Disciplinary Proceeding Against Osman A. Mirza

On April 18, 2026, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law license of Osman A. Mirza, retroactive to October 30, 2023, the date on which Mirza’s license was summarily suspended following his criminal conviction. The court also ordered Mirza to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding, which totaled $24,056.22. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mirza, 2026 WI 13.

In the summer of 2020, Mirza was charged with 11 criminal counts: felony stalking, misdemeanor criminal trespass, two counts of misdemeanor battery, two counts of felony false imprisonment, one count of felony intimidation of a victim, and four counts of misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Each count carried a domestic-abuse modifier. The charges arose from conduct that occurred between June 2018 and July 2020.

In April 2023, Mirza pled guilty to and was convicted of one count of felony stalking and one count of misdemeanor criminal trespass to dwelling, both as acts of domestic abuse, with the remaining nine other criminal counts dismissed but read in at sentencing. Mirza was sentenced to 12 months in jail, stayed for three years of probation, for the felony stalking conviction, and to nine months in jail, stayed for two years of probation, for the criminal trespass conviction, with the sentences to run concurrently. In August 2023, based on Mirza’s conviction, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a motion to summarily suspend Mirza’s license to practice law. The court granted that motion in October 2023.

The court adopted a referee’s findings that Mirza’s conduct violated SCR 20:8.4(b). The referee recommended a one-year suspension of Mirza’s license to practice law, but the court found that revocation was the appropriate level of discipline.

Mirza had no prior discipline.

Disciplinary Proceeding Against Michael Seung-Hyock Yang

On May 1, 2026, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law license of Michael Seung-Hyock Yang, effective immediately. The court also ordered Yang to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding, which totaled $23,229.07 as of February 19, 2026. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Yang, 2026 WI 14.

Yang’s revocation resulted from his misconduct while representing two clients in criminal matters, following his appointment as counsel by the State Public Defender’s Office (SPD). As to each client, Yang was found to have violated SCR 20:8.4(i) (sexual harassment) and SCR 20:8.4(g), read together with SCR 40.15 (offensive personality).

The violations generally involve allegations that Yang had, or attempted to have, inappropriate physical contact with Client 1, engaged in a pattern of overt or implied sexually suggestive statements and innuendos to Client 1 and Client 2, made sexual advances to both clients, sent explicit sexual messages to Client 2, and sent pictures of his genitals to Client 2. Both clients testified that Yang’s comments and conduct were unwanted, and they believed he was attempting to have a sexual relationship with them.

The court noted that Yang “preyed upon the vulnerable nature of his indigent clients and abused his position of trust and authority in an effort to satisfy his own prurient personal interests. Particularly noteworthy is that Yang’s misconduct caused Client 1 to abandon any defenses she might have to a probation revocation proceeding and sacrifice her liberty in order to avoid his sexual advances and that Client 2 believed she needed to have sexual relations with Yang to obtain zealous representation.

While the referee recommended a one-year suspension with conditions on Yang’s reinstatement, the court found that revocation was the appropriate level of discipline.

Yang had no prior discipline.

Public Reprimand of Joseph Foster Rosenthal

The Office of Lawyer Regulation and Joseph Foster Rosenthal entered into an agreement for the imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A Wisconsin Supreme Court-appointed referee approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand on April 8, 2026, pursuant to SCR 22.09(3).

A former client who was in jail spoke to Rosenthal about obtaining a cell phone and phone card. The former client and Rosenthal agreed that Rosenthal would use up to $400 of the former client’s FoodShare benefits via an electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card in exchange for purchasing a phone and phone card for the former client. At some point, the agreement was modified, and Rosenthal agreed to give the former client $50 for the use of the EBT card.

After the former client ordered a new EBT card, Rosenthal went to the Douglas County Department of Human Resources, told staff he was there to collect his client’s mail, activated the EBT card, and used the card to make purchases totaling over $300. Rosenthal then deposited $94 into his former client’s jail account.

