2022 WI 39
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2021AP1222-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Matthew R. Meyer, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Matthew R. Meyer, Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MEYER
OPINION FILED: June 8, 2022 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE:
JUSTICES: Per Curiam. ZIEGLER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion in which REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., and HAGEDORN, J., joined. ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., filed a dissenting opinion. NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS: 2022 WI 39 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2021AP1222-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Matthew R. Meyer, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED Complainant, JUN 8, 2022 v. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court Matthew R. Meyer,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed by Referee Jean
A. DiMotto concluding, based on a stipulation filed by the
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Matthew R. Meyer,
that Attorney Meyer committed two counts of professional
misconduct as alleged in the OLR's complaint. The referee
agreed with the parties that a two-year suspension of Attorney
Meyer's license to practice law in Wisconsin is an appropriate
level of discipline for the misconduct. The referee also recommended, consistent with the stipulation, that the court No. 2021AP1222-D
impose the following conditions on Attorney Meyer's
reinstatement:
a. Provide the OLR with signed releases for any mental
health and alcohol and other drug abuse (AODA)
treatment provider who is providing or has provided
treatment to Attorney Meyer within the last four
years prior to his filing of a reinstatement
petition.
b. Provide proof of participation in mental health
counseling.
c. Comply with all terms and conditions of his
probation related to Milwaukee County Case
No. 2019CF4573.
d. Provide documentation of the completion of an anger
management program.
e. Provide documentation of the completion of a
certified batterers' treatment program.
¶2 In addition, the referee recommended that Attorney Meyer's reinstatement be conditioned on his submitting to an
examination by a psychiatric or psychological expert of the
OLR's choosing who shall evaluate the effectiveness of Attorney
Meyer's rehabilitation. Finally, the referee recommended that
Attorney Meyer be assessed the full costs of this proceeding,
which are $1,891.81 as of November 17, 2021. Attorney Meyer has
filed an objection to the recommended costs.
¶3 While we accept the referee's factual findings and conclusions of law, we conclude Attorney Meyer's serious and 2 No. 2021AP1222-D
disturbing conduct, in which he used his position as an attorney
to intimidate and threaten a woman with whom he had been in a
relationship, warrants the revocation of his Wisconsin law
license. In the event Attorney Meyer seeks the reinstatement of
his license to practice law, we agree with the conditions
recommended by the referee, except for the requirement that
Attorney Meyer undergo a psychological or psychiatric
examination. We deny Attorney Meyer's objection to costs and
order him to pay the full costs of this proceeding.
¶4 Attorney Meyer was admitted to the practice of law in
Wisconsin in 2012 and practices in Milwaukee. He has no prior
disciplinary history.
¶5 On July 15, 2021, the OLR filed a complaint against
Attorney Meyer alleging two counts of misconduct arising out of
felony convictions for threatening to communicate derogatory
information and stalking. The victim in the case was H.S., who
had been in a dating relationship with Attorney Meyer.
¶6 According to the OLR's complaint, in late October 2017, H.S. broke off her approximately nine-month dating
relationship with Attorney Meyer. Attorney Meyer subsequently
engaged in a pattern of conduct aimed at H.S. to cause her to
believe that Attorney Meyer would ruin her life, commit acts of
violence against her and her family and friends, damage her
property, interfere with future relationships she may have, and
leave her without a job and money. Attorney Meyer also made
threats to H.S. to ruin her reputation with her employer.
3 No. 2021AP1222-D
¶7 On April 14, 2018, during an argument in Attorney
Meyer's apartment, Attorney Meyer punched H.S. in the face,
resulting in a concussion and facial bruising significant enough
for her to miss approximately two weeks of work. At the time of
this incident, Attorney Meyer and H.S. had separate apartments
in the same building. H.S. returned to her apartment and called
the police. When police arrived, H.S. informed them she did not
want to pursue criminal charges because she feared Attorney
Meyer.
¶8 On multiple occasions after April 2018, Attorney Meyer
made unwelcome and persistent phone calls to H.S. On at least
one occasion, he made in excess of 120 calls in one day. H.S.
was employed as a physician assistant and was required to keep
her phone on at all times. Attorney Meyer also sent H.S.
hundreds of unwelcome email messages. He made threats of harm
to her, appeared at her apartment unannounced, and refused to
leave.
¶9 On March 2, 2019, Attorney Meyer threatened H.S. with violence in her apartment, and she barricaded herself in the
bathroom. Attorney Meyer locked H.S. in the bathroom and she
called police. She stated the bathroom door can be locked from
the outside, and it cannot be easily unlocked from the inside.
