Lawyer convicted in stalking case loses license, for now
A Milwaukee criminal defense lawyer has lost his license to practice law in Wisconsin nearly two years after he was convicted of stalking an ex-girlfriend.
Matthew R. Meyer, 36, had agreed with the Office of Lawyer Regulation’s recommendation that he serve a twoyear suspension for violating rules of professional conduct related to his felony convictions.
But in a rare move, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overrode the agreement, endorsed by a former circuit judge who acted as referee in the OLR’s case.
“We conclude Attorney Meyer’s serious and 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,” the unsigned opinion reads.
Meyer, a Wisconsin lawyer since 2012, had no prior professional discipline. The court’s opinion seemed strongly influenced by the facts of his case, which the court recounted at length in the ruling.
According to court records, after the woman tried to end her relationship with Meyer, he threatened her, punched her, harassed her with hundreds of phone calls in a day, damaged her car and threatened to spread negative information about her to family, friends and her employer.
Meyer told the woman his criminal defense clients would harm her family for him, and that he was immune from legal consequences because of his role as a lawyer.
Originally charged with four counts, Meyer pleaded guilty to two felonies, stalking and threatening to communicate derogatory information.
In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Annette Ziegler, joined by justices Rebecca Bradley and Brian Hagedorn, again noted that in Wisconsin, lawyers can petition to have their revoked licenses restored after five years. The justices support permanent revocations in the most egregious cases. The three justices made the same comment in another recent revocation case.
The lead opinion called Meyer’s situation “one of those cases.”
In dissent, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote the court failed “to tether its chosen level of discipline to any discussion of precedent. It is unique in its approach.”
No cases are cited in the (majority opinion) to support its conclusion because there is no case to cite that supports a revocation,” Bradley wrote. “As a result, the imposition of a revocation seems rather arbitrary.”
She noted the OLR memo referee Jean DiMotto commended to the court cites several cases supporting a twoyear suspension.
“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,” the dissent reads.
The Supreme Court majority adopted the conditions the OLR and Meyer agreed to. Among them was that he provide the OLR with proof of any substance abuse or mental health, anger management and batterers’ treatment he gets prior to petitioning for reinstatement in five years.