Reciprocal Discipline Clarified: Wisconsin Revocation Is the Identical Sanction to Minnesota Disbarment, Despite Reinstatement Differences

Introduction

In Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael B. Padden, 2025 WI 47 (Nov. 12, 2025), the Wisconsin Supreme Court imposed the reciprocal discipline of revocation on Attorney Michael B. Padden following his August 2024 disbarment by the Minnesota Supreme Court. The decision addresses two recurring issues in reciprocal discipline practice under SCR 22.22: the scope of Wisconsin’s review of a foreign disciplinary judgment and what constitutes “identical discipline” when other jurisdictions use different labels and reinstatement procedures.

The parties were the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) as complainant and Attorney Michael B. Padden as respondent. The central issues were:

• Whether any exception under SCR 22.22(3) prevented Wisconsin from imposing discipline identical to Minnesota’s disbarment.
• What sanction in Wisconsin is “identical” to Minnesota’s disbarment, particularly in light of differing reinstatement schemes.
• Whether a referee hearing was warranted to reassess the underlying facts or to evaluate the applicability of exceptions.

The Court’s answer was definitive: Wisconsin revocation is the functional equivalent of Minnesota disbarment, and differences in reinstatement procedures—such as a defined five-year waiting period in Wisconsin versus no fixed waiting period in Minnesota—do not justify downshifting to a six-month suspension. The Court also reaffirmed that Wisconsin’s reciprocal discipline process does not permit relitigation of underlying misconduct or collateral attacks on the foreign judgment absent narrowly defined exceptions.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court revoked Attorney Padden’s Wisconsin license as “identical discipline” to Minnesota’s disbarment after finding no applicable exception under SCR 22.22(3). It rejected Attorney Padden’s due-process challenge to the Minnesota proceedings, noting he had notice, participated in a multi-day evidentiary hearing, and pursued an appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Court also rejected his claim that substantially different discipline was warranted in Wisconsin, holding that revocation is both the functional and doctrinal equivalent of Minnesota disbarment and well within the range of sanctions Wisconsin would impose for the misconduct established.

Along the way, the Court declined to appoint a referee because there were no genuine disputes of material fact bearing on the limited reciprocal discipline inquiry. It criticized the respondent’s “offer of proof” and request for an evidentiary hearing as a misunderstanding of Wisconsin’s constrained role in reciprocal cases.

Finally, the Court disagreed with the OLR’s late-stage shift in position from revocation to a six-month suspension, finding unpersuasive OLR’s reliance on differences in reinstatement processes to justify lesser discipline.

Key Facts Underlying the Minnesota Disbarment

• Prior Minnesota discipline:
  • 1996 private admonition (contingent fee agreement; file not returned).
  • 2017 public reprimand (settlement without consent, non-communication, financial assistance to client, false statement to court).
  • 2019 private admonition (trust accounting lapses and receipt issues).
• Supplementary petition deemed admitted after failure to answer; referee held evidentiary hearing on initial petition; disbarment ultimately imposed by Minnesota Supreme Court based solely on the deemed-admitted supplementary petition.
• Misconduct (as deemed admitted and adopted by the Minnesota Supreme Court):
  • Client 1: Forgeries and misappropriation—fee agreement obligated return of $25,000; client refused consent to keep funds; forged amendment sent to client’s wife and to disciplinary authorities; no refund; serious financial harm; false statements to the client’s wife and to Minnesota’s Director.
  • Client 2: $8,500 advance fee—no countersigned receipt, improperly not deposited in trust, client terminated after three days and requested refund; respondent refused, claiming a “lump sum” and 30+ hours of work; failure to refund unearned portion and to properly trust advanced fees.
  • Client 3: $5,000 flat fee across multiple cases; withdrew while matters pending; failure to refund unearned portion.
  • Multiple failures to appear: at least five hearings missed (including plea hearings, sentencing, and a trial).
  • Failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.