H.S. was able to free herself before the police arrived, and she
again told police she did not want to press charges against
Attorney Meyer because she was afraid of him.
¶10 Attorney Meyer also threatened to send negative information about H.S. to her employer, her family and friends, 4 No. 2021AP1222-D
and the news media if she did not perform various tasks for him.
Those tasks included payments of debts he claimed to be owed, to
reveal intimate details of H.S.'s relationships with others, and
to have sex with Attorney Meyer.
¶11 In early June 2019, H.S. again attempted to break up
with Attorney Meyer and cut off all communication with him. On
June 23, 2019, Attorney Meyer followed H.S. into the underground
parking garage of her apartment. At this time, Attorney Meyer
and H.S. no longer lived in the same building. Attorney Meyer
opened the door to H.S.'s car, yelled at her and poured an
energy drink on her vehicle. H.S. reported this incident to
police.
¶12 During and after the relationship, Attorney Meyer
communicated his intent to harm H.S. by using criminal
defendants to enact violence on her family and men Attorney
Meyer believed she had been intimate with; by employing a
private investigator to follow H.S.; and threatening to sue H.S.
for $20,000 for posting a negative Google review of Attorney Meyer's law practice. Attorney Meyer repeatedly told H.S. he
was insulated from legal consequences because of his position as
a criminal defense lawyer.
¶13 On August 23, 2019, H.S. broke up with Attorney Meyer
for the last time. During an argument in Attorney Meyer's
apartment, Attorney Meyer grabbed H.S. by the back of her head,
covered her mouth with his other hand and told her to shut up.
H.S. tried to call 911, but Attorney Meyer broke her phone by
5 No. 2021AP1222-D
smashing it to the ground. He then pushed H.S., who fell and
injured her elbow.
¶14 After August 23, 2019, H.S. received hundreds of text
and email messages from Attorney Meyer despite H.S.'s requests
that Attorney Meyer cease attempting to communicate with her.
¶15 The criminal investigation revealed an extremely high
number of calls to H.S. from blocked phone numbers in rapid
succession, including from phone numbers listed to Attorney
Meyer. On October 8, 2019, H.S. received 68 calls from blocked
or spoofed phone numbers, 41 WhatsApp text messages, 12 WhatsApp
phone/video calls, and 12 emails from Attorney Meyer.
¶16 By using SpoofCard, Attorney Meyer was able to call
and send H.S. text messages that appeared to be sent from other
numbers in her contact list, such as friends and family.
¶17 During and after the relationship, Attorney Meyer
threatened to damage and did, in fact, damage H.S.'s vehicle.
On October 4, 2019, H.S. received emails and texts from Attorney
Meyer saying there was damage to her vehicle. H.S. later observed that her vehicle had a flat tire and dents on the
passenger side. She reported this incident to the police.
¶18 Attorney Meyer told H.S. he had a key to her apartment
despite the fact she had never given him one.
¶19 On October 6, 2019, Attorney Meyer sent H.S. a photo
of the screen of his laptop, showing a draft email he had
created appearing to be sent from H.S.'s father's email address.
The email purporting to be from H.S.'s father, but in fact drafted by Attorney Meyer, alleged that H.S. had violated Health 6 No. 2021AP1222-D
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) by
discussing confidential patient information in public, and
claimed that H.S.'s father had an audio recording of this.
¶20 Subsequent text messages from Attorney Meyer to H.S.
threatened to send the email to H.S.'s employer if H.S. did not
give into Attorney Meyer's demands. Attorney Meyer later sent
the email to H.S.'s employer. The email indicated that H.S.'s
father desired to meet the employer and turn over an audio
recording in which H.S. allegedly discussed confidential patient
information in public. No such audio recording existed.
¶21 On October 15, 2019, Attorney Meyer was charged with
four felonies: substantial battery, threatening to communicate
derogatory information, intimidation of a victim, and stalking.
During plea discussions, Attorney Meyer's attorney submitted a
settlement offer and a packet of documents to the assistant
district attorney (ADA) who was prosecuting Attorney Meyer. The
packet included character reference letters. The ADA rejected
Attorney Meyer's attorney's settlement offer. Attorney Meyer's attorney then sent the same packet of documents to the district
attorney and the deputy chief district attorney. One of the
reference letters in the packet purported to be from Sergio
Rodriguez, who worked at Attorney Meyer's apartment building.
