--

WI Court of Supreme Court

Case Name: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael Seung-Hyock Yang

Case No.: 2024AP000170-Dd

Officials:

Focus: Attorney License Revocation-Sexual Harassment

In this attorney discipline case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law license of Michael Seung-Hyock Yang for pervasive sexual misconduct toward two female clients he represented as a state-appointed public defender. Yang admitted violating professional conduct rules prohibiting sexual harassment and offensive conduct.

The court found that Yang repeatedly made sexually suggestive comments, flirted with clients, requested sexual writings, discussed sexual acts, sent explicit messages and photos of his genitals, and implied that sexual cooperation could affect his legal representation. One client testified she accepted probation revocation and served prison time rather than continue interacting with him, and the other feared she would have to have sex with him to avoid prison.

Although a referee recommended a one-year suspension with counseling conditions, the court concluded revocation was necessary due to the seriousness and pattern of misconduct, Yang’s abuse of vulnerable clients, and the harm caused to public trust in the justice system. The court rejected Yang’s arguments that the conduct involved only “words,” that he lacked clear guidance on professional boundaries, and that the Office of Lawyer Regulation over-litigated the case.

The court emphasized that attorneys occupy positions of trust and that exploiting clients for sexual gratification fundamentally violates the attorney-client relationship. Further, the court noted that Yang showed limited genuine remorse because he continued minimizing his conduct and blaming changing social norms. The court imposed full disciplinary costs of over $23,000 on Yang.

Decided 05/01/26

--

While Client 1 wanted the opportunity to prove her innocence, she decided to stipulate to the revocation of her probation so she “didn’t have to have any more interactions with” Attorney Yang. Client 1 ended up serving a year and half in prison because, in her words, “I would rather just sit in prison than have to see [Attorney Yang] again or have another conversation with him.”

During their initial telephone call, Attorney Yang asked Client 2 about her social media, and Client 2 informed Attorney Yang that she had some videos posted on adult websites. The conversation became “instantly sexual” and focused on adult websites rather than Client 2’s criminal defense.11 Thereafter, Yang began to engage in inappropriate, sexually explicit communications with Client 2. The discussion made Client 2 uncomfortable and question her legal rights.

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1113042

https://my-law-office.com/about/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5867341&forum_id=2#49889189)

https://my-law-office.com/about/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5867341&forum_id=2#50001479)

Be Attractive.

Don't be Unattractive.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5867341&forum_id=2#49889244)

It's the meth-queens that need Court-Appointed help.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5867341&forum_id=2#50001481)

But would the Court have punished him as harshly if he was trying to fuck his well-to-do PAID clients?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5867341&forum_id=2#50001486)

This hits on so many tropes that this guy just has to be a poster. Wonder what his moniker is

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5867341&forum_id=2#50001574)