Court Opinion

ID: 9886404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 16:04:42.996221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:59.744948
License: Public Domain

ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J. (concurring).
¶ 36 I agree with the court that at this time *660Attorney Schoenecker has failed to establish the requirements for the reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin. I write separately because I have concern that the court may appear to be suggesting that if certain things are done, Attorney Schoenecker will be reinstated. See majority op., ¶30. The majority's comments about what Attorney Schoenecker might do differently the next time around should not, in my view, be read as prophesying what the court's decision will be in a subsequent reinstatement proceeding. At a subsequent proceeding Attorney Schoenecker bears the burden of demonstrating to the court that he should be reinstated. The criteria the court today suggests may or may not prove to be sufficient.
¶ 37 For the foregoing reason, I respectfully concur.
¶ 38 I am authorized to state that Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON joins this concurrence.