Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Godfrey Y. Muwonge , 373 Wis. 2d 173 ( 2017 )

2017 WI 12SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2007AP776-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Medical Incapacity Proceedings
Against Godfrey Y. Muwonge, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant-Respondent,
v.
Godfrey Y. Muwonge,
Respondent-Appellant.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MUWONGE
OPINION FILED: February 17, 2017
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2017 WI 12NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2007AP776-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Medical Incapacity Proceedings
Against Godfrey Y. Muwonge, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant-Respondent, FEB 17, 2017
v. Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Godfrey Y. Muwonge,
Respondent-Appellant.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Conditions imposed.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report and recommendation
of Referee Dennis J. Flynn approving a stipulation filed by the
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Godfrey Y.
Muwonge. Attorney Muwonge stipulated to the facts underlying 43
counts of misconduct as alleged in the OLR's amended complaint,
and Attorney Muwonge and the OLR jointly recommend certain
conditions and restitution as discipline for the admitted
misconduct. The referee determined there was an adequate
factual basis to establish the alleged misconduct and concluded
No. 2007AP776-D
that the parties' joint recommendation for discipline was
appropriate.
¶2 Upon careful review of this matter, we uphold the
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, as derived
from the parties' stipulation, and agree that imposition of
conditions and restitution are sufficient discipline for
Attorney Muwonge's misconduct. We impose the full costs of this
proceeding on Attorney Muwonge, which are $2,053.07, as of
November 21, 2016.
¶3 This is an unusual disciplinary proceeding. It
commenced in 2007 but was held in abeyance because Attorney
Muwonge was deemed to have a medical incapacity. That medical
incapacity has been removed so the disciplinary proceeding can
proceed.
¶4 Attorney Muwonge was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1997, and practiced immigration law in the
Milwaukee area.
¶5 In April 2007, the OLR filed a disciplinary complaint
against Attorney Muwonge alleging 43 counts of misconduct and
seeking revocation of Attorney Muwonge's law license.
¶6 On September 29, 2008, the OLR and Attorney Muwonge
stipulated that Attorney Muwonge had a medical incapacity and
that, because of the medical incapacity, Attorney Muwonge could
not successfully defend against the allegations of professional
misconduct. On October 22, 2008, a referee agreed,
recommending, consistent with this court's rules, that we
suspend Attorney Muwonge's law license indefinitely, pursuant to
2
No. 2007AP776-D
SCR 22.16(4), and that we hold the pending disciplinary
proceeding in abeyance. On December 23, 2008, we issued an
order adopting the referee's findings and conclusions; the 2007
disciplinary proceeding was held in abeyance. In re Medical
Incapacity Proceedings Against Muwonge, No. 2007AP776,
unpublished order (S. Ct. Dec. 23, 2008).
¶7 In the following years, Attorney Muwonge successfully
sought and obtained treatment for his mental health and
substance abuse issues.
¶8 In June 2015, Attorney Muwonge sought reinstatement of
his license to practice law, asserting that his medical
incapacity had been removed. An extensive evidentiary
proceeding ensued. The referee agreed, and ultimately this
court concluded that Attorney Muwonge had demonstrated by clear,
satisfactory and convincing evidence that he is no longer
medically incapacitated and that he is fit to practice law. In
re Medical Incapacity Proceedings Against Muwonge, 2016 WI 55,
369 Wis. 2d 658, 881 N.W.2d 25. On July 1, 2016, we reinstated
Attorney Muwonge's law license subject to a number of stringent
conditions designed to monitor his continued fitness to practice
law and to ensure protection of the public. Id.¶9 Upon reinstating Attorney Muwonge's law license, we
also issued an order pertaining to the underlying 2007
disciplinary proceeding that had been held in abeyance during
his period of medical incapacity. See SCR 22.16(4)(d) ("[u]pon
reinstatement, the court shall direct the referee to proceed
3
No. 2007AP776-D
with the misconduct action.") We directed the referee and the
parties to proceed with the 2007 disciplinary proceeding.
¶10 The parties executed a stipulation that the referee
has accepted. Our task now is to review the referee's
recommendation regarding the 2007 disciplinary proceeding.
