Torture Victim Who Became Attorney Reinstated In Wisconsin

A rather unusual set of circumstances persuaded a unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court to reinstate an attorney who had accepted a medical disability suspension while facing numerous disciplinary charges.

He had been admitted in 1997 and suspended a decade later

Attorney Muwonge’s early life experiences are highly relevant to his chosen area of legal practice and also provide context for his medical incapacity. As a young man in Uganda, Muwonge was arrested, interrogated, and tortured due to his perceived involvement in a resistance group. He sought and eventually received asylum in the United States. Shortly after arriving in Wisconsin, he matriculated at Marquette University, earning an undergraduate degree in journalism in 1994 and a law degree in 1997. Given his own experiences, he chose to practice immigration law. He married and has children. Personally, however, he struggled with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), alcoholism, and chemical addictions which adversely affected his ability to practice law, leading to the 2007 OLR complaint.

The suspension was imposed in 2008

In the following years, Muwonge sought and obtained treatment for his mental health and substance abuse issues.

Now

The record includes favorable opinions from Muwonge’s medical and mental health treatment providers. The referee observed that those who have been involved in Muwonge’s treatment view him as “totally committed to maintaining his recovery status.” His treating psychiatrist is unequivocal in stating that Muwonge is fit to return to the practice of law, but recommends that he be supervised by another attorney and limit his work to 40 hours per week. Another therapist concurs, stating that Muwonge has regained control of his life and effectively manages his psychological issues through psychotherapy and medication.

The OLR did not oppose

The referee, the OLR, and Attorney Muwonge himself have all proposed various conditions that could be imposed on Attorney Muwonge’s law practice. While the level of detail and the wording of these various proposals differ, fundamentally, there is consensus. All concur that continued WisLAP monitoring is critical, and we agree. All concur that Attorney Muwonge’s practice of law should be monitored by an experienced Wisconsin attorney, and we agree. Attorney Muwonge has identified a suitable attorney willing to monitor his law practice. Attorney Harold Block, who has known Muwonge for over 30 years and represented Muwonge when he sought immigration status after coming to Wisconsin from Uganda, testified that he was willing to monitor Muwonge if he is reinstated and the referee supports his appointment.

Petitioner must comply with the conditions and pay the costs of the proceeding.

As to the investigation put on hold by the disability suspension

Our rules require that, upon reinstatement, “the court shall direct the referee to proceed with the misconduct action.” Id. The court will, consistent with the rules, issue a separate order directing the referee to proceed with the abated misconduct action. Nearly a decade has elapsed since the OLR filed the disciplinary complaint and Attorney Muwonge has been suspended for over eight of those years so we trust that the parties will work to resolve the underlying matter expeditiously.

This aspect of the opinion drew a concurrence from Justice Abrahamson

I join the per curiam, but I have reservations about [the above-quoted paragraph]

On April 21, 2016, the court adopted Rule Petition 14- 06 to grant more discretion to the OLR in disciplinary matters. I wonder why the OLR cannot exercise its discretion with regard to sending the old outstanding disciplinary matter to the referee? Have we not given the OLR sufficient discretion?

The new language on OLR discretion adopted by the court

The office has discretion whether to investigate and to prosecute de minimus violations. Discretion permits the office to prioritize resources on matters where there is harm and to complete them more promptly.

I missed the rule change. I agree wholeheartedly with the grant of such discretion, so long as it is exercised in a responsible manner.

In order to trust self-regulation, the disciplinary function must be performed by prompt and fair investigation and prosecution of all matters that involve potential public harm.

For that to happen, a jurisdiction’s disciplinary counsel must be a first-rate lawyer who acts independently of the Bar.

It must be a person worthy of the trust needed to exercise discretion, particularly in areas such as consent dispositions, to get the job done.

To me, the perfect (well, no one is truly perfect) model for the Disciplinary Counsel is Len Becker.

Len came to the District of Columbia Office of Bar Counsel in 1992 from a career that took him from Gardiner, Maine to Harvard Law, clerkships for Judge Edward Weinfeld and Justice Potter Stewart and a partnership at Arnold & Porter.

He had no significant connection to the D.C. Bar “insiders” and no interest except the opportunity to perform an important  public service. He came in and learned the job by investigating, prosecuting and arguing cases before the Court of Appeals.

He carefully supervised the rest of us, reading and editing everything from dismissal letters to briefs to the Court.  As a result, Bar Counsel was able to articulate a single, unified position on the important issues of the day.

He figured out who on the staff were and were not doing their jobs. When he did not care for something I submitted, it was “not ready for prime time.” 

He made the lawyers who cared to learn better lawyers themselves. He dramatically improved the quality of my own writing, a hard task since I thought I already knew it all. 

Of utmost importance, he was willing and able to take on the Board on Professional Responsibility when the need arose.

And he left (this is my opinion) because of the intractable problems that bar politics injected (and continues to inject) into the D.C. system. 

His seven years represent the high point of the Office of Bar Counsel in terms of the quality of the work done and the professionalism of the office.

What the District of Columbia Bar desperately needs is another person like him to clean up the unholy mess made since his departure. (Mike Frisch)