After his former client’s EBT card was deactivated on suspicion of fraud, Rosenthal tried to use the card on three additional occasions. Rosenthal then called to request a new card and again represented that he was his former client’s counsel in order to obtain the second card. After Rosenthal activated the card, the card was immediately deactivated, and a fraud investigation was opened. Rosenthal was eventually charged with food stamp fraud.

By engaging in misconduct leading to a misdemeanor conviction for unauthorized use of food stamps, Rosenthal violated SCR 20:8.4(b). By misrepresenting to Douglas County that he was his former client’s lawyer, Rosenthal violated SCR 20:8.4(c).

Rosenthal had no prior discipline and paid restitution to Douglas County.

Public Reprimand of Brady Henderson

The Office of Lawyer Regulation and Brady Henderson entered into an agreement for the imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A Wisconsin Supreme Court-appointed referee approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand on April 15, 2026, pursuant to SCR 22.09(3).

Henderson’s reprimand stems from his misconduct related to two client matters. In the first matter, Henderson failed to perform any substantive work for a client after filing a complaint on their behalf. Eventually, the court held a scheduling conference at which the court suggested settlement terms and administratively closed the case. Henderson never conveyed the proposed terms to the client, and the client learned from opposing counsel that the matter had been administratively closed. Thereafter, Henderson told the client he would file to reopen the case but never did so. The client made several attempts to contact Henderson but was unsuccessful. Henderson owed the client a refund of $230 in unearned fees.

In the second matter, Henderson filed a lawsuit on behalf of a client, and the court issued a scheduling order. Henderson did not provide the client with a copy of the order, with which Henderson failed to substantially comply. Opposing counsel noticed Henderson’s client for a deposition, but neither Henderson nor the client appeared. That same month, the court granted opposing counsel’s motion for sanctions. Several months later, the court granted opposing counsel’s motion for summary judgment. Henderson’s client was unable to contact Henderson over a period of several months. The client hired successor counsel, who was able to reopen the matter.

By failing to return unearned fees to the first client, Henderson violated SCR 20:1.16(d). By failing to diligently advance both clients’ cases, Henderson violated SCR 20:1.3. By failing to keep the clients reasonably informed of the status of their cases, Henderson violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3). By failing to reasonably consult with the clients, thereby preventing them from making informed decisions about their cases, Henderson violated SCR 20:1.4(b). By failing to withdraw from the representations when health and family matters affected his ability to represent the clients, Henderson violated SCR 20:1.16(a). Those circumstances were considered a mitigating factor.

Henderson had no prior discipline and made reasonable efforts to refund $230 to the first client. His license to practice law is currently administratively suspended.

Public Reprimand of Michael Adam Techmeier

The Office of Lawyer Regulation and Michael Adam Techmeier entered into an agreement for the imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A Wisconsin Supreme Court-appointed referee approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand on June 4, 2026, pursuant to SCR 22.09(3).

In June 2022, police were alerted to a vehicle with its hazard lights on that was blocking traffic. Officers found Techmeier in the driver’s seat. When he exited the vehicle, he exhibited signs of impairment. A blood draw revealed that Techmeier had both prescription medications and fentanyl in his system, leading to a charge of misdemeanor OWI (second). Techmeier entered a no-contest plea to that charge and was convicted thereof.

In December 2022, police were dispatched to Techmeier’s place of employment for a possible overdose. Techmeier was found to be in possession of fentanyl. He was charged with possession of narcotic drugs. Techmeier entered into a deferred prosecution agreement regarding the possession charge, and the case was eventually dismissed.

By engaging in conduct that led to the two charges against him, Techmeier violated SCR 20:8.4(b) in each instance.

Techmeier had no prior discipline. Techmeier experienced a personal tragedy in early 2022 and completed inpatient and outpatient recovery programs in 2023, both of which were considered mitigating circumstances.

Public Reprimand of Alf Langan

The Office of Lawyer Regulation and Alf Langan entered into an agreement for the imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A Wisconsin Supreme Court-appointed referee approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand on June 1, 2026, pursuant to SCR 22.09(3).

Langan represented a woman seeking grandparent visitation rights. The fee agreement provided that Langan would deposit the advance payment of fees into his business account, which required Langan to comply with SCR 20:1.5(g). In violation of that same rule, Langan failed to notify the client at the end of the representation that the client could dispute the fee amount and that Langan would be required to submit the matter to arbitration.

Langan successfully petitioned for temporary guardianship of the children on behalf of the client. When Langan realized the guardianship had expired, he petitioned for an extension, which was denied. He then filed a new petition. The matter was set for a hearing. Langan requested that the hearing be rescheduled due to a scheduling conflict. He never followed up on that request. Eventually, the petition was dismissed for inactivity. Langan did not communicate with the client for 14 months.

By failing to diligently pursue the client’s matter, Langan violated SCR 20:1.3. By failing to communicate with the client about the status of the matter, Langan violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).

Langan was publicly reprimanded in 2020 and privately reprimanded in 2015 and 2011. Despite his prior discipline, the referee considered as a mitigating factor the fact that Langan was experiencing significant personal issues due to the sudden and unexpected loss of his son.

Disciplinary Proceeding Against Gary W. Thompson

On July 1, 2026, the Wisconsin Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Gary W. Thompson and ordered him to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding, which totaled $23,209.42 as of April 15, 2025. Disciplinary Proceeding Against Thompson, 2026 WI 18.

In February 2021, a subcontractor, represented by Thompson, sued a general contractor in circuit court, raising claims of unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and related causes of action. The dispute arose after the general contractor terminated the subcontractor before the completion of a project. An employee of the subcontractor, J.T., managed the project. Shortly thereafter, J.T.’s employment with the company ended.

The circuit court entered a stipulated order referring the dispute to arbitration. As the arbitration hearing neared, Thompson called J.T. and asked whether J.T. could review documents regarding the project in question, help with Thompson’s case preparation, and likely serve as an arbitration witness. J.T. did not commit to helping Thompson. Thompson followed the call with a text message to J.T. stating that “[s]hould [his client] prevail in litigation, you would be entitled to $25,000.”

Thompson’s text also stated that “[c]onsidering this litigation will necessitate some phone conversations with me to bring me up to speed, review of emails, you potentially sitting for a deposition/hearing before the arbitrator, [the client] will pay you $2,000 for your time in this regard.” J.T. did not respond. Thompson later called J.T. and said that his client was now offering $5,000 for the time it would take J.T. to assist in the matter. J.T. still did not commit to providing assistance.

Opposing counsel in the arbitration matter learned of Thompson’s payment offers to J.T. and moved for sanctions, claiming the offers constituted an attempt to bribe an important witness. The arbitrator granted the motion and dismissed the arbitration claims of Thompson’s client.

Thompson appealed a referee’s report finding that he had violated SCR 20:3.4(b) and recommending that he be publicly reprimanded and ordered to pay the full costs of the proceedings.

In his appeal, Thompson offered three arguments: first, that SCR 20:3.4(b) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct in the case at bar; second, that if the rule is not unconstitutionally vague, his conduct did not violate it; and third, that if his conduct did violate the rule, the appropriate discipline should be only a private reprimand, with a significant reduction in costs.

The court rejected all three of Thomson’s arguments and adopted the referee’s report. The court noted that the $25,000 figure could not constitute payment of a bonus owed to J.T. under the original contract, as Thompson asserted, because that contract had been terminated years before. As to the $2,000 and $5,000 offers, the court noted that it is appropriate to compensate witnesses for out-of-pocket expenses, but Thompson, when making these offers, could not have known what J.T.’s actual expenses would be.

Thompson has no prior discipline.

Public Reprimand of Michael L. Chernin

The Office of Lawyer Regulation and Michael L. Chernin entered into an agreement for the imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A Wisconsin Supreme Court-appointed referee approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand on May 11, 2026, pursuant to SCR 22.09(3).

Beginning in 2019, Chernin represented a client in a criminal matter. The client asked Chernin to file four pretrial motions. Chernin told the client he believed the motions lacked merit. As early as December 2020, however, Chernin falsely assured the client that the motions had been filed when they had not been. In fact, Chernin did not file them until after a pretrial hearing held 12 days before the matter was set for trial.

Chernin received a public reprimand in 2009 and private reprimands in 1999, 1998, 1997, and 1993. In offering the public reprimand, the OLR considered several mitigating factors, including lack of harm to the client and the fact that the prior discipline was remote in time and did not involve similar misconduct.

Public Reprimand of Martin J. Greenberg

The Office of Lawyer Regulation and Martin J. Greenberg entered into an agreement for the imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A Wisconsin Supreme Court-appointed referee approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand on May 7, 2026, pursuant to SCR 22.09(3).

Greenberg was contacted by someone claiming to be from Hong Kong regarding an outstanding business loan. Greenberg never met the person and communicated with them only by email and telephone. Greenberg agreed to represent the person, hereinafter the “client,” for $2,500. The “client” told Greenberg that they had loaned $3 million to someone, hereinafter the “opposing party,” and that the “opposing party” owed the “client” $4.5 million in repayment of the loan. Greenberg prepared a demand letter. The “client” and “opposing party” entered into a repayment plan. Shortly thereafter, the “opposing party” wired $3,451,157.44 to Greenberg’s trust account. That amount did not match any amount mentioned in the repayment plan. The “client” then instructed Greenberg to wire $782,000 to an account in Mexico, and Greenberg did so. The “client” confirmed he had received those funds.

When Greenberg was preparing to wire a second amount to the “client,” a bank in Florida contacted Greenberg’s bank in Wisconsin and informed the bank that the initial transfer of funds into Greenberg’s trust account was fraudulent. The bank asked Greenberg to return the funds. Greenberg was unable to return the full amount because he had already wired money to the “client,” but he returned all funds in his trust account, including funds belonging to a client. Greenberg reimbursed his client for that loss.

By failing to maintain the requisite knowledge and skill reasonably necessary to recognize and prevent his unwitting participation in fraudulent transactions, Greenberg violated SCR 20:1.1.

By instructing his paralegal to initiate wire transfers of funds from his trust account without taking reasonable steps to recognize and prevent his unwitting participation in fraudulent transactions, Greenberg violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) and SCR 20:1.15(f)(1).

Greenberg has no prior discipline.

Disciplinary Proceeding Against Jerome J. Babiak

On May 29, 2026, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law license of Jerome J. Babiak, retroactive to January 26, 2024, the date on which Babiak’s license was summarily suspended following his criminal conviction. The court also ordered Babiak to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding, which totaled $13,224.55. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Babiak, 2026 WI 17.

Babiak was charged with and convicted of two counts of fourth-degree sexual assault. The victim of both assaults was the ex-girlfriend of a client. The victim relied on Babiak to get information as to the status of her ex-boyfriend’s criminal matters, information that was relevant to her custody dispute with her ex-boyfriend. Initially, Babiak and the victim communicated via his office phone. Babiak then transitioned to using his cell phone. The two then engaged in increasingly personal conversations via Snapchat. Babiak’s communication eventually became sexual in nature, including Babiak asking her to come to his house and sending sexually explicit pictures. The victim believed she had to play along with Babiak to continue to obtain information from him about her ex-boyfriend’s criminal cases. The first assault took place in a courthouse, when both Babiak and the victim were present for a hearing involving the ex-boyfriend. A couple of weeks later, Babiak visited her apartment unannounced, and the second assault took place.

While the referee in the matter recommended a four-year suspension, the court found revocation to be the appropriate level of discipline.

Babiak had no prior discipline.