Court Opinion

ID: 9927208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 15:39:45.7584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:05.187472
License: Public Domain

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,                                            FILED
                Complainant,
                                                                   JAN 26, 2024
      v.
                                                                    Samuel A. Christensen
                                                                   Clerk of Supreme Court
John O. Ifediora,

                Respondent.

      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

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

      1SCR 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."

                                               2
                                                                           No.   2022AP41-D

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.
                                             3
                                                                    No.   2022AP41-D

    ¶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."

                                         4
                                                                               No.        2022AP41-D

       ¶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
                                                 5
                                                                           No.    2022AP41-D

$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

                                               6
                                                                            No.    2022AP41-D

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

                                              7
                                                                            No.     2022AP41-D

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

       Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to
       2

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.

                                                 8
                                                  No.   2022AP41-D

    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."

                               9
                                             No.   2022AP41-D

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

                          10
                                                                       No.     2022AP41-D

      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,

      6SCR 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)."
      7SCR 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."
      8SCR 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."

                                         11
                                                  No.   2022AP41-D

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

                               12
                                                                                       No.     2022AP41-D

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
                                                      13
                                                                      No.    2022AP41-D

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.
                                            14
                                                             No.    2022AP41-D

       ¶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).

                                     15
                                                                  No.    2022AP41-D.akz

      ¶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.

                                         1
    No.   2022AP41-D.akz

1