Reciprocal But Not Identical

The Wisconsin Supreme Court imposed a reciprocal six-month suspension based on a sanction imposed by the United States Patent & Trademark Office

We first observe that the USPTO, a federal agency with its own licensing and disciplinary proceedings, is appropriately considered “another jurisdiction” for purposes of our reciprocal discipline rule… Accordingly, we consider the following facts, which are taken from the OLR’s complaint and from the certified documents attached to the OLR’s complaint relating to the underlying disciplinary proceeding. 

The attorney had defaulted on the PTO charges and failed to notify Wisconsin of the ensuing sanction.

Judge Ann Walsh Bradley concurred

I agree with the court’s mandate but I write separately to state my disagreement with the court’s statement in ¶14 of the opinion which states, “We agree that identical discipline is not an option in this case so a different sanction must be imposed.” The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) excluded Attorney Carl J. Schwedler from practice. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has advised this court that “exclusion from practice” before the USPTO effectively means disbarment for five years. Majority op., fn 1.

We could indeed impose identical discipline. We could revoke Attorney Schwedler’s license to practice law in Wisconsin under SCR 21.16(1m)(a)…

Rather, in this case we exercise our discretion and opt to impose a lesser sanction in the form of a six-month suspension of Attorney Schwedler’s law license. For the reasons set forth, I write separately.

I am authorized to state that Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON joins this concurrence.

(Mike Frisch)