2023 WI 12 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2020AP2166-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Matthew T. Luening, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Matthew T. Luening, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LUENING OPINION FILED: February 24, 2023 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: Per curiam. NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: 2023 WI 12 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2021AP2166-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Matthew T. Luening, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED Complainant, FEB 24, 2023 v. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court Matthew T. Luening, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Counts one through seven of complaint dismissed; remanded to referee for further proceedings. ¶1 PER CURIAM. This matter was scheduled for oral argument on November 7, 2022, but was removed from the oral argument calendar because the court determined that the case presented an unresolved choice of law issue. In order to resolve that issue, we asked the parties to advise whether Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 20:8.5(b)1 required that the counts of misconduct 1 Supreme Court Rule 20:8.5(b)(1) provides in part: No. 2021AP2166-D alleged in the complaint filed by the Office of Law Regulation (OLR) that arose out of Attorney Matthew Luening’s representation of clients before an immigration tribunal should have been pleaded under the rules promulgated by the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), as set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.102, rather than under Wisconsin’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Having considered the parties’ submissions on that issue, we conclude that OLR should have charged the counts of misconduct connected with cases pending before immigration tribunals under EOIR rules. We also conclude that the appropriate remedy for OLR’s decision not to do so is to dismiss those counts of misconduct and to remand the matter to the referee for a recommendation on the appropriate sanction for the remaining counts of misconduct found by the referee. ¶2 Attorney Luening was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 2010 and practices in Milwaukee. His disciplinary history consists of two consensual public reprimands. Public Reprimand of Matthew T. Luening, 2017-3; Public Reprimand of Matthew T. Luening, 2017-10. ¶3 On December 29, 2020, OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Luening alleging twelve counts of misconduct. The first (b) Choice of Law. In the exercise of the disciplinary authority of this state, the rules of Professional Conduct to be applied shall be as follows: (1) for conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal, the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the tribunal provide otherwise. . . . 2 No. 2021AP2166-D seven counts of misconduct arose out of Attorney Luening’s immigration law practice. Each of those seven counts of misconduct cited only the Supreme Court Rule that Attorney Luening was alleged to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals