H.K. 
stated that she sought to have her checking account titled in 
the names of H.K. and Attorney Schwefel.  In a June 28, 2019, 
letter 
to 
the 
OLR, 
Attorney 
Schwefel 
made 
numerous 
misrepresentations in response to H.K.'s grievance.   
¶33 The OLR's draft complaint against Attorney Schwefel 
alleged the following counts of misconduct: 
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
14 
 
Count 1:  By using her position of trust to open two 
bank accounts as jointly owned accounts, without 
H.K.'s knowing and informed consent to title the 
accounts jointly in their names, in each instance 
Attorney Schwefel violated SCR 20:8.4(c),2 and with 
regard to the second bank account, Attorney Schwefel 
also violated Wis. Stat. § 244.14(1)(b),3 Wis. Stat. 
§ 244.14(2)(a) 
and 
(b),4 
and 
thereby 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(f).5 
Count 2:  By (a) converting $72,600.51 of H.K.'s funds 
to purchase a condominium in her own name without 
H.K.'s knowledge or informed consent, and (b) using 
H.K.'s credit card for purchases and services that 
were not for H.K.'s benefit without H.K.'s knowledge 
or informed consent, in each instance, Attorney 
Schwefel violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count 3:  By using her position of trust to cause H.K. 
to transfer her interest in the condominium unit in 
Naples, Florida to Attorney Schwefel for less than the 
fair market value of H.K.'s interest and investment in 
the condominium, including by not paying the $20,000 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
3 Wis. Stat. § 244.14(1)(b) provides:  "Notwithstanding any 
provisions to the contrary in the power of attorney, an agent 
who has accepted appointment shall act in good faith."  (2019-
2020).   
All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2019-2020 version.   
4 Wis. Stat. § 244.14(2) provides:  "Except as otherwise 
provided in the power of attorney, an agent who has accepted an 
appointment shall: (a) Act loyally for the principal's benefit. 
(b) Act so as not to create a conflict of interest that impairs 
the agent's ability to act impartially in the principal's best 
interest." 
5 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." 
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
15 
 
purchase price to H.K., Attorney Schwefel violated 
SCR 20:8.4 (c), and Attorney Schwefel also violated 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 244.14(1)(b) 
and 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 244.14(2)(a) 
and 
(b), 
and 
thereby 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(f). 
Count 4:  By failing to maintain records and receipts 
of all actions taken on behalf of H.K. during the time 
in which she acted as H.K.'s agent under the financial 
power 
of 
attorney, 
contrary 
to 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 244.14(2)(d),6 and by failing to provide H.K. with an 
accounting upon her request, contrary to Wis. Stat. 
§ 244.14(8)(a)7 and Wis. Stat. § 244.14(9),8 in each 
instance, Attorney Schwefel violated SCR 20:8.4(f).  
Count 5:  By misleading the Waukesha County Circuit 
Court as to the existence of the financial power of 
attorney, Attorney Schwefel violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count 6:  By making misrepresentations to OLR:  
a.  during the OLR's initial intake evaluation of this 
matter, Attorney Schwefel violated SCR 20:8.4(c), and 
b.  during the OLR's formal investigation of this 
matter, 
Attorney 
Schwefel 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(6) 
                                                 
6 Wis. Stat. § 244.14(2)(d) provides:  "Except as otherwise 
provided in the power of attorney, an agent who has accepted an 
appointment shall keep a record of all receipts, disbursements, 
and transactions made on behalf of the principal." 
7 Wis. Stat. § 244.14(8)(a) provides:  "Except as otherwise 
provided in the power of attorney, an agent is not required to 
disclose receipts, disbursements, or transactions conducted on 
behalf of the principal unless ordered by a court or requested 
by the principal." 
8 Wis. Stat. § 244.14(9) provides:  "If ordered or requested 
to disclose information under sub. (8), the agent shall comply 
with the request within 30 days or provide a writing or other 
record substantiating why additional time is needed and shall 
comply with the request within an additional 30 days." 
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
16 
 
