Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael F. Swensen
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2008 WI 113 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2008AP553-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Michael F. Swensen, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Michael F. Swensen, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SWENSEN OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: July 31, 2008 2008 WI 113 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2008AP553-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Michael F. Swensen, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, JUL 31, 2008 v. David R. Schanker Clerk of Supreme Court Michael F. Swensen, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license revoked. ¶1 PER CURIAM. This is a reciprocal discipline matter. On March 5, 2008, 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 Michael F. Swensen as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court. That court disbarred Attorney Swensen from the practice of law on November 15, 2007. The OLR's complaint notes that Attorney Swensen failed to notify the OLR of the Minnesota No. 2008AP553-D disciplinary action within 20 days of the effective date of that order in violation of SCR 22.22(1).1 The OLR first learned of Attorney Swensen's Minnesota disbarment on January 8, 2008, by letter from Attorney Swensen. ¶2 On March 6, 2008, this court issued an order directing Attorney Swensen to show cause in writing by March 20, 2008, why the imposition of the identical discipline Minnesota Supreme Court would be unwarranted. imposed by the Attorney Swensen and the OLR have filed a stipulation that jointly requests this court revoke Wisconsin. Attorney This court Swensen's license approves the to practice stipulation and law in revokes Attorney Swensen's Wisconsin law license. ¶3 Wisconsin Attorney in 1994 Minnesota in 1991. Swensen and was admitted to practice law in became licensed to practice law in Attorney Swensen's Wisconsin law license is currently under suspension for failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal education requirements and failure to pay State Bar of Wisconsin dues. ¶4 Attorney Swensen's Minnesota disbarment resulted from conduct which included the conversion of rental payments and 1 SCR 22.22(1) states: 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 No. 2008AP553-D sale proceeds due to a client; inducing his client to transfer the client's property interests to the attorney's spouse; making false statements to drafting, notarizing, business transactions the client and and signing with a a third documents; client on party; and falsely engaging unreasonable in and undisclosed terms without advising the client in writing to seek independent counsel and without obtaining the client's written consent to the transactions. ¶5 Under SCR 22.22(3),2 in reciprocal discipline cases, this court shall impose the identical discipline unless three exceptions are shown. does not 22.22(3). claim any Attorney Swensen has stipulated that he of the exceptions articulated in SCR Attorney Swensen further stipulates that he admits to the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR. He verifies that he fully understands the ramifications should the court impose 2 SCR 22.22(3) states as follows: 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 different discipline in this state. 3 substantially No. 2008AP553-D the stipulated level of discipline, and fully understands his right to counsel along with his right to contest the matter. He states his stipulation is knowingly and voluntarily made and did not result from plea bargaining. Attorney Swensen and the OLR jointly request this court revoke Attorney Swensen's Wisconsin law license. This court approves the stipulation and imposes the stipulated discipline of revocation of Attorney Swensen's license to practice law in Wisconsin.3 ¶6 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michael F. Swensen to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this order. ¶7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Swensen 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. 3 The OLR states that it does not seek costs due to Attorney Swensen's cooperation in the litigation process. No costs are imposed. 4 No. 1 2008AP553-D
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
