Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John O. Ifediora
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2022AP000041-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: January 26, 2024

2024 WI 7 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2022AP41-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John O. Ifediora, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
John O. Ifediora, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST IFEDIORA  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 26, 2024   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per curiam.  
  
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2024 WI 7
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2022AP41-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John O. Ifediora, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
John O. Ifediora, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 26, 2024 
 
Samuel A. Christensen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of Referee 
James D. Friedman that the license of Attorney John O. Ifediora 
to practice law in Wisconsin be revoked due to professional 
misconduct.  The referee also recommends that Attorney Ifediora 
pay the full costs of this proceeding, which are $12,305.23 as 
of July 12, 2023.  Although Attorney Ifediora initially filed a 
notice of appeal of the referee's decision, he voluntarily 
dismissed the appeal before any briefs were filed.  Therefore, 
No. 
2022AP41-D   
 
2 
 
our review of the referee's recommendation proceeds pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1  
¶2 
Upon careful review of the matter, we adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree that 
the seriousness of Attorney Ifediora's professional misconduct 
warrants the revocation of his license to practice law.  We 
further agree that he should pay the full costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Ifediora is a naturalized American citizen 
who was born in Nigeria.  He was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2003.  He is a retired professor of economics at 
the University of Wisconsin-Platteville.  For some years, 
Attorney Ifediora maintained a law office in Madison.  His 
license to practice law has been suspended since 2016 for 
failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements, 
failure to pay State Bar dues, and non-compliance with trust 
account certification requirements.  Attorney Ifediora currently 
resides in Virginia.  He has no previous disciplinary record. 
¶4 
On January 10, 2022, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney Ifediora alleging 
twelve counts of misconduct.  All counts arose out of Attorney 
Ifediora's representation of his first cousin, O.A., a Nigerian 
                                                 
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. 
2022AP41-D   
 
3 
 
citizen, who sought Attorney Ifediora's assistance in becoming a 
permanent resident in the United States.  At that time, Attorney 
Ifediora 
was 
employed 
as 
an 
economics 
professor 
at 
UW-
Platteville.  Attorney Ifediora told OLR that he had retired 
from the practice of law but wanted to assist O.A. in becoming a 
permanent U.S. resident merely on a "familial basis." 
¶5 
In pursuit of accomplishing O.A.'s goal of becoming a 
permanent U.S. resident, Attorney Ifediora referred O.A. to the 
Immigrant Investor Program, which is also known as the "EB-5" 
Program, administered by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS).  Under this program, a person who invests 
$500,000 in a new commercial enterprise that creates ten or more 
permanent full-time jobs will have a path to permanent residency 
in the United States.  The investment may be either a direct 
investment in a business or an indirect investment in a USCIS-
designated "EB-5 regional center." 
¶6 
Attorney 
Ifediora 
became 
aware 
of 
a 
startup 
pharmaceutical manufacturer in Madison, Wisconsin called U.S. 
Foods and Pharmaceuticals (USFP).  USFP had been working with a 
USCIS-approved EB-5 regional center in Detroit, Michigan called 
the 
Detroit 
Immigrant 
Investor 
Regional 
Center 
(DIIRC).  
Attorney Ifediora contacted representatives of both USFP and 
DIIRC and told them that he had a potential investor.  In 
addition, Attorney Ifediora contacted an immigration lawyer, 
Attorney Ebere Ekechukwu, to facilitate the filing of the 
associated I-526 Petition necessary to establish eligibility for 
the EB-5 program. 
No. 
2022AP41-D   
 
4 
 
¶7 
In October 2014 Attorney Ifediora advised O.A. to 
invest $500,000 with USFP, working in conjunction with DIIRC, as 
part of an EB-5 petition.  Attorney Ifediora also advised O.A. 
that in addition to the $500,000 investment, the DIIRC charged a 
nonrefundable 
$57,000 
processing 
fee. 
 
