Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Carl J. Schwedler
375 Wis. 2d 426
| Wis. | 2017Background
- Carl J. Schwedler, admitted in Wisconsin (1990) and registered with the USPTO (1993), was the subject of a USPTO disciplinary proceeding that resulted in exclusion from practice before the USPTO for misconduct involving neglect, misrepresentation, failure to refund fees, and failure to respond to disciplinary inquiries.
- The USPTO found Schwedler abandoned a client's patent prosecution after accepting a $1,500 retainer, sent misleading statements/invoices, did not return the prototype or unearned fee, and failed to respond to an OED request for information; the USPTO deemed his conduct knowing, intentional, and causing actual injury.
- The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed for reciprocal discipline under SCR 22.22 based on the USPTO's public sanction and also charged Schwedler with failing to notify the OLR of the USPTO sanction within 20 days as required by SCR 22.22(1).
- Schwedler did not respond to the OLR complaint or the court's show‑cause order; the OLR recommended a six‑month Wisconsin suspension and conditioning reinstatement on restitution of $1,500 to the client, rather than license revocation.
- The court concluded SCR 22.22 applies to federal licensing bodies like the USPTO, found Schwedler violated SCR 22.22(1) by failing to notify, and imposed a six‑month suspension with possible reinstatement conditioned on restitution to the client; costs were not imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USPTO public sanction supports reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin under SCR 22.22 | OLR: USPTO is "another jurisdiction" and its public sanction warrants reciprocal discipline | Schwedler: no response/challenge was filed | Court: SCR 22.22 applies to the USPTO; reciprocal discipline appropriate |
| Whether Schwedler violated SCR 22.22(1) by failing to notify OLR within 20 days | OLR: Schwedler failed to notify and thus violated the rule | Schwedler: no response asserted | Court: Found violation of SCR 22.22(1) |
| Whether identical discipline (i.e., exclusion/disbarment) must be imposed or a different sanction is justified | OLR: identical exclusion not available in Wisconsin; six‑month suspension is appropriate alternative | Schwedler: no argument presented | Court: Identical exclusion was not feasible; imposed six‑month suspension as reciprocal discipline |
| Whether restitution and costs should be imposed or conditioned on reinstatement | OLR: seek restitution $1,500; decline to impose costs | Schwedler: no response | Court: Conditioned reinstatement on payment of $1,500 restitution; declined to assess costs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hooker, 343 Wis. 2d 397, 816 N.W.2d 310 (Wis. 2012) (six‑month suspension in reciprocal discipline context)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Coplien, 329 Wis. 2d 311, 788 N.W.2d 376 (Wis. 2010) (six‑month suspension for neglect, failure to communicate, and failure to respond to disciplinary authority)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ring, 168 Wis. 2d 817, 484 N.W.2d 336 (Wis. 1992) (six‑month suspension for failure to file and lack of candor rising to dishonesty)
- In re Discipline of Peirce, 122 Nev. 77, 128 P.3d 443 (Nev. 2006) (treating a federal licensing agency’s discipline as ‘‘another jurisdiction’’ for reciprocal discipline purposes)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Peiss, 375 Wis. 2d 82, 895 N.W.2d 9 (Wis. 2017) (discussing equivalence of disbarment and license revocation in reciprocal discipline context)