The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ordered the revocation of Michael B. Padden’s law license, mirroring a disbarment handed down by the Minnesota Supreme Court in August 2024. The decision, handed down on November 12, 2025, stems from a reciprocal discipline proceeding, where Wisconsin considers disciplinary actions taken against attorneys in other jurisdictions.
The Basis for the Disciplinary Action
Attorney Padden, admitted to practice in Wisconsin in 2002 and in Minnesota in 1986, faced disbarment in Minnesota due to multiple instances of professional misconduct. While Padden had no prior disciplinary history in Wisconsin, his past in Minnesota included: a private admonition in 1996 for failing to enter into a written contingent fee agreement and failing to return a client’s file; a public reprimand in 2017 for settling a case without client consent, failing to communicate the settlement and making a false statement to the court; and a private admonition in 2019 for failing to deposit advanced costs into a trust account.
The Minnesota disbarment was based on a petition and supplementary petition filed by the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the referee’s recommendation for disbarment, focusing on allegations deemed admitted in the supplementary petition.
Key Misconduct Findings
The Minnesota Supreme Court found that Padden had engaged in several serious acts of misconduct:
* In one case, Padden forged a client’s signature on a fee agreement to retain $25,000 in fees, despite the client’s refusal to allow him to keep the money. He also made false statements to the client’s wife and the disciplinary authorities.
* In another instance, Padden failed to obtain a receipt for an $8,500 advance fee, did not deposit the fee into his trust account, and refused a full refund after the client terminated the representation.
* Padden failed to refund unearned portions of flat fees in several client matters.
* Padden failed to appear for multiple court hearings.
* Padden failed to cooperate with the Director’s investigation.
Wisconsin’s Reciprocal Discipline Process
Under Wisconsin’s rules, the state’s Supreme Court typically imposes the same discipline as another jurisdiction unless specific exceptions apply. In this case, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) initiated the proceedings, seeking reciprocal discipline based on the Minnesota disbarment.
Attorney Padden initially responded to the OLR’s complaint, but did not follow the proper format. He claimed the Minnesota disciplinary process was unfair and requested a hearing before a referee. He further argued that two exceptions to reciprocal discipline should apply: that the Minnesota proceedings deprived him of due process and that the misconduct justified different discipline in Wisconsin.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected Padden’s arguments and declined to appoint a referee, stating that there were no factual disputes that warranted a hearing. The court’s role in this reciprocal proceeding was limited to determining if any of the exceptions to reciprocal discipline applied.
Due Process and Substantially Different Discipline Arguments Rejected
The court addressed Padden’s claims, first concerning due process. The court found that Padden had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the misconduct allegations in Minnesota. The fact that he admitted the allegations due to his own litigation choices was not a due process violation.
The court then considered whether the misconduct warranted “substantially different” discipline in Wisconsin. The OLR initially sought revocation of Padden’s license, which is the functional equivalent of disbarment. However, the OLR later argued for a six-month suspension, citing differences in reinstatement rules between the two states.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed with the OLR’s shift, stating that revocation was the appropriate and “identical” discipline. The court cited the severity of disbarment in Minnesota and the egregious nature of Padden’s misconduct, including misappropriation of client funds, forgery, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations. The court noted that revocation was consistent with its previous rulings in similar cases involving serious ethical breaches.
The court concluded that Attorney Padden had failed to demonstrate that revocation was substantially outside the range of discipline the court would impose for similar misconduct in Wisconsin. Therefore, the court ordered the revocation of his Wisconsin law license, effective immediately.