Attorney 
Ifediora 
coordinated with representatives of USFP and DIIRC, as well as 
Attorney Ekechukwu, to obtain all necessary documents to start 
the EB-5 petition process. 
¶8 
In an August 22, 2014 email to O.A., Attorney Ifediora 
said, "As your attorney in your pending transactions, I would 
advise that funds for the purchase of property be sent to my law 
office Trust Account from where the funds would be used for your 
intended investment." 
¶9 
In a September 29, 2014 letter to Attorney Ekechukwu, 
written on his Madison office letterhead, Attorney Ifediora 
said, "I am enclosing in this letter a retainer and part of the 
agreed upon fee for your legal service.  The rest shall be 
remitted with the filing fee as the process moves along.  I will 
facilitate things from my end, and shall keep you updated." 
¶10 Attorney Ifediora obtained O.A.'s signature on a 
Subscription Agreement and Power of Attorney authorizing the 
investment in USFP.  Pursuant to the Subscription Agreement, 
O.A. agreed to pay "$500,000 plus a processing fee of $57,000, 
which shall be payable as follows:  (i) $557,000 shall be 
payable in cash/check or wire concurrently with delivery of this 
Agreement." 
No. 
2022AP41-D   
 
5 
 
¶11 Following 
Attorney 
Ifediora's 
advice, 
O.A. 
sent 
Attorney Ifediora two checks, one in the amount of $50,000 
payable to "Ifediora Law Office" to cover the processing fee for 
DIIRC, and one in the amount of $500,000 made payable to "US 
Foods and Pharmaceuticals." 
¶12 Attorney Ifediora also held himself out as O.A.'s 
legal representative to R.V., the managing member of USFP.  R.V. 
testified in subsequent federal litigation over the failed EB-5 
petition that Attorney Ifediora was "the agent of [O.A.]" and 
that "we trusted [Attorney Ifediora] to represent not only 
[O.A.] but also USFP in the cause of getting this petition 
approved 
and 
bringing 
in 
additional 
investment 
into 
the 
company." 
¶13 Attorney Ifediora's actions on behalf of O.A. during 
the EB-5 petition process demonstrated that Attorney Ifediora 
was acting as O.A.'s attorney.  Attorney Ifediora expressly said 
he was O.A.'s attorney.  Attorney Ifediora gave specific legal 
advice to O.A. and represented to third parties that he was 
O.A.'s agent or representative.  Attorney Ifediora handled 
significant client funds in connection with the representation.  
On October 20, 2014, Attorney Ifediora deposited the funds he 
received from O.A. into his law firm's operating account, rather 
than into a trust account.  Attorney Ifediora communicated with 
multiple individuals on behalf of O.A. using email and office 
letterhead containing his law office address and website. 
¶14 Attorney Ifediora did not notify DIIRC, the intended 
beneficiary of the funds, in writing that he had received 
No. 
2022AP41-D   
 
6 
 
$50,000 in client funds associated with DIIRC's processing fee, 
nor did he promptly deliver to DIIRC the processing fee agreed 
to in the Subscription Agreement. 
¶15 After depositing the $50,000 in processing fees into 
his law firm operating account, Attorney Ifediora transferred 
those proceeds into 
other bank accounts he owned.  He 
subsequently converted the entire $50,000 for his personal use, 
leaving his law firm operating account with a balance under 
$200. 
¶16 Attorney Ifediora failed to provide O.A. and DIIRC an 
accounting of the final distribution of the $50,000.  Those 
funds should have been held in trust for O.A. and DIIRC. 
¶17 In November 2014 O.A.'s $500,000 payment was deposited 
in a USFP checking account at Wells Fargo Business Bank in 
Madison, Wisconsin.  Wells Fargo sent USFP written confirmation 
of the deposit. 
¶18 On November 10, 2014, R.V. wrote a check in the amount 
of $200,000 from the Wells Fargo account to "John Ifediora Law 
Firm."  R.V. said the purpose of the check was to repay a loan 
Attorney Ifediora purportedly made to O.A. in the amount of 
$200,000 as part of the initial $500,000 EB-5 petition.  R.V. 
testified in the subsequent federal litigation that Attorney 
Ifediora promised the $200,000 payment would be placed in an 
escrow account. 
¶19 Attorney Ifediora deposited the $200,000 into his 
business account, rather than in an escrow account as he had 
No. 
2022AP41-D   
 