Procedural Posture in Wisconsin

• OLR filed the reciprocal complaint on October 17, 2024, with show-cause motion under SCR 22.22(3).
• Respondent filed pro se submissions attacking Minnesota’s process; later filed an “Amended Answer” asserting exceptions under SCR 22.22(3)(a) (due process) and (c) (substantially different discipline), and sought a referee hearing.
• August 12, 2025: Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to appoint a referee, finding no genuine disputes of material fact; ordered briefs on the two asserted exceptions.
• OLR shifted position in briefing, urging a six-month suspension as “equivalent” to Minnesota disbarment based on reinstatement differences; respondent agreed with OLR’s reduced sanction request.
• Decision: Revocation imposed as identical reciprocal discipline; no costs imposed because no referee and OLR did not seek costs.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

• SCR 22.22(3) and (4): Establish that foreign discipline is conclusive evidence of the misconduct, and Wisconsin shall impose identical discipline unless:
  • (a) Due process deprivation in the other jurisdiction;
  • (b) Infirmity of proof; or
  • (c) Misconduct justifies substantially different discipline in Wisconsin.
• In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Selmer, 227 Wis. 2d 85, 595 N.W.2d 373 (1999): Reciprocal discipline does not allow relitigation of misconduct or collateral attack on the foreign process; test is whether attorney had a full and fair opportunity to litigate there.
• In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jones, 2016 WI 86, 372 Wis. 2d 23, 886 N.W.2d 92; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Rothstein, 2010 WI 30, 324 Wis. 2d 37, 781 N.W.2d 490: Wisconsin revocation recognized as the analog to Minnesota disbarment.
• In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Laumann, 2019 WI 3, 385 Wis.2d 152, 922 N.W.2d 520: Six-month Wisconsin suspension accepted as reciprocal to Maryland indefinite suspension (with medical fitness condition). Distinguished because indefinite suspension is below disbarment in Maryland’s hierarchy.
• In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kleinsmith, 2018 WI 50, 381 Wis. 2d 486, 912 N.W.2d 114, ¶8 n.2: Wisconsin revocation is “nearly identical” to Colorado disbarment despite differing reinstatement waiting periods.
• In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moree, 2004 WI 118, 275 Wis. 2d 279, 684 N.W.2d 667: “Identical discipline” focuses on replicating the practical effect of the foreign order.
• In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Voss, 2011 WI 2, 331 Wis. 2d 1, 795 N.W.2d 415: Illustrates Wisconsin’s capacity to impose long suspensions, underscoring that six months is far from the most severe non-revocation sanction.
• In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Schatz, 2005 WI 10, 278 Wis. 2d 18, 693 N.W.2d 299; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lamb, 2015 WI 52, 362 Wis. 2d 345, 864 N.W.2d 794: Wisconsin revocation imposed for misconduct comparable in seriousness to Padden’s (forgery, conversion/misappropriation, failure to refund unearned fees, neglect, noncooperation).
• ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions: Disbarment terminates status as a lawyer (most severe); suspension removes a lawyer for a defined period (intermediate severity). Supports the Court’s hierarchy-based equivalency analysis.
• Minnesota cases on reinstatement rigor:
  • In re Smith, 19 N.W.2d 324 (Minn. 1945) (caution in readmitting disbarred attorneys).
  • In re Reinstatement of Ramirez, 719 N.W.2d 920 (Minn. 2006) (reinstatement after disbarment is rare).
  • In re Reinstatement of Anderley, 696 N.W.2d 380 (Minn. 2005); In re Reinstatement of Sand, 951 N.W.2d 918 (Minn. 2020); In re Lieber, 834 N.W.2d 200 (Minn. 2013); In re Trygstad, 472 N.W.2d 137 (Minn. 1991); In re Wegner, 417 N.W.2d 97 (Minn. 1987): Demonstrate that reinstatement typically occurs many years after disbarment and requires stringent showings, often including bar exam and MPRE unless waived.

