Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael W. Starkweather
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2020AP000236-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 30, 2020

2020 WI 83 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2020AP236-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael W. Starkweather, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Michael W. Starkweather, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST STARKWEATHER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 30, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2020 WI 83
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2020AP236-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael W. Starkweather, 
Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael W. Starkweather, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
OCT 30, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter.  
On February 5, 2020, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed 
a complaint and motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 
22.22,1 asking this court to suspend Attorney Michael W. 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 provides: 
(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.  
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
No.  2020AP236-D 
 
 
2 
                                                                                                                                                             
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct. 
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a 
judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing 
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for 
medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the 
practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in 
this state, the director may file a complaint in the 
supreme court containing all of the following: 
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order 
from the other jurisdiction. 
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the 
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the 
grounds set forth in sub.(3) that the imposition of 
the identical discipline or license suspension by the 
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual 
basis for the claim. 
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 
so lacking in notice of opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process. 
(b) 
There 
was 
such 
an 
infirmity 
of 
proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity,  
(c) 
The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
(4) Except as provided in sub.(3), a final 
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney 
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity 
shall 
be 
conclusive 
evidence 
of 
the 
attorney's 
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a 
proceeding under this rule. 
No.  2020AP236-D 
 
 
3 
Starkweather's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period 
of 36 months, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the 
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  Upon review, 
we 
agree 
that 
it 
is 
appropriate 
to 
suspend 
Attorney 
Starkweather's law license for a period of 36 months.  Although 
the OLR's complaint did not address this subject, we also follow 
our practice of ordering Attorney Starkweather to comply with 
the terms and conditions of the USPTO disciplinary order, 
including a two-year period of probation.  We do not impose 
costs. 
¶2 
Attorney Starkweather was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1988.  He was registered as a patent attorney by 
the USPTO in 1990.  The most recent address furnished by 
Attorney Starkweather to the State Bar of Wisconsin is in Tampa, 
Florida. 
¶3 
Attorney 
Starkweather's 
Wisconsin 
license 
was 
suspended effective October 31, 2019 for failure to pay bar dues 
                                                                                                                                                             
(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint filed 
under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a report 
and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16. At the 
hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the 
imposition 
of 
discipline 
or 
license 
suspension 
different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction 
to demonstrate that the imposition of identical 
discipline or license suspension by the supreme court 
is unwarranted. 
(6) If the discipline or license suspension 
imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any 
reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by 
the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the 
stay expires. 
No.  2020AP236-D 
 
 
4 
and for failure to comply with trust account certification 
requirements.  His Wisconsin license remains administratively 
suspended at the present time.  Attorney Starkweather was also 
publicly reprimanded in 2012 for appearing in federal bankruptcy 
court in Utah without being admitted to practice in the state or 
federal courts of Utah.  Public Reprimand of Michael W. 
Starkweather, 
No. 
2012-6 
(electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002474.html). 
¶4 
According to the documents attached to the OLR's 
complaint, on October 17, 2019, the USPTO issued an order 
suspending Attorney Starkweather's ability to practice before 
the USPTO for 36 months as a result of his failure to provide 
competent representation in a reasonably prompt, diligent, 
honest manner to the inventors he took on as clients.  More 
specifically, the USPTO found Attorney Starkweather violated 37 
C.F.R. §§ 11.101 (competency); 11.102(a) (failing to abide by a 
client's decisions concerning the representation objectives); 
11.103 (diligence); 11.104(a)(1) and (b) (failing to explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to enable the client 
to 
make 
an 
informed 
decision); 
11.104(a)(2) 
(failing 
to 
reasonably consult with a client about the means by which the 
client's objectives are to be accomplished); 11.104(a)(3) 
(failing to keep client reasonably informed about the status of 
a matter); 11.107(a) (failing to obtain informed consent in 
writing from clients where the representation involved a 
concurrent conflict of interest); 11.303(a)(1), (3) and (d) 
(knowingly making false statements of fact to a tribunal); 
No.  2020AP236-D 
 
