KENOSHA, Wis. — A Kenosha man facing serious criminal charges is now out a $10,000 retainer and his attorney, as both a circuit court judge and Wisconsin Supreme Court investigators have raised concerns about the conduct of his former lawyer.

In Wisconsin, an attorney remains counsel of record unless and until a judge grants permission to withdraw. A lawyer cannot simply end representation on their own; court approval is required.

Attorney Michael Forella appeared before Judge David Hughes on Thursday for a hearing on a motion to reconsider his withdrawal as defense counsel. During the hearing, the court indicated it had concerns about the basis for the withdrawal and said the explanation previously provided was not entirely clear.

Judge Hughes described the withdrawal filing as somewhat ambiguous and noted it could have been interpreted as suggesting both sides agreed to the withdrawal — which they did not.

Despite those concerns, the court declined to sanction Forella. Instead, the judge ordered that Forella provide a more detailed explanation of the alleged conflict of interest directly to the court in camera — meaning privately in the judge’s chambers and not on the public record. In camera proceedings are typically used when sensitive or confidential matters, such as attorney-client issues, cannot be disclosed publicly.

In court, Forella stated that he personally identified the conflict of interest during his own review of the case.

However, that explanation appears to conflict with earlier representations and materials filed in the case.

In a written motion to withdraw, Forella stated that the conflict arose “during the course of a pending investigation with a new investigator.”

Separately, a sworn declaration filed in the case states that no investigation was ever conducted. According to that declaration, an investigator was contacted about the case but no meetings took place and no investigative work was performed. The declaration further states that no information, leads, or evidence were ever developed and that, to the declarant’s knowledge, no investigation of any kind was conducted on behalf of the defendant.

The apparent inconsistency between Forella’s written motion, his statements in court, and the sworn declaration raises questions about how and when the alleged conflict of interest was identified.

Court records show that the State filed its witness list on September 25, 2023, while the defense did not file its witness list until August 7, 2024. The timing raises questions about the claimed “recent” discovery of a conflict, given that the State’s witness list — which would identify potential witnesses — had been on file for well over two years before Forella moved to withdraw in February 2026.

The defendant has alleged in court filings that he had limited communication with his attorney, that little to no investigation was conducted over an extended period despite paying a significant flat fee, and that none of the $10,000 retainer has been returned following Forella’s withdrawal.

During the hearing, Forella also claimed that his client had urged Kenosha County Eye to write about him — a statement that is false. This publication did not receive any information from the client regarding its prior reporting on Forella’s advertising practices.

After the hearing, Forella was asked what, specifically, was false about Kenosha County Eye’s reporting. He declined to identify any inaccuracies. He also declined to answer questions about whether he had improperly taken money from his former client or from any other clients.

Judge Hughes denied the motion to reconsider the withdrawal but required additional clarification from Forella regarding the nature of the conflict before fully resolving the issue.

The developments in court come as the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation — the agency that investigates attorney misconduct on behalf of the Wisconsin Supreme Court — has already raised concerns about Forella’s advertising practices.

In a March 20, 2026 letter, the Office of Lawyer Regulation confirmed that concerns were identified with Forella’s website and that those concerns were communicated to him. Following that review, Forella removed certain content from his site, including materials that violated Wisconsin Supreme Court rules governing the use of courtroom images in advertising. He also removed language claiming he had a “team of lawyers” and other promotional content. Notably, one of the photographs used in violation of those rules depicted this same client.

“Because your grievance raised issues that were of concern to OLR, we have conveyed those concerns to Atty. Forella and have provided advice regarding ways to avoid similar problems in the future.”

However, the Office of Lawyer Regulation did not require Forella to explain or substantiate his continued claim that he has achieved “thousands of charges dismissed,” which remains prominently displayed on his website.

That claim, which Forella has declined to explain despite repeated questions, is central to his marketing and continues to draw scrutiny.

Kenosha County Eye requested comment from the Office of Lawyer Regulation but did not receive a response.

The case remains ongoing, with the court allowing additional time for new counsel to be retained.