Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Louis E. Neuendorf
Citation: 2007 WI 9
Docket Number: 2005AP000537-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: January 23, 2007

2007 WI 9 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP537-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Louis E. Neuendorf, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Louis E. Neuendorf, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NEUENDORF 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 23, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 9
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP537-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Louis E. Neuendorf, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Louis E. Neuendorf, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 23, 2007 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter.  
On February 28, 2005, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
filed a complaint and motion pursuant to SCR 22.22 requesting 
that this court revoke the license of Attorney Louis E. 
Neuendorf as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by 
the Supreme Court of Illinois.  The OLR's complaint also notes 
that Attorney Neuendorf failed to notify the OLR of the Illinois 
disciplinary action within 20 days of the effective date of that 
No. 
2005AP537-D   
 
2 
 
order, in violation of SCR 22.22(1).1  We determine that 
reciprocal discipline must be imposed here pursuant to SCR 
22.22(3).2  We therefore conclude that Attorney Neuendorf's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin shall be revoked and that 
he shall be required to pay the costs of this proceeding, which 
totaled $552.01, as of August 8, 2006. 
¶2 
Attorney Neuendorf was licensed to practice law in 
Illinois in 1950 and was subsequently admitted to practice law 
in Wisconsin in 1957.  He most recently practiced in Illinois.   
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22(1) provides:  Reciprocal discipline. 
 
(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 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct. 
2 SCR 22.22(3) provides: 
 
(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 or 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. 
No. 
2005AP537-D   
 
3 
 
¶3 
On September 24, 2004, the Supreme Court of Illinois 
disbarred Attorney Neuendorf based on 11 counts of misconduct.  
The 
Illinois 
misconduct 
included 
multiple 
instances 
of 
practicing law after receiving a 90-day license suspension on 
June 28, 2001, engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation, engaging in conduct that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice, and engaging in 
conduct that tends to defeat the administration of justice or to 
bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute. 
¶4 
Following the filing of the OLR's complaint and 
motion, this court issued an order directing Attorney Neuendorf 
to show cause, in writing, why the court should not impose the 
identical discipline as imposed by the Supreme Court of 
Illinois.     
¶5 
Attorney Neuendorf did not file a response to this 
court's order, but did send a handwritten letter to the OLR.  In 
his handwritten letter, Attorney Neuendorf made reference to an 
alleged "gross miscarriage of justice" by the Supreme Court of 
Illinois concerning its disbarment order, but did not offer any 
specifics.  The letter also indicated that due to his advanced 
age and failing health, Attorney Neuendorf did not wish to 
respond to the OLR's complaint.  The letter concluded, "If it 
would be of any advantage to you or the Wisconsin Supreme Court 
I tender my resignation from the Wisconsin Bar and withdraw my 
name from the roll of Wisconsin Attorneys." 
¶6 
Because Attorney Neuendorf's letter was unclear as to 
whether he contested the sufficiency of the action of the 
No. 
2005AP537-D   
 
4 
 
Supreme Court of Illinois under SCR 22.22(5)3 or conversely 
wished to petition for consensual revocation of his license to 
practice law in this state under SCR 22.19,4 the court sent two 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.22(5) provides: 
 
(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint . . . 
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. 
4 SCR 22.19 provides:  Petition for consensual license 
revocation. 
 
(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. 
 
(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 
No. 
2005AP537-D   
 
5 
 
letters to Attorney Neuendorf asking for clarification of his 
position.  When Attorney Neuendorf did not respond, the court 
appointed John R. Decker as referee to sort through the matter. 
¶7 
Referee Decker noticed and conducted a scheduling 
conference and an evidentiary hearing, but Attorney Neuendorf 
did not appear or otherwise respond.  Because the final 
adjudication of misconduct by the Supreme Court of Illinois is 
conclusive evidence of Attorney Neuendorf's misconduct, see SCR 
22.22(4),5 and because there had been no showing that the 
imposition of reciprocal discipline would be unwarranted due to 
the presence of one or more of the conditions set forth in SCR 
22.22(3), the referee recommended that Attorney Neuendorf should 
be subject to reciprocal discipline under SCR 22.22 and 
therefore that his license to practice law in Wisconsin should 
be revoked.  The referee further recommended that Attorney 
Neuendorf 
should be required to pay the costs of this 
proceeding. 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
5 SCR 22.22(4) provides that "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. 
2005AP537-D   
 
6 
 
¶8 
We 
agree 
with 
and 
accept 
the 
findings 
and 
recommendation of the referee.  SCR 22.22(3) provides that in 
reciprocal 
discipline 
cases 
the 
court 
"shall 
impose 
the 
identical discipline or license suspension unless . . . [t]he 
procedure in the other jurisdiction was so lacking in notice or 
opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due 
process" violation; "[t]here was such an infirmity of proof 
establishing the misconduct . . . that [this court] could not 
accept as final" the other jurisdiction's misconduct finding; or 
"[t]he misconduct justifies substantially different discipline" 
in this state.  Attorney Neuendorf has provided no proof showing 
that any of these three exceptions to the imposition of 
reciprocal discipline exists in this case.  Accordingly, the 
imposition of the reciprocal discipline of revocation of 
Attorney Neuendorf's license to practice law in Wisconsin is 
warranted. 
¶9 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Louis E. Neuendorf 
to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of 
this order. 
¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Neuendorf shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Neuendorf shall 
comply, if he has not already done so, with the requirements of 
SCR 22.26 pertaining to the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
 
No. 
2005AP537-D   
 
 
 
1