Another purportedly was from Noah Taylor, a friend of Attorney
Meyer. The criminal investigation concluded that the two
character letters purportedly authored by Rodriguez and Taylor
had in fact been fabricated by Attorney Meyer. Rodriguez and Taylor both denied writing letters on Attorney Meyer's behalf. 7 No. 2021AP1222-D
As part of the final plea agreement, the State agreed not to
issue bail jumping charges for obstruction of justice based on
the fabricated letters.
¶22 On June 24, 2020, Attorney Meyer pled guilty to felony
charges of threatening to communicate derogatory information and
stalking. The substantial battery and intimidation of a victim
charges were dismissed. On July 30, 2020, Attorney Meyer was
sentenced to 18 months of initial confinement and two years of
extended supervision, which sentence was stayed, on the
threatening to communicate derogatory information charge. He
was sentenced to one year of straight time in the House of
Corrections on the stalking charge.
¶23 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of
misconduct:
Count 1: By engaging in conduct leading to a felony conviction of threatening to communicate derogatory information, and by engaging in conduct leading to a felony conviction of stalking, Attorney Meyer in each instance violated Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 20:8.4(b).1
Count 2: By creating fabricated character reference letters for submission to the district attorney's office during plea negotiations, Attorney Meyer violated SCR 20:8.4(c).2
1 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. 2 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
8 No. 2021AP1222-D
¶24 James Friedman was appointed referee on August 4,
2021. Attorney Meyer filed a motion for substitution of referee
on August 9, 2021. The motion was granted, and the Honorable
Jean A. DiMotto was appointed referee on August 10, 2021. On
October 8, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation in which
Attorney Meyer pled no contest to the two counts of misconduct
alleged in the OLR's complaint. Attorney Meyer agreed that the
referee could use the allegations of the complaint as an
adequate factual basis to support the allegations of misconduct.
The parties agreed that the appropriate level of discipline to
be imposed for Attorney Meyer's misconduct was a two-year
suspension of his Wisconsin law license, with various conditions
for reinstatement.
¶25 The referee issued her report and recommendation on
October 28, 2021. The referee adopted the allegations in the
complaint as her findings of fact, and she found that by
engaging in conduct leading to a felony conviction of
threatening to communicate derogatory information, and by engaging in conduct leading to a felony conviction of stalking,
Attorney Meyer violated SCR 20:8.4(b) and that by creating
fabricated reference letters for submission to the district
attorney's office during plea negotiations, Attorney Meyer
violated SCR 20:8.4(c).
¶26 The referee said she was satisfied a two-year
suspension of Attorney Meyer's license to practice law was an
appropriate level of discipline. In addition, the referee said:
9 No. 2021AP1222-D
I note that Respondent Meyer's misconduct here is of an obsessive and character-disordered nature. This causes me concern about the effectiveness of Respondent Meyer's rehabilitation and the potential impact on the safety of the public should he be reinstated. ¶27 As a result of the referee's concern, she added a
recommendation to those contained in the stipulation, which was
that Attorney Meyer submit to an examination by a psychiatric or
psychological expert of the OLR's choosing who shall evaluate
the effectiveness of Attorney Meyer's rehabilitation. ¶28 No appeal has been filed from the referee's report, so
our review proceeds under SCR 22.17(2). In conducting our
review, we uphold a referee's findings of fact unless they are
shown to be clearly erroneous, and we review the referee's
conclusions of law de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636
N.W.2d 718. We determine the appropriate level of discipline to
be imposed under the circumstances, independent 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.
¶29 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings
of fact, which are derived from the parties' stipulation, are
clearly erroneous and we adopt them. We also agree with the
referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Meyer violated the
Supreme Court Rules set forth above.
¶30 We now turn to the appropriate level of discipline for
Attorney Meyer's misconduct. After careful review of the
10 No. 2021AP1222-D
record, we conclude that revocation of Attorney Meyer's license
to practice law in Wisconsin is the appropriate sanction.
¶31 "Revocation of an attorney's license to practice law
is the most severe sanction this court can impose. It is
reserved for the most egregious cases." In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Cooper, 2013 WI 97, ¶34, 351 Wis. 2d 350,
839 N.W.2d 857. This is one of those cases.
¶32 The undisputed facts show a clear pattern of Attorney
Meyer using his position as an attorney to intimidate and
threaten H.S. On more than one occasion, Attorney Meyer
physically assaulted H.S. One of the assaults resulted in
injuries serious enough to cause H.S. to miss approximately two
weeks of work. On more than one occasion, although police were
called, H.S. said she did not want to pursue criminal charges
because she was afraid of Attorney Meyer.
