High court: No reinstatement for ex-Elm Grove lawyer turned landscaper

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has decided not to reinstate the license of a former Elm Grove lawyer but will let him try again in six months.

In 2011, the justices had suspended Schoenecker’s license for three years for, among other things, stealing money from his former fiancée, submitting false documents in his own bankruptcy and setting up his own law firm without telling the firm he was already working for.

While his license was still suspended, the court suspended his license again in 2016, this time for a year. That suspension stemmed from his defrauding a West Allis company he had opened with some friends.

The court found, among other things, that Schoenecker had misappropriated more than $150,000 from the company’s business account, charging more than $28,000 worth of personal expenses to the company’s business account and nearly $6,000 in non-business expenses to its credit card, among other things.

Schoenecker, who has been working in landscaping to earn a living, petitioned the court last year to reinstate his license. The Office of Lawyer regulation opposed Schoenecker’s reinstatement.

Schoenecker presented evidence at a public reinstatement hearing in July. Among those who testified in his favor were his father and long-time friend. Those who spoke against Schoenecker’s reinstatement included a former business partner, former employer and his ex-fiancée.

Ultimately, the referee in the case, James Mohr, recommended in August that the justices reject Schoenecker’s petition.

Schoenecker appealed, contending, among other things, that the OLR had only presented witnesses who knew nothing about what had transpired since Schoenecker’s suspensions and that Mohr’s recommendation wasn’t supported by the evidence presented at the hearing.

However, the high court on May 25 rejected his contentions and agreed with Mohr. The justices also decided that Schoenecker may petition for reinstatement again after six months.

The court’s per curiam decision commended Schoenecker for attending Gamblers Anonymous, receiving mental health treatment and being involved in his community.

“However, we share the referee’s concern that Attorney Schoenecker has failed to fully account for moral lapses other than his gambling addiction, and he has failed to explain how the moral lapses unrelated to the gambling addiction have been addressed to insure they will not recur in the future,” the court wrote.

The court also noted that it concurred with Mohr’s observation that Schoenecker failed to meet his burden under the Supreme Court rules for reinstatement because he did not present testimony from witnesses who could speak to his current moral character.

Justices Shirley Abrahamson and Annette Ziegler wrote separately to concur with the decision. Abrahamson wrote that the court has not been consistent in its rulings on reinstatement petitions.

She also joined in Ziegler’s concurrence. Ziegler wrote that although she agreed with the court’s decision to deny Schoenecker’s reinstatement request, she was concerned that the court was suggesting that if Schoenecker presented certain evidence he would be assured the court would let him practice law again.

“At a subsequent proceeding Attorney Schoenecker bears the burden of demonstrating to the court that he should be reinstated,” Ziegler wrote. “The criteria the court today suggests may or may not prove to be sufficient.”

Schoenecker’s lawyer, Richard Cayo of Milwaukee-based Halling & Cayo, said he was disappointed that the justices had not reinstated his client’s license.

“My client is resolute in pursuing his reinstatement and an opportunity to redeem himself,” Cayo said. “We will take seriously the court’s suggestions and instructions.”