 
5 
11.504(c) (permitting an entity which recommended, employed, or 
paid the respondent-lawyer to direct or regulate the respondent-
lawyer's professional judgment); 11.804(c) and (d) (engaging in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation); and 11.804(d) (engaging in conduct that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice).  See In the 
Matter of Michael W. Starkweather, Proc. No. D2018-44 (USPTO 
Oct. 17, 2019).   
¶5 
The 
USPTO 
order 
also 
states 
that 
Attorney 
Starkweather's future reinstatement by the USPTO, if any, shall 
be conditioned on, among other things, attaining a certain score 
on the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE) and 
completing 12 hours of continuing legal education courses on 
certain subjects.  Id.  In addition, the USPTO order states 
that, if reinstated, Attorney Starkweather must serve a two-year 
probationary period with a number of specified conditions.  Id. 
¶6 
On February 5, 2020, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Starkweather alleging that, by virtue of the suspension 
imposed by the USPTO on October 17, 2019, Attorney Starkweather 
is subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to 
SCR 22.22.  The OLR's complaint also alleged that by failing to 
notify the OLR of his suspension by the USPTO within 20 days of 
No.  2020AP236-D 
 
 
6 
the effective date of its imposition, Attorney Starkweather 
violated SCR 22.22(1).2 
¶7 
On 
July 
7, 
2020, 
this 
court 
directed 
Attorney 
Starkweather to inform the court in writing within 20 days of 
any claim by him, predicated upon the grounds set forth in 
SCR 22.22(3), that the imposition of discipline reciprocal to 
that imposed by the USPTO would be unwarranted, and of the 
factual basis for any such claim. Attorney Starkweather did not 
file a response.  
¶8 
Under our rules and precedent, this court shall impose 
the identical discipline imposed by the USPTO unless one or more 
of the enumerated exceptions in SCR 22.22(3) is shown.  See 
SCR 22.22(3); see also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Schwedler, 2017 WI 54, ¶5, 375 Wis. 2d 426, 895 N.W.2d 409 
(imposing 
reciprocal 
discipline 
based 
on 
the 
USPTO's 
disciplinary action).  There is no indication that any of those 
exceptions apply in this case.  In addition, although certain 
elements of the USPTO disciplinary order are generally not 
imposed in Wisconsin disciplinary proceedings (e.g., imposition 
                                                 
2 We note that on February 21, 2020, about two weeks after 
the 
OLR 
filed 
its 
complaint 
in 
this 
matter, 
Attorney 
Starkweather filed a petition to resign his membership in the 
State Bar of Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 10.03(7)(a).  We ordered 
this petition be held in abeyance in light of the instant 
disciplinary proceeding.  See SCR 10.03(7)(a) (providing that, 
before accepting a voluntary resignation of membership, this 
court "shall request from the office of lawyer regulation 
information concerning whether the attorney is the subject of 
any pending . . . proceedings").  We will address this pending 
petition in a separate order.   
No.  2020AP236-D 
 
 
7 
of a probationary term, the requirement of a particular score on 
the MPRE), this court's practice in like situations is to order 
the respondent-lawyer to comply with the terms and conditions 
imposed by the disciplinary order in the other jurisdiction in 
order to make the discipline identical under SCR 22.22.  See, 
e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hooker, 2010 WI 13, 
¶11, 322 Wis. 2d 552, 779 N.W.2d 419; In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Moree, 2004 WI 118, 275 Wis. 2d 279, 684 
N.W.2d 667.  We do so here. 
¶9 
We do not impose the costs of this proceeding on 
Attorney Starkweather.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Hooker, 
2012 
WI 
100, 
¶26, 
343 
Wis. 2d 397, 
816 
N.W.2d 310 (noting that in reciprocal discipline cases where a 
referee is not appointed, costs are generally not imposed as 
there are no referee expenses and the proceedings are less 
involved). 
¶10 IT 
IS 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
license 
of 
Michael 
W. 
Starkweather to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a 
period of 36 months, effective the date of this order. 
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael W. Starkweather 
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. 
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order, and compliance with all conditions of 
the disciplinary order imposed on Michael W. Starkweather by the 
No.  2020AP236-D 
 
 
8 
United States Patent and Trademark Office, are required for 
reinstatement.  See SCR 22.29(4)(c). 
¶13 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Michael W. Starkweather's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay bar dues and failure to 
comply with trust account certification requirements, will 
remain in effect until each reason for the administrative 
suspension has been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael W. Starkweather's 
pending petition to resign his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall be addressed in a separate order.