Legal Reasoning

1. Narrow remit and no referee:
   • The Court emphasized that reciprocal discipline is not a fresh merits proceeding. Under SCR 22.22(4), the foreign judgment is conclusive evidence of misconduct; the only inquiry is whether an exception under SCR 22.22(3) applies.
   • Appointment of a referee under SCR 22.22(5) is discretionary and unnecessary when there are no genuine disputes of material fact relevant to exceptions. Respondent’s “offer of proof” to contradict Minnesota’s findings was immaterial; default admissions in Minnesota foreclosed re-litigation.
2. Due process exception (SCR 22.22(3)(a)) rejected:
   • Applying Selmer, due process requires a full and fair opportunity to litigate. Respondent had notice, a multi-day evidentiary hearing before a referee, and an appeal with briefing and argument to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
   • Deemed admissions arising from failure to answer the supplementary petition reflect Minnesota’s procedural rules (MRLPR 13(b)), not a due-process deprivation.
   • Allegations of bias, vindictiveness, or selective prosecution are collateral attacks and not cognizable in reciprocal proceedings.
3. Identical discipline and functional equivalence:
   • Because Wisconsin does not use “disbarment,” the Court identifies “revocation” as the identical discipline to Minnesota disbarment, aligning with the sanctions hierarchy in both states (MRLPR 15(a)(1)-(2); SCR 21.16(1m)(a)-(b)).
   • The Court anchored equivalence in severity and practical effect, not in formal labels or minor structural differences across jurisdictions.
   • It expressly rejected OLR’s argument that a six-month suspension is the “closest equivalent” based on reinstatement mechanics, finding this inconsistent with precedent and the real-world operation of Minnesota disbarment (typically many years before reinstatement, with rigorous conditions).
4. “Substantially different discipline” exception (SCR 22.22(3)(c)) rejected:
   • The Court underscored that “substantial” means more than “a little outside” Wisconsin’s disciplinary range. Revocation must be substantially different from what Wisconsin would do for similar misconduct to trigger the exception.
   • Misconduct here—misappropriation, forgery, failure to refund unearned fees, multiple failures to appear, and noncooperation—falls squarely within the range for which Wisconsin has imposed revocation (e.g., Schatz; Lamb).
   • By contrast, a six-month suspension is far below the top end of Wisconsin suspensions (e.g., Voss’s multi-year suspension) and inconsistent with the severity of this case.

Impact

• Equivalency clarity: This opinion cements that Wisconsin “revocation” is the identical reciprocal discipline to Minnesota “disbarment,” notwithstanding differences in reinstatement timing or procedures. Practitioners should not expect reinstatement mechanics to justify conversion of a foreign disbarment into a short Wisconsin suspension.
• OLR litigation posture: The Court’s rejection of OLR’s midstream shift to a six-month suspension signals that OLR should anchor its recommendations in the sanctions hierarchy and practical severity, not in speculative equivalence based on reinstatement pathways.
• Referee hearings: Respondents seeking evidentiary hearings must identify genuine factual disputes tied to an SCR 22.22(3) exception. Attempts to relitigate or recharacterize underlying misconduct will not warrant a referee.
• Due process in reciprocal cases: Arguments that a foreign default or strict procedural rule (like deemed admissions) violated due process will generally fail where the attorney had notice and an opportunity to be heard within the foreign system.
• Range-of-discipline analysis: The decision elevates the “substantially different” standard, emphasizing that only pronounced mismatches between Wisconsin sanctions practice and the foreign outcome will justify a departure from identical discipline.
• Practical deterrence: The Court’s rigorous stance on misappropriation and forgery, coupled with noncooperation, underscores that revocation remains the presumptive response to such compounded misconduct.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Reciprocal discipline: When a lawyer is disciplined in one jurisdiction, other jurisdictions where the lawyer is admitted typically impose the same or an equivalent sanction, unless narrowly defined exceptions apply.
• “Identical discipline” in Wisconsin: Under SCR 22.22(3) and (4), Wisconsin generally imposes the same sanction as the disciplining jurisdiction. If the same label does not exist (e.g., “disbarment” versus “revocation”), Wisconsin applies the functional equivalent based on severity and practical effect.
• Exceptions to reciprocal discipline:
  • (a) Due process deprivation in the other jurisdiction (e.g., lack of notice or opportunity to be heard).
  • (b) Infirmity of proof—so severe that Wisconsin cannot accept the foreign findings (rare, especially where there was a default or an adjudication on the merits).
  • (c) Substantially different discipline—the misconduct would merit a markedly different sanction in Wisconsin.
• Conclusive evidence: The foreign judgment serves as conclusive evidence of the misconduct in Wisconsin; the facts are not re-tryable.
• Referee in Wisconsin discipline: A referee functions like a factfinder. In reciprocal discipline, a referee is appointed only if there are material factual disputes about an exception—not to re-try the misconduct.
• Disbarment vs. revocation vs. suspension:
  • Disbarment (Minnesota): Most severe; terminates status as a lawyer. Reinstatement is rare and typically occurs years later, often requiring bar exam/MPRE and other conditions.
  • Revocation (Wisconsin): Most severe Wisconsin sanction; five-year minimum before a reinstatement petition may be filed; stringent reinstatement standards.
  • Suspension (Wisconsin): Intermediate sanction with a defined minimum period; ranges from short terms (e.g., six months) to multiple years.
• Default and deemed admissions: Failure to answer a disciplinary petition can result in the allegations being deemed admitted (as in Minnesota under MRLPR 13(b)), locking in the factual basis for discipline.

Notable Procedural Points and Practical Guidance

• Timely and proper answers matter: Respondents should strictly follow pleading rules. Deemed admissions in the foreign jurisdiction severely limit defenses in Wisconsin.
• Frame exceptions with specifics: To invoke SCR 22.22(3), identify particular due-process defects or explain precisely why Wisconsin’s sanction would be substantially different, supported by Wisconsin precedent.
• Do not rely on “offer of proof” to re-try facts: Offers to present new witnesses or exhibits to dispute the foreign findings will not prompt a referee hearing unless those facts go to a recognized exception and present genuine disputes.
• OLR consistency: OLR’s recommendations should be tethered to hierarchy and practical severity. The Court is unlikely to credit attempts to equate a foreign disbarment with short suspensions based solely on reinstatement nuances.
• Costs: Where the Court resolves a reciprocal case on briefs without a referee and OLR does not seek costs, costs may not be imposed.

Why the Court Rejected a Six-Month Suspension

The Court offered multiple reasons for rejecting both parties’ joint view that six months was the closest Wisconsin analog:

• Sanction hierarchy: In both states, disbarment/revocation sits at the top; suspension is a lesser category. Equating the highest category in one state to an intermediate category in the other is conceptually unsound.
• Practical effect: Minnesota disbarment, though lacking a fixed waiting period, is in practice a years-long removal from practice with rigorous reinstatement conditions. That reality bears no resemblance to a six-month Wisconsin suspension.
• Precedent alignment: Wisconsin has repeatedly treated Minnesota disbarment as equivalent to Wisconsin revocation (Jones; Rothstein) and has recognized equivalence with disbarments from other states despite differing reinstatement periods (Kleinsmith).
• Severity of misconduct: Given misappropriation, forgery, neglect, and noncooperation—without mitigation—revocation is comfortably within Wisconsin’s disciplinary range (Schatz; Lamb).

Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in 2025 WI 47 delivers two pivotal messages for reciprocal discipline:

1. Revocation is the identical reciprocal sanction to Minnesota disbarment. Minor differences in reinstatement schemes do not diminish the equivalence of these top-tier sanctions. Attempts to downshift disbarment to a short suspension based on reinstatement mechanics are unpersuasive.
2. Reciprocal discipline is tightly cabined. Absent a genuine due-process deprivation, an infirmity of proof, or a truly substantial divergence between Wisconsin’s sanctioning norms and the foreign outcome, Wisconsin will impose identical discipline without a referee hearing.

For practitioners, the case reinforces the importance of engaging foreign disciplinary proceedings fully and promptly—defaults will be binding in Wisconsin. For the OLR, the opinion underscores the need to maintain recommendations aligned with the sanctions hierarchy and the practical severity reflected in Wisconsin precedent. As to the bar at large, the decision continues Wisconsin’s strong stance against misappropriation, forgery, and noncooperation, confirming that such compounded misconduct appropriately results in revocation.

Disposition: Attorney Padden’s Wisconsin license is revoked effective the date of the order; he must comply with SCR 22.26 regarding duties upon revocation; no costs imposed.