Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Brian P. Mularski

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2018-10-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
2018 WI 99 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP85-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Brian P. Mularski, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Brian P. Mularski, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MULARSKI 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 17, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
September 5, 2018 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the respondent-appellant, there was a brief filed and 
oral argument by Brian P. Mularski, Mequon. 
 
For the complainant-respondent, there was a brief filed and 
oral argument by Jonathan E. Hendrix and Office of Lawyer 
Regulation, Madison. 
 
 
2018 WI 99
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2008AP85-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Brian P. Mularski, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Brian P. Mularski, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 17, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement denied.  
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   Attorney 
Brian 
P. 
Mularski 
appeals 
Referee Jonathan V. Goodman's report recommending that we deny 
Attorney Mularski's petition for reinstatement of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  After fully reviewing this matter, 
we agree that Attorney Mularski has not satisfied the criteria 
required to resume the practice of law in this state, and we 
deny his petition for reinstatement.  We also determine that 
Attorney Mularski should be required to pay the costs of this 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
2 
 
reinstatement proceeding, which are $6,000.60 as of September 
19, 2018. 
¶2 
Attorney Mularski was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2000.  In 2009, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint against Attorney Mularski 
alleging 13 counts of professional misconduct in three client 
matters.  At the time, he had no prior discipline although his 
law license was suspended for noncompliance with payment of 
state bar dues and trust account certification requirements.   
¶3 
The disciplinary allegations involved problems with 
fee agreements, acting without clients' knowledge or agreement, 
failing to satisfy liens with settlement funds, disbursing funds 
from an insufficient trust account, failing to maintain trust 
records, 
making 
misrepresentations 
to 
insurers, 
modifying 
releases, forging a client's signature on a release, failing to 
ensure payment to medical providers, false representations on 
settlement statements, distributing settlement proceeds despite 
the existence of a lien, endorsing checks without authority, 
making misrepresentations to the OLR, and submitting fabricated 
letters to the OLR.   
¶4 
Attorney Mularski, who was also facing eight pending 
grievance investigations, filed a petition for consensual 
license revocation.  On September 10, 2010, this court granted 
Attorney Mularski's petition, revoking his law license.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mularski, 2010 WI 113, 329 
Wis. 2d 273, 787 N.W.2d 834.  As is relevant to this proceeding, 
our order explicitly stated that: 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
3 
 
[a]s 
a 
condition 
of 
any 
future 
petition 
for 
reinstatement, Attorney Mularski shall provide an 
accounting 
and 
demonstrate 
he 
has 
made 
full 
restitution to those individuals aggrieved by his 
misconduct as alleged in the OLR complaint and the 
pending investigations. 
Id., ¶4.   
¶5 
On May 7, 2012, the State charged Attorney Mularski 
with two felony counts of theft, alleging that between 2006 and 
2009 Attorney Mularski had embezzled hundreds of thousands of 
dollars from the trust account of his former law firm, 
Eisenberg, Riley & Zimmerman.  On October 23, 2012, Attorney 
Mularski pled guilty to one felony count of theft and was 
sentenced to five years of probation with one year at the 
Milwaukee County House of Corrections as a condition of that 
probation.  He was ordered to have no contact with his former 
firm.  The sentencing court ordered Attorney Mularski to pay, 
inter alia, restitution to the firm's trust account in the 
amount of $338,019.96.1 
¶6 
On February 16, 2017, Attorney Mularski filed this 
petition for reinstatement.  The OLR opposed his petition.  On 
November 
14, 
2017, 
Referee 
Goodman 
conducted 
a 
public 
reinstatement hearing.  Attorney Mularski testified and one 
former client appeared and testified in opposition to Attorney 
Mularski's reinstatement.  Attorney Mularski's former spouse 
also appeared and testified.  As relevant here, she reported 
                                                 
1 At the time of his sentencing Attorney Mularski had repaid 
the firm over $238,000. 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
4 
 
that Attorney Mularski had claimed their children as exemptions 
on his 2016 federal tax return, despite their marital settlement 
agreement to the contrary.  
¶7 
Attorney Mularski described the tax issue as an 
unintentional mistake and emphasized that he had amended that 
tax return.  Attorney Mularski disclosed that he and his former 
spouse are currently involved in a contentious custody and 
placement proceeding involving their children. 
¶8 
On December 14, 2017, the referee issued a report 
recommending that the court deny Attorney Mularski's petition.   
¶9 
Attorney Mularski appeals.  The parties filed briefs 
and we conducted oral argument on September 5, 2018.   
¶10 In our review, we accept a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  We review a referee's legal 
conclusions, including whether the attorney has satisfied the 
criteria for reinstatement, on a de novo basis.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jennings, 2011 WI 45, ¶39, 334 
Wis. 2d 335, 801 N.W.2d 304; In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gral, 2010 WI 14, ¶22, 323 Wis. 2d 280, 779 N.W.2d 168. 
¶11 The question before this court is whether we should 
reinstate Attorney Mularski's license to practice law.  Attorney 
Mularski reasons that the only way he will ever satisfy his many 
financial obligations will be if he is permitted to practice law 
again.  He asks the court to reinstate him so he can make 
headway against his restitution obligations.  He suggests he 
could be reinstated with various conditions and restrictions 
imposed on his license.   
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
5 
 
¶12 The 
standards 
that 
apply 
to 
petitions 
for 
reinstatement after a disciplinary suspension or revocation are 
set forth in SCR 22.31(1).2  The petitioning attorney must 
demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that 
he or she has the moral character necessary to practice law in 
this state, that his or her resumption of the practice of law 
will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or 
subversive of the public interest, and that the attorney has 
complied fully with the terms of the suspension or revocation 
order and the requirements of SCR 22.26.  
¶13 In 
addition, 
SCR 
22.31(1)(c) 
incorporates 
the 
statements that a petition for reinstatement must contain 
pursuant to SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(k) and (4m).3  Thus, the petitioning 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.31(1) provides the petitioner has the burden 
of 
demonstrating, 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, 
and 
convincing evidence, all of the following:  
(a) That he or she has the moral character to 
practice law in Wisconsin.  
(b) That his or her resumption of the practice of 
law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest.  
(c) That his or her representations in the 