¶11 The misconduct alleged in the 2007 disciplinary
proceeding is serious. The amended complaint alleged 43 counts
of professional misconduct involving 15 clients, primarily in
immigration cases. It reflects a pattern of failure to pursue
client matters, failure to respond to client inquiries, failure
to communicate with clients, failure to keep clients informed,
failure to refund retainers or costs that were not expended, and
failure to return client files. For example, Attorney Muwonge
was retained to help A&W Iron Metal, Inc. (A&W) obtain permanent
resident status for certain employees. Attorney Muwonge failed
to meet with the clients to address their questions, failed to
return filed documents, and "[n]one of the workers received
permanent status." Individual clients were also harmed when
Attorney Muwonge failed to appear at hearings or to complete
work he had undertaken for them.
¶12 All told, the OLR alleged and Attorney Muwonge has
stipulated that he violated the following supreme court rules:
4
No. 2007AP776-D
 Former SCR 20:1.4(a)1 as alleged in counts one
(L.C. and J.C.), four (A.L.), seven (A.B.), ten
(N.R.), sixteen (P.K. and K.P.), nineteen (A&W),
twenty-three (A.K.), twenty-five (L.P.), twenty-
eight (W.W.), thirty (M.O. and K.O.), thirty-two
(G.B.), thirty-five (P.M.), thirty-nine (M.B.),
and forty-one (A.D. and S.D.).
 SCR 20:1.4(b)2 as alleged in count thirty-three
(G.B.).
 Former SCR 20:1.16(d)3 as alleged in counts two
(L.C. and J.C.), five (A.L.), eight (A.B.),
twelve (N.R.), fourteen (S.M.), seventeen (P.K.
and K.P.), twenty (A&W), twenty-one (A&W),
twenty-six (L.P.), thirty-four (G.B.), thirty-six
(P.M.), forty-two (A.D. and S.D.), and forty-
three (A.D. and S.D.).
1
Former SCR 20:1.4(a) applies to misconduct committed prior
to July 1, 2007. It provided in pertinent part that a "lawyer
shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a
matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information."
2
SCR 20:1.4(b) provides: "a lawyer shall explain a matter
to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make
informed decisions regarding the representation."
3
Former SCR 20:1.16(d) applies to misconduct committed
prior to July 1, 2007. It provided in pertinent part that:
. . . upon termination of representation, a lawyer
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable
to protect a client's interests, such as giving
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and
property to which the client is entitled and refunding
any advance payment of fee that has not been earned.
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to
the extent permitted by other law.
5
No. 2007AP776-D
 SCR 20.1.34 as alleged in counts three (A.L. and
H.N.), six (A.B.), nine (A.B.), fifteen (P.K.),
eighteen (A&W), twenty-two (A.K.), twenty-four
(L.P.), twenty-seven (W.W.), twenty-nine (M.O.),
thirty-one (G.B.), thirty-eight (M.B.), and forty
(A.D. and S.D.).
 Former SCR 20:1.15(a), in effect until June 30,
2004,5 as alleged in count eleven.
 SCR 22.03(6)6 and SCR 20:8.4(f)7 as alleged in
count thirteen.
 SCR 20:8.4(c)8 as alleged in count thirty-seven
(P.M.).
¶13 In the stipulation, Attorney Muwonge represented that
he fully understands the misconduct allegations; fully
4
SCR 20:1.3 provides: "a lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client."
5
Former SCR 20:1.15(a) applies to misconduct committed
prior to July 1, 2004. It will not be restated in its entirety
but generally provided that: "a lawyer shall hold in trust,
separate from the lawyer's own property, that property of
clients and third persons that is in the lawyer's possession in
connection with a representation or when acting in a fiduciary
capacity."
6
SCR 22.03(6) provides: "In the course of the
investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted
in the grievance."
7
SCR 20:8.4(f) provides: "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of
lawyers."
8
SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation."
6
No. 2007AP776-D
understands his right to contest the matter; fully understands
the ramifications of his entry into the stipulation;
acknowledges that he has had the representation and advice of
counsel; and states that his entry into the stipulation is made
knowingly and voluntarily.
¶14 The referee found that the facts alleged in the
amended complaint adequately support the allegations of
misconduct. The referee determined that Attorney Muwonge's plea
was made freely, knowingly and voluntarily, and that Attorney
Muwonge fully understands the misconduct allegations as well as
his right to contest those charges. Further, the referee
determined that Attorney Muwonge understands the ramifications
of his decision to stipulate to the alleged misconduct. The
referee concluded that the record in this case establishes by
clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that Attorney
Muwonge engaged in the misconduct as alleged in each of the 43
counts set forth in the amended complaint. The referee thus
approved Attorney Muwonge's no contest plea to the allegations
of misconduct in the amended complaint.
¶15 With respect to the appropriate sanction, the parties
agreed that the imposition of additional conditions and
restitution is sufficient discipline for Attorney Muwonge's
misconduct. The referee agreed as well. He noted that Attorney
Muwonge was suspended from practice for over eight years, from
April 2008 to July 2016, primarily due to his medical
incapacity. The referee acknowledged that Attorney Muwonge has
since taken "significant and meaningful steps" to remove his
7
No. 2007AP776-D
medical incapacity. The referee noted that this court has
already imposed a "significant number of monitoring strategies
and restrictions intended to provide safeguards to the public
who may utilize his services." The referee recommended this
court accept the parties' joint recommendation as to the
sanctions, impose additional conditions, and order payment of
restitution to three clients.
¶16 No appeal has been filed, so we review the referee's
report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). We will adopt a referee's
findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Conclusions
of law are reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675
N.W.2d 747. The court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit,
regardless of the referee's recommendation. See In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.
¶17 We adopt the referee's findings of fact and his
conclusion that Attorney Muwonge violated the supreme court
rules as alleged in the OLR's amended complaint, and as admitted
in the stipulation.
¶18 Typically, misconduct as serious as that alleged here
would warrant a lengthy license suspension or revocation, which
bars an attorney from seeking reinstatement for at least five
years.9 Here, Attorney Muwonge's law license was suspended for
9
SCR 22.29(2) provides: "A petition for reinstatement of a
license that is revoked may be filed at any time commencing five
years after the effective date of revocation."
8
No. 2007AP776-D
eight years, from 2008 until 2016, when he successfully
demonstrated that his medical incapacity had been removed.
¶19 To suspend or revoke Attorney Muwonge's law license
again, for misconduct that occurred prior to the lengthy
suspension for medical incapacity, would not serve the interests
of justice and is not necessary to protect the public. Under
the specific facts of this case, we are satisfied that the
imposition of additional conditions and restitution, as
stipulated by the parties and recommended by the referee, is
sufficient discipline for the misconduct described in the 2007
disciplinary proceeding.
¶20 We accept the conditions recommended by the referee.
We agree that Attorney Muwonge shall continue to comply with all
conditions previously imposed by this court in our order of
July 1, 2016, conditionally reinstating Attorney Muwonge's law
license.10
10
The conditions imposed on Attorney Muwonge in this
court's July 1, 2016 order are summarized here:
(1) WisLAP Monitoring. Continued participation in
the WisLAP monitoring program for a period of two
years following the date of this order;
(2) Law Practice Supervision and Status Reports.
Supervision of his law practice for a period of two
years following the date of this order;
(3) Treatment and Status Reports. Continued treatment
as recommended by Attorney Muwonge's treatment
providers to address mental health issues, with at
least one mental health treatment provider sending the
OLR a written status report in January and July 2017,
and in January and July 2018;
(continued)
9
No. 2007AP776-D
¶21 The parties have stipulated and the referee recommends
that Attorney Muwonge should be ordered to pay restitution to
three former clients, A.B., A.K., and A&W. Apparently the
parties were unable to reach agreement on the precise amount of
restitution that Attorney Muwonge should pay to each client.
This is evidenced by language in the parties' stipulation
stating that the $2,500 and $800 in restitution due to A.B. and
A.K., respectively, may be "reduced by any amount Muwonge can
establish to the satisfaction of OLR that represents the value
of services he actually performed" for each of these clients.
The parties also stipulate that restitution is due to A&W
employees in an amount "believed to be $11,800 to $16,800" that
should be "determined by an accounting of the value of the
services [Attorney Muwonge] actually performed for [the
clients], that Muwonge must provide to the satisfaction of OLR."
¶22 This court is not a fact finder and we are disinclined
to accept indeterminate restitution recommendations. We are
also disinclined to accept a recommendation that does not impose
a time frame for the parties to resolve the amount of
(4) Financial obligations. Attorney Muwonge shall,
if he has not already done so and subject to his
ability to pay, make arrangements with the Wisconsin
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Fund) for
repayment of any sums due to the Fund and shall also
make arrangements with the OLR for repayment of
outstanding costs.