¶33 Attorney Meyer made hundreds of unwelcome telephone
calls and sent hundreds of unwelcome email messages to H.S.
Many of the messages and calls were sent while H.S. was working in a position where she was required to keep her phone on at all
times. Attorney Meyer threatened to send negative information
about H.S. to her employer, her family and friends, and the news
media if she did not do what he asked, including having sex with
him. Attorney Meyer created a fake email that purported to be
from H.S.'s father alleging that H.S. had committed HIPAA
violations, threatened to send the email to H.S.'s employer if
she did not give in to his demands, and did ultimately send the email to the employer. Attorney Meyer communicated his intent 11 No. 2021AP1222-D
to harm H.S. by using criminal defendants to inflict violence on
her family and men with whom Attorney Meyer believed H.S. had
been intimate.
¶34 Attorney Meyer repeatedly told H.S. he was insulated
from legal consequences because of his position as a criminal
defense lawyer. When criminal charges were finally filed
against him, Attorney Meyer falsified letters of reference and
presented them to the district attorney in an effort to gain
leniency.
¶35 The facts of this case demonstrate a clear pattern of
disturbing and egregious misconduct by Attorney Meyer and a
complete and utter disregard for his obligations as an attorney.
He has shown himself to be unwilling or unable to conform his
conduct to the standards that are required to practice law in
this state. No sanction short of revocation would be sufficient
to protect the public, deter other lawyers from similar
behavior, and impress upon Attorney Meyer the errors of his
ways. ¶36 We also agree with the referee that it is appropriate
to impose certain conditions upon Attorney Meyer's
reinstatement. The parties stipulated to a number of
conditions, and the referee deemed it appropriate to add an
additional condition, that Attorney Meyer's reinstatement be
conditioned on his submission to an examination by a psychiatric
or psychological expert of the OLR's choosing who shall evaluate
the effectiveness of Attorney Meyer's rehabilitation. We decline to impose this condition. An additional psychiatric or 12 No. 2021AP1222-D
psychological evaluation is unlikely to be an effective way to
determine whether Attorney Meyer is likely to reoffend.
¶37 Finally, we address the question of costs. It is this
court's general policy to assess the full costs of a
disciplinary proceeding against the attorney being disciplined.
SCR 22.24(1m). After the OLR filed its statement on costs,
which were $1,891.81 as of November 17, 2021, Attorney Meyer
filed a timely objection to costs in which he argues that he
should be relieved from paying costs because he and the OLR
filed a stipulation soon after his motion for substitution of
the originally appointed referee had been granted and Referee
DiMotto was appointed successor referee.
¶38 Attorney Meyer notes that the OLR has historically
declined to seek costs in cases involving a full stipulation
entered into prior to the appointment of a referee, and in those
instances this court has declined to impose costs. Attorney
Meyer notes that after Referee DiMotto was appointed, the
parties asked that they be permitted to file a stipulation which would be submitted to the court without the need of involvement
of the referee, but this request was declined and the matter was
submitted to Referee DiMotto.
¶39 In its response to Attorney Meyer's objection to
costs, the OLR notes that at the outset of this proceeding,
prior to the filing of the complaint, the OLR notified Attorney
Meyer's counsel of the opportunity to enter into a comprehensive
SCR 22.12 stipulation prior to the appointment of a referee and that waiver of costs was possible in that situation. The OLR 13 No. 2021AP1222-D
states that after the disciplinary complaint was filed, Attorney
Meyer never discussed stipulating to the charged misconduct and
sanction sought by the OLR, until after a referee had been
appointed, and the OLR notes that by the time the comprehensive
stipulation was filed, both parties had been made aware that
costs had been incurred. The OLR renews its original
recommendation that the full costs of the proceeding be assessed
against Attorney Meyer. In the alternative, it suggests that in
the event this court chooses to exercise its discretion to
reduce costs, that it at least assess the referee costs against
Attorney Meyer.
¶40 We deny Attorney Meyer's objection to the assessment
of costs and conclude that he should bear the full costs of this
proceeding. As the OLR points out, Attorney Meyer had the
opportunity to enter into a comprehensive stipulation prior to
the appointment of a referee but chose not to do so. Although
he did subsequently enter into a stipulation, by the time the
stipulation was filed, costs had been incurred. ¶41 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Matthew R. Meyer to
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective July 14, 2022.
¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a condition of the
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin,
Matthew R. Meyer shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. Provide proof of participation in mental health
2. Provide the Office of Lawyer Regulation with signed releases for any mental health and AODA treatment 14 No. 2021AP1222-D
provider who is or has been providing treatment to
Matthew R. Meyer within the four years preceding any
petition for reinstatement.
3. Provide documentation of the completion of an anger
4. Provide documentation of the completion of a
5. Comply with all terms and conditions of his
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Matthew R. Meyer shall pay to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation the full costs of this proceeding, which are
$1,891.81 as of November 17, 2021.
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Matthew R. Meyer shall
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been
15 No. 2021AP1222-D.akz
¶45 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J. (concurring). I
concur in the court's order revoking Attorney Meyer's license to
practice law in Wisconsin. I write separately to point out that
in Wisconsin the "revocation" of an attorney's law license is
not truly revocation because the attorney may petition for
readmittance after a period of five years. See SCR 22.29(2). I
believe that when it comes to lawyer discipline, courts should
say what they mean and mean what they say. We should not be
creating false perceptions to both the public and to the lawyer
seeking to practice law again. See In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 WI 39, 391 Wis. 2d 196, 942
N.W.2d 302 (Ziegler, J., dissenting). And, as I stated in my
dissent to this court's order denying Rule Petition 19-10, In
the Matter of Amending Supreme Court Rules Pertaining to
Permanent Revocation of a License to Practice Law in Attorney
Disciplinary Proceedings, I believe there may be rare and
unusual cases that would warrant the permanent revocation of an
attorney's license to practice law. See S. Ct. Order 19-10 (issued Dec. 18, 2019) (Ziegler, J., dissenting).
¶46 For the foregoing reason, I respectfully concur.
¶47 I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL
BRADLEY and BRIAN HAGEDORN, join this concurrence.
1 No. 2021AP1222-D.awb
¶48 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (dissenting). The parties
stipulated to a two-year suspension as discipline in this case
and the referee was in accord, deeming a two-year suspension an
"appropriate level of discipline for the misconduct." Per
curiam, ¶1. Yet in this per curiam opinion, the majority
concludes otherwise and imposes instead a revocation of license.
¶49 I write separately because the per curiam opinion
fails to tether its chosen level of discipline to any discussion
of precedent. It is unique in its approach. I do not recall
ever seeing an Office of Lawyer Regulation disciplinary opinion
where we imposed discipline without citing to some precedent,
using it as a basis of discussion for the level of discipline we
impose.
¶50 We often begin our discussion with the caveat that no
two cases are alike1 but nevertheless the level of discipline
imposed stays squarely within the confines of analogous prior
cases. And, at other times, we acknowledge the existence of the
precedent and explain our departure from it. Here the per curiam does neither.
¶51 No cases are cited in the per curiam to support its
conclusion because there is no case to cite that supports a
revocation. As a result, the imposition of a revocation seems
rather arbitrary. If the two-year recommended suspension is not
1 See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jones, 2008 WI 53, ¶23, 309 Wis. 2d 585, 749 N.W.2d 603; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Parks, 2018 WI 110, ¶67, 384 Wis. 2d 635, 920 N.W.2d 505.
sufficient for the majority, why not a three-year suspension, or
four years instead?
¶52 In contrast, the memo which supported the two-year
stipulation and which the referee commended to this court lists
several cases supporting the two-year suspension recommendation.2
Admittedly the conduct here is egregious, but the explication of
bad facts cannot serve as an excuse for this court's failure to
acknowledge that it is departing from precedent and then
offering a reasoned explanation why.
¶53 I agree with the referee's recommendation because it
is tethered to a discussion of precedent and offers a reasoned
explanation for the imposition of a two-year suspension.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
2 In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Evenson, 2015 WI 38, 361 Wis. 2d 629, 861 N.W.2d 786 (approving a stipulation to a 30-month suspension when the attorney was convicted of one felony count of delivery of a controlled substance and two misdemeanor counts of fourth degree sexual assault); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ritland, 2021 WI 36, 396 Wis. 2d 509, 957 N.W.2d 540 (ordering a two-year suspension when the attorney was convicted of two counts of attempted adultery and one count of disorderly conduct); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Schreier, 2013 WI 35, 347 Wis. 2d 92, 829 N.W.2d 744 (ordering a 30-month suspension based on 20 counts of misconduct, 14 of which were for misdemeanor and felony criminal convictions).
2 No. 2021AP1222-D.awb