Sign In
    Wisconsin Lawyer
    March 09, 2020

    Lawyer Discipline

    The Office of Lawyer Regulation assists the court in supervising the practice of law and protecting the public from misconduct by lawyers.

    The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, provides these summaries for educational purposes. The OLR assists the court in supervising the practice of law and protecting the public from misconduct by lawyers. Find the full text of these summaries at

    Reinstatement of James M. Schoenecker

    On Dec. 13, 2019, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reinstated the law license of James M. Schoenecker, Elm Grove, finding that he complied with the post-suspension requirements set forth in SCR 22.26 and met all requirements for reinstatement stated in SCR 22.31. The court also ordered Schoenecker to continue monthly counseling for three years. In addition, the court ordered Schoenecker to pay the full cost of the proceeding, totaling $14,754.78. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Schoenecker, 2019 WI 105.

    In 2011, Schoenecker’s law license was suspended for three years. Having not reinstated from that suspension, Schoenecker received an additional one-year license suspension in 2016. Schoenecker’s first petition for reinstatement, filed in 2017, was unsuccessful.

    Public Reprimand of Michele Anne Tjader

    The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Michele Anne Tjader, Oregon, entered into an agreement for imposition of a public reprimand pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A supreme court-appointed referee thereafter approved the agreement, and issued the public reprimand on Jan. 31, 2020, in accordance with SCR 22.09(3).

    A man hired Tjader to represent him after he received citations for first-offense operating while intoxicated and refusing to submit to a chemical test. Following a municipal court trial, the client was convicted on both counts. At both the circuit court and appellate levels, Tjader failed to timely file the client’s appeals, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.

    At the appellate level, Tjader was ordered to provide evidence to support her argument that her filing of the client’s appeal was not untimely. Tjader failed to abide by the court’s order, in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).

    Throughout the representation, Tjader failed to respond to client emails and phone calls, including failing to communicate with the client after the dismissal of his appeal. By failing to respond to the client’s inquiries regarding the status of his case, Tjader violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).

    At the outset of the representation, the client paid an advanced fee, which was placed in Tjader’s business account, as permitted under former SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)a. (effective before July 1, 2016) and current SCR 20:1.5(g). Upon termination of representation of the client, Tjader failed to comply with the post-representation notice provisions, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(g)(2), effective July 21, 2016, and formerly stated in SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)b.

    Tjader failed to provide to the OLR a written response to the client’s grievance until after being ordered by the supreme court to show cause, in writing, why her law license should not be suspended for failing to cooperate with the OLR’s investigation, in violation of SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).

    Tjader was privately reprimanded in 2006 and 2014. She was publicly reprimanded in 2002 and 2018.

Join the conversation! Log in to comment.

News & Pubs Search

Format: MM/DD/YYYY