The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended attorney Matthew V. Burkert's law license for two years and ordered him to pay $24,358.50 in restitution after he entered a no-contest plea to professional misconduct charges involving his former law firm.
The court announced its decision Sept. 12, 2025, in *Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Matthew V. Burkert* (2025 WI 44), modifying a referee's recommendation for an 18-month suspension. The disciplinary proceeding stems from Attorney Burkert's conduct involving "a substantial number of representations and incidents relating to his former law firm," according to court documents.
Referee Karen L. Seifert had recommended the shorter suspension period along with the restitution payment. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that a two-year suspension was more appropriate given the facts of the case. Neither party appealed the referee's initial recommendation, allowing the court to review the matter under Supreme Court Rule 22.17(2).
The case originated from a complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation alleging two counts of professional misconduct against Burkert. The attorney entered a no-contest plea and stipulated to the factual allegations, which the court found supported a legal conclusion that he violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The restitution order addresses what the court described as "Attorney Burkert's conversion of fees due to that firm for four representations." This indicates Burkert improperly handled client fees that belonged to his former law firm across multiple cases. The specific amount of $24,358.50 represents the financial harm caused by these violations.
Under Wisconsin's disciplinary procedures, the Office of Lawyer Regulation investigates attorney misconduct and brings formal charges when warranted. The case proceeds before a referee who makes findings of fact and recommendations for discipline. The Wisconsin Supreme Court then reviews these recommendations and determines the final disciplinary action.
The court's decision to increase the suspension from 18 months to two years signals the seriousness with which it views the violations. Professional misconduct involving conversion of client funds typically receives significant sanctions, as it undermines public trust in the legal profession and violates attorneys' fiduciary duties.
Attorney discipline in Wisconsin follows a graduated system ranging from private reprimands to license revocation. Suspensions of two years represent substantial discipline, reflecting conduct that seriously compromises professional standards. During the suspension period, Burkert cannot practice law in Wisconsin or represent clients in any legal matters.
The disciplinary proceeding addressed multiple incidents and representations, suggesting a pattern of misconduct rather than isolated violations. Courts typically impose harsher discipline when attorneys engage in repeated violations or when their conduct affects multiple clients or cases.
Conversion of attorney fees represents a particularly serious form of professional misconduct. Attorneys hold client funds in trust and must properly account for and distribute these payments. When attorneys improperly retain fees belonging to their firms or clients, they violate fundamental ethical obligations and potentially commit criminal acts.
The court's order requiring restitution ensures that Burkert's former firm recovers the converted fees. This remedial measure addresses the financial harm while the license suspension serves as punishment and protection for the public. Restitution requirements often accompany disciplinary sanctions when attorneys cause monetary losses through their misconduct.
Burkert's stipulation and no-contest plea likely influenced the disciplinary process by demonstrating acceptance of responsibility. While this cooperation may have prevented more severe sanctions, it did not eliminate the need for substantial discipline given the nature and scope of the violations.
The case reflects Wisconsin's commitment to maintaining professional standards among its attorneys. The Office of Lawyer Regulation actively investigates misconduct complaints and pursues appropriate sanctions to protect clients and preserve public confidence in the legal system.
For Burkert to resume practicing law after the two-year suspension, he may need to meet additional requirements such as demonstrating fitness to practice, completing continuing education, or satisfying other conditions the court might impose. The disciplinary order serves both as punishment for past misconduct and as a deterrent to prevent future violations by Burkert and other attorneys.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's modification of the referee's recommendation demonstrates the court's independent review authority in disciplinary matters. Even when parties do not appeal, the court carefully examines the facts and circumstances to ensure appropriate discipline that serves justice and protects the public interest.