7 
 
promised.  He did not notify O.A. that he had received the 
$200,000 associated with the EB-5 petition from USFP. 
¶20 Attorney Ifediora transferred the funds into bank 
accounts he owned.  He made two payments totaling $10,600 to 
Attorney Ekechukwu toward her legal fees related to the EB-5 
petition.  Attorney Ifediora subsequently converted nearly 
$190,000 for his own personal purposes, including paying himself 
more than $121,000 over a three-year period.  He failed to 
provide an accounting to O.A. of the $200,000 after distributing 
the funds.  
¶21 In November 2017 USCIS informed Attorney Ifediora and 
USFP that it intended to deny the Form I-526 that had been filed 
on behalf of O.A. 
¶22 Attorney Ifediora continued to represent O.A. by 
coordinating with R.V. and Attorney Ekechukwu on how to respond 
to the USCIS Notice of Intent to Deny, despite the fact that his 
Wisconsin law license had been administratively suspended in 
2016. 
¶23 In January 2018 USCIS denied O.A.'s I-526 petition.  
O.A. informed Attorney Ifediora that he wanted to discontinue 
all further efforts on the EB-5 petition, and he asked Attorney 
Ifediora to refund the funds he had set aside for the 
investment.  Attorney Ifediora failed to respond to O.A.'s 
request and failed to surrender any property belonging to O.A. 
¶24 In May 2018 Attorney Ifediora received a $6,000 
interest payment from USFP for the money O.A. had invested with 
No. 
2022AP41-D   
 
8 
 
them.  Attorney Ifediora failed to notify O.A. of his receipt of 
the funds and subsequently converted them for his personal use. 
¶25 O.A. initiated a federal civil lawsuit in United 
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin 
against Attorney Ifediora, USFP, and others, seeking the refund 
of all of his investment money.  Attorney Ifediora subsequently 
reached a settlement with all parties.  The terms of the 
settlement are confidential, but OLR states that it believes 
that all funds, including the $50,000 processing fee, the 
$200,000 in funds received from USFP, and the $6,000 interest 
payment, have been repaid pursuant to the settlement.  As a 
result, OLR is not seeking restitution.  
¶26 In January 2020 O.A. filed a grievance against 
Attorney Ifediora with OLR.  In response, Attorney Ifediora 
claimed he did not act as O.A.'s attorney, stating, "I never 
provided any legal services to [O.A.]" 
¶27 OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Ifediora's representation of 
O.A.: 
Count one:  By failing to place in trust the $50,000 
associated with the DIIRC processing fee, [Attorney] 
Ifediora violated former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).2 
                                                 
2 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, (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016).  Because 
the conduct that involved Attorney Ifediora's handling of client 
funds arose prior to July 1, 2016, unless otherwise indicated, 
all references to the supreme court trust account rules will be 
those in effect prior to July 1, 2016. 
No. 
2022AP41-D   
 
9 
 
Count two:  By failing to provide notice to DIIRC of 
his receipt of $50,000 associated with the DIIRC 
processing fee, [Attorney] Ifediora violated former 
SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).3 
Count three:  By failing to provide an accounting of 
the $50,000 associated with the DIIRC processing fee 
after distributing the funds, [Attorney] Ifediora 
violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(2).4 
Count four:  By converting the $50,000 associated with 
the DIIRC processing fee, [Attorney] Ifediora violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c).5 
Count five:  By failing to place in trust $200,000 in 
client funds associated with [O.A.'s] EB-5 petition, 
[Attorney] Ifediora violated former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4). 
                                                                                                                                                             
Former 
SCR 
20:1.15(b)(4) 
provided: 
 
"Except 
as 
provided in par. (4m), unearned fees and advanced 
payments of fees shall be held in trust until earned 
by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to sub. (g).  
Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for payment of 
costs shall be held in trust until the costs are 
incurred." 
3 Former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provided:  "Upon receiving funds 
or other property in which a client has an interest, or in which 
the lawyer has received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or contract, the 
lawyer shall promptly notify the client or 3rd party in writing.  
Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or 
by agreement with the client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver 
to the client or 3rd party any funds or other property that the 
client or 3rd party is entitled to receive. 
4 Former 
SCR 
20:1.15(d)(2) 
provided: 
 
"Upon 
final 
distribution of any trust property or upon request by the client 
or a 3rd party having an ownership interest in the property, the 
lawyer shall promptly render a full written accounting regarding 
the property." 
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2022AP41-D   
 
10 
 
Count six:  By failing to provide an accounting of the 
$200,000 in funds associated with [O.A.'s] EB-5 
petition after distributing those funds, [Attorney] 
Ifediora violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(2). 
Count 
seven: 
 
By 
converting 
$200,000 
in 
funds 
associated with [O.A.'s] EB-5 petition, [Attorney] 
Ifediora violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count eight:  By failing to place in trust $6,000 in 
interest received in connection with [O.A.'s] EB-5 
petition, [Attorney] Ifediora violated former SCR 
20:1.15(b)(4). 
Count nine:  By failing to provide notice to [O.A.] of 
the 
receipt 
of 
$6,000 
in 
interest 
received 
in 
connection 
with 
O.A.'s 
EB-5 
petition, 
[Attorney] 
Ifediora violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1). 
Count ten:  By failing to provide an accounting of the 
$6,000 in interest he received in connection with 
[O.A.]'s EB-5 petition after distributing the funds, 
[Attorney] Ifediora violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(2). 
Count eleven:  By converting the $6,000 in funds in 
interest he received in connection with [O.A.'s] EB-5 
petition, [Attorney] Ifediora violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count twelve:  By engaging in the practice of law or 
otherwise 
acting 
in 
a 
manner 
purporting 
to 
be 
authorized or qualified to practice law while his law 
license was suspended, [Attorney] Ifediora violated 
No. 
2022AP41-D   
 
11 
 
SCR 10.03(4)(a),6 as enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f)7 and 
SCR 23.02(1).8 
¶28 The referee was appointed on February 17, 2022.  An 
evidentiary hearing was held before the referee in March 2023.  
The referee issued his report and recommendation on June 22, 
2023.  The referee found that OLR had met its burden of proof as 
to all of the counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint.  
The referee agreed with OLR that revocation of Attorney 
Ifediora's license to practice law would be an appropriate 
sanction for his misconduct.  The referee also agreed that 
Attorney Ifediora should bear the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶29 The 
referee 
found 
numerous 
aspects 
of 
Attorney 
Ifediora's 
testimony 
at 
the 
evidentiary 
hearing 
to 
be 
incredible.  For example, while Attorney Ifediora claimed that 
he was merely acting as O.A.'s agent and not as his attorney, 
                                                 
6 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 provided however, that an inactive or emeritus 
member may provide pro bono legal services consistent with SCR 
10.03(3)(am)." 
7 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." 
8 SCR 23.02(1) provides:  "A person who is duly licensed to 
practice law in this state by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and 
who is an active member of the State Bar of Wisconsin may 
practice law in Wisconsin.  No person may engage in the practice 
of law in Wisconsin, or attempt to do so, or make a 
representation that he or she is authorized to do so, unless the 
person is currently licensed to practice law in Wisconsin by the 
Wisconsin Supreme Court and is an active member of the State Bar 
of Wisconsin." 
No. 
2022AP41-D   
 
12 
 
the referee noted that in emails that Attorney Ifediora sent to 
O.A., he expressly said he was acting as O.A.'s lawyer.  The 
referee also found that Attorney Ifediora represented to third 
parties that he was O.A.'s attorney.  
¶30 In addition, the referee said that Attorney Ifediora's 
actions clearly indicated he was acting on behalf of O.A. as his 
lawyer.  The referee said, "The EB-5 program is not for the 
faint of heart.  It is extremely complicated and difficult.  
[Attorney] Ifediora had no immigration law experience and no 
familiarity with this program and yet he tried to lead someone 
through it——that is primarily what caused [O.A.'s] losses here."  
The referee also said: 
In addition to representing [O.A.] in a complicated 
immigration process in which he had no experience, his 
response to a question of why he maintained a law 
office is equally troubling: 
"Well, you know, it's--it's the exuberance and the 
idea to have a law degree and I don't know.  It was -- 
it was a very exciting prospect.  And of course, at 
the point in time, I also wanted to provide services 
to Wisconsin inmates and so the idea of having -- of 
having a law -- a law practice was appealing, even 
though I knew deep down I wouldn't have the time to do 
that.["]  Clearly, he liked to show the badge of being 
a lawyer. 
¶31 The referee had no difficulty concluding that Attorney 
Ifediora mishandled and converted over $250,000 of O.A.'s funds.  
The referee noted that client money that was intended to be paid 
to a third party was required to be placed into a trust account, 
but Attorney Ifediora did not have a trust account.  The referee 
commented on "the ease with which [Attorney] Ifediora lied to 
No. 
2022AP41-D   
 