enforceable under the Rules of Professional Conduct 
via SCR 20:8.4(h).9 
¶34 Attorney Schwefel's petition for consensual revocation 
states that she cannot successfully defend herself against the 
allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the OLR's 
draft complaint.  She agrees that she should be ordered to make 
restitution of $75,298.13 to H.K.  Her petition asserts that she 
is seeking consensual revocation freely, voluntarily, and 
knowingly.  She states that she understands she is giving up her 
right to contest the OLR's allegations.  Attorney Schwefel is 
represented by counsel in this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶35 The OLR has filed a recommendation on Attorney 
Schwefel's petition for consensual license revocation.  The OLR 
states that revocation is warranted and necessary.  The OLR's 
recommendation also contains a restitution request asking that 
Attorney Schwefel be ordered to pay restitution in the amount of 
$75,298.13 to H.K. 
¶36 Having 
reviewed 
Attorney 
Schwefel's 
petition 
for 
consensual revocation, the OLR's draft complaint, and the OLR's 
recommendation on Attorney Schwefel's petition, we accept 
Attorney Schwefel's petition for the revocation of her license 
to practice law in Wisconsin.  Attorney Schwefel took advantage 
of her friendship with a vulnerable person and over an extended 
                                                 
9 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 
or SCR 22.04(1)." 
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
17 
 
period of time she converted tens of thousands of dollars of 
H.K.'s funds to her own use and exerted control over all aspects 
of H.K.'s life.  When confronted with evidence of her 
conversion, she lied to a circuit court and the OLR.  The 
seriousness of Attorney Schwefel's misconduct demonstrates the 
need to revoke her law license in order to protect the public, 
the courts, and the legal system from repetition of her 
misconduct; to impress upon Attorney Schwefel the seriousness of 
her misconduct; and to deter other attorneys from engaging in 
similar misconduct.  Revocation of Attorney Schwefel's license 
is 
consistent 
with 
existing 
precedent. 
 
This 
court 
has 
previously revoked the licenses of attorneys when they face 
allegations of converting funds to their own use and benefit.  
See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Wynn, 2014 WI 
17, 353 Wis. 2d 132, 845 N.W.2d 663.   
¶37 Turning to the issue of restitution, the petition for 
revocation by consent and the OLR's memorandum in support 
thereof called for Attorney Schwefel to make restitution to H.K. 
in the amount of $75,298.13 but did not indicate how that amount 
was arrived at, nor was there a clear statement that H.K. had 
agreed to that amount of restitution.  
¶38 In response to a May 18, 2022 order of this court 
asking for additional information about restitution, the OLR 
submitted a letter noting that H.K. commenced a civil lawsuit 
against Attorney Schwefel that was ultimately settled and 
ordinarily when a respondent and grievant have entered into a 
settlement to resolve a civil action involving matters that are 
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
18 
 
related to a grievance, the OLR would not seek additional 
restitution.  In this case, however, H.K. and her attorney were 
unaware at the time the civil suit was settled that Attorney 
Schwefel had used $72,600.54 of H.K.'s funds in 2010 to purchase 
a condominium that Attorney Schwefel titled solely in her own 
name.  The OLR also states that its investigation revealed that 
Attorney Schwefel charged $948 in airfare to H.K.'s credit card 
for Attorney Schwefel and her nephew to fly to Florida in April 
of 2015, and between May 17, 2015 and August 27, 2015, Attorney 
Schwefel used H.K.'s credit card to purchase meals, gas, and 
other products and services totaling $1,749.59 that were not for 
the benefit of H.K.  The OLR states that since H.K. was unaware 
of these conversations at the time she filed her grievance, she 
did not anticipate receiving additional restitution through the 
grievance process, but having been informed of the OLR's 
investigative findings regarding these additional conversions 
that Attorney Schwefel had concealed, she agrees that it is 
appropriate to order Attorney Schwefel to make restitution to 
H.K. in the amount of $75,298.13.  We, too, agree that ordering 
Attorney 
Schwefel 
to 
pay 
restitution 
in 
that 
amount 
is 
appropriate. 
¶39 Because 
Attorney 
Schwefel 
petitioned 
for 
the 
consensual revocation of her Wisconsin law license before the 
appointment of a referee, and because the OLR has not requested 
the imposition of costs, we do not assess the costs of this 
proceeding against Attorney Schwefel. 
No. 
2022AP673-D   
 
19 
 
¶40 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license 
revocation is granted.   
¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Laura R. 
Schwefel to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective 
July 7, 2022. 
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Laura R. Schwefel shall pay restitution in the 
amount of $75,298.13 to H.K. 
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Laura R. Schwefel 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.  2022AP673-D.akz 
 
1 
 
¶44 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J.   (concurring).  I 
concur in the court's order revoking Attorney Schwefel'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). 
¶45 I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL 
BRADLEY and BRIAN HAGEDORN join this concurrence. 
 
 
 
No.  2022AP673-D.akz 
 
 
 
1