¶4 According to the documents attached to the OLR's complaint, on October 17, 2019, the USPTO issued an order suspending Attorney Starkweather's ability to practice before the USPTO for 36 months as a result of his failure to provide competent representation in a reasonably prompt, diligent, honest manner to the inventors he took on as clients. More specifically, the USPTO found Attorney Starkweather violated 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 (competency); 11.102(a) (failing to abide by a client's decisions concerning the representation objectives); 11.103 (diligence); 11.104(a)(1) and (b) (failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to enable the client to make an informed decision); 11.104(a)(2) (failing to reasonably consult with a client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished); 11.104(a)(3) (failing to keep client reasonably informed about the status of a matter); 11.107(a) (failing to obtain informed consent in writing from clients where the representation involved a concurrent conflict of interest); 11.303(a) (1), (3) and (d) (knowingly making false statements of fact to a tribunal); 11.504(c) (permitting an entity which recommended, employed, or paid the respondent-lawyer to direct or regulate the respondent-lawyer's professional judgment); 11.804(c) and (d) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation); and 11.804(d) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). See In the Matter of Michael W. Starkweather, Proc. No. D2018- 44 (USPTO Oct. 17, 2019).

¶5 The USPTO order also states that Attorney Starkweather's future reinstatement by the USPTO, if any, shall be conditioned on, among other things, attaining a certain score on the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE) and completing 12 hours of continuing legal education courses on certain subjects. Id. In addition, the USPTO order states that, if reinstated, Attorney Starkweather must serve a two-year probationary period with a number of specified conditions. Id.

¶6 On February 5, 2020, the OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Starkweather alleging that, by virtue of the suspension imposed by the USPTO on October 17, 2019, Attorney Starkweather is subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22. The OLR's complaint also alleged that by failing to notify the OLR of his suspension by the USPTO within 20 days of the effective date of its imposition, Attorney Starkweather violated SCR 22.22(1).

¶8 Under our rules and precedent, this court shall impose the identical discipline imposed by the USPTO unless one or more of the enumerated exceptions in SCR 22.22(3) is shown. See SCR 22.22(3); see also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Schwedler, 2017 WI 54, ¶5, 375 Wis. 2d 426, 895 N.W.2d 409 (imposing reciprocal discipline based on the USPTO's disciplinary action). There is no indication that any of those exceptions apply in this case. In addition, although certain elements of the USPTO disciplinary order are generally not imposed in Wisconsin disciplinary proceedings (e.g., imposition of a probationary term, the requirement of a particular score on the MPRE), this court's practice in like situations is to order the respondent-lawyer to comply with the terms and conditions imposed by the disciplinary order in the other jurisdiction in order to make the discipline identical under SCR 22.22. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hooker, 2010 WI 13, ¶11, 322 Wis. 2d 552, 779 N.W.2d 419; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moree, 2004 WI 118, 275 Wis. 2d 279, 684 N.W.2d 667. We do so here.

¶9 We do not impose the costs of this proceeding on Attorney Starkweather. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hooker, 2012 WI 100, ¶26, 343 Wis. 2d 397, 816 N.W.2d 310 (noting that in reciprocal discipline cases where a referee is not appointed, costs are generally not imposed as there are no referee expenses and the proceedings are less involved).

¶10 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michael W. Starkweather to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 36 months, effective the date of this order.

¶11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael W. Starkweather shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.

¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all conditions of this order, and compliance with all conditions of the disciplinary order imposed on Michael W. Starkweather by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, are required for reinstatement. See SCR 22.29(4)(c).

¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative suspension of Michael W. Starkweather's license to practice law in Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay bar dues and failure to comply with trust account certification requirements, will remain in effect until each reason for the administrative suspension has been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).