13 
 
this Referee about not paying himself out of [O.A.'s] $50,000 
for his services."  The referee found that Attorney Ifediora 
failed to notify O.A. that he had received $200,000 of O.A.'s 
money from USFP, and he failed to provide O.A. with an 
accounting of the $200,000 after he had distributed those funds.  
The referee found that Attorney Ifediora converted the $200,000 
when he spent it on a conference he put on in Africa.  
Similarly, the referee found that Attorney Ifediora converted 
the $6,000 interest payment to his personal use and never 
provided O.A. with an accounting. 
¶32 The 
referee 
also 
found 
that 
Attorney 
Ifediora 
practiced law after his license had been administratively 
suspended.  The referee noted that throughout 2017 and into 
2018, 
Attorney 
Ifediora 
was 
still 
using 
his 
law 
office 
letterhead in communications with O.A.  
¶33 The referee found that O.A. "relied on [Attorney] 
Ifediora's advice and entrusted him to hold and allocate 
substantial funds according to that required by the Subscription 
Agreement with USFP.  Instead, [Attorney] Ifediora proceeded to 
convert [O.A.'s] funds, which ultimately resulted in [O.A.] 
suing [Attorney] Ifediora [and others] in federal court, 
resulting in a confidential settlement."  Based on these 
findings, the referee recommended that Attorney Ifediora's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin be revoked and that he be 
assessed the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶34 We will affirm a referee's findings of fact unless 
they are found to be clearly erroneous.  We review a referee's 
No. 
2022AP41-D   
 
14 
 
conclusions of law de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 
125.  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. 
¶35 Based upon our review of the record, we accept the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  We agree 
that the seriousness of Attorney Ifediora's misconduct warrants 
the revocation of his license to practice law.  Conversion of 
client funds is a very serious offense, and we have frequently 
revoked attorneys' licenses in similar cases.  For example, in 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Runyon, 2020 WI 74, 393 
Wis. 2d 612, 948 N.W.2d 62, we revoked the license of an 
attorney who converted over $135,000.  In In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Sweeney, 2019 WI 13, 385 Wis. 2d 407, 922 
N.W.2d 850, we found it appropriate to revoke the license of an 
attorney who converted more than $420,000.  Attorney Ifediora's 
misconduct is readily comparable to that of Runyon and Sweeney.  
The seriousness of that misconduct demonstrates that his license 
to practice law must be revoked to protect the public, courts, 
and the legal system from the repetition of the misconduct; to 
impress 
upon 
Attorney 
Ifediora 
the 
seriousness 
of 
his 
misconduct; and to deter other attorneys from engaging in 
similar misconduct.  As is our usual custom, we further agree 
with the referee's recommendation that Attorney Ifediora pay the 
full costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2022AP41-D   
 
15 
 
¶36 IT IS ORDERED that the license of John O. Ifediora to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order. 
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order John O. Ifediora pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which are 
$12,305.23 as of July 12, 2023. 
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, John O. Ifediora comply with the provisions of 
SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law has been revoked.  
 
¶39 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspensions of John O. Ifediora to practice law in Wisconsin, 
due 
to 
non-compliance 
with 
continuing 
legal 
education 
requirements, failure to pay bar dues, and non-compliance with 
trust certification requirements, will remain in effect until 
each 
reason 
for 
the 
administrative 
suspension 
has 
been 
rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 
 
No.  2022AP41-D.akz 
 
1 
 
 
¶40 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J.   (concurring).  I 
concur in the court's order revoking Attorney Ifediora'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). 
¶41 I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL 
BRADLEY, BRIAN HAGEDORN, and JILL J. KAROFSKY join this 
concurrence. 
 
 
 
No.  2022AP41-D.akz 
 
 
 
1