10
No. 2007AP776-D
restitution owed to a client injured by an attorney's
misconduct.
¶23 We direct Attorney Muwonge to make restitution of
$2,500 to A.B. Consistent with the terms of the parties'
stipulation, this amount may be reduced by any amount that
Attorney Muwonge can establish, to the satisfaction of the OLR,
represents the value of legal services he actually performed for
A.B. However, any appropriate reduction in A.B.'s restitution
award must be determined promptly.
¶24 The parties are thus directed to advise this court, in
writing, within 90 days of the date of this order, whether a
reduction in the restitution award to A.B. is appropriate. If
the parties are unable to reach an agreement, they shall so
advise the court and the court may submit the matter to a
referee for a determination of appropriate restitution and for a
recommendation as to which party should bear the costs of the
referee's supplemental review to determine the amount of
restitution that should be paid to A.B.
¶25 We direct Attorney Muwonge to make restitution of $800
to A.K. Consistent with the terms of the parties' stipulation,
this amount may be reduced by any amount Attorney Muwonge can
establish, to the satisfaction of the OLR, represents the value
of legal services actually performed for A.K. Again, any
appropriate reduction in A.K.'s restitution award must be
determined promptly.
¶26 The parties are directed to advise this court, in
writing, within 90 days of the date of this order, whether a
11
No. 2007AP776-D
reduction in the amount of restitution owed to A.K is
appropriate. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement,
they shall so advise the court and the court may submit the
matter to a referee for a determination of the appropriate
restitution and for a recommendation as to which party should
bear the costs of the referee's supplemental review to determine
the amount of restitution that should be paid to A.K.
¶27 Attorney Muwonge is also ordered to make restitution
to A&W. The parties' stipulation indicates that the appropriate
amount of restitution to A&W is likely between $11,800 and
$16,800. The parties are directed to advise this court, in
writing, of the appropriate amount of restitution due to A&W
within 90 days of the date of this order. If the parties are
unable to reach an agreement, the parties shall so advise the
court and the court may submit the matter to a referee for a
determination of appropriate restitution due to A&W and for a
recommendation as to which party should bear the costs of the
referee's supplemental review to determine the amount of
restitution that should be paid to A&W.
¶28 The referee also recommends we require Attorney
Muwonge to successfully attend continuing legal education and
legal ethics (CLE) courses as deemed appropriate by the OLR. We
agree that the OLR may direct Attorney Muwonge to attend
specific CLE courses during the period it monitors Attorney
Muwonge's law practice, provided those CLE course
recommendations will not require overnight travel and do not
exceed the requirements Attorney Muwonge must fulfill to satisfy
12
No. 2007AP776-D
his continuing legal education requirements. See SCR Chapter 31
(Continuing Legal Education).
¶29 Finally, we also deem it appropriate, as is our usual
custom, to impose the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding
on Attorney Muwonge.
¶30 IT IS ORDERED that compliance with all of the terms of
this order and our July 1, 2016 order are conditions of Godfrey
Y. Muwonge's license to practice law in Wisconsin.
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Godfrey Y. Muwonge shall
pay restitution of $2,500 to A.B., less any appropriate
reduction to be determined as set forth in this order.
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties are directed to
advise this court, in writing, of the appropriate amount of
restitution due to A.B., within 90 days of the date of this
order.
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Godfrey Y. Muwonge shall
pay restitution of $800 to A.K., less any appropriate reduction
to be determined as set forth in this order.
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties are directed to
advise this court, in writing, of the appropriate amount of
restitution due to A.K., within 90 days of the date of this
order.
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Godfrey Y. Muwonge is
ordered to make restitution to A&W Iron Metal, Inc., in an
amount to be determined as set forth in this order.
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties are directed to
advise this court, in writing, of the appropriate amount of
13
No. 2007AP776-D
restitution due to A&W Iron Metal, Inc., within 90 days of the
date of this order.
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified
above is to be completed prior to paying costs.
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Godfrey Y. Muwonge shall
attend continuing legal education and legal ethics courses as
directed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation during its
monitoring period, subject to the limitations set forth in this
order.
¶39 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Godfrey Y. Muwonge shall pay to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are
$2,053.07.
14
No. 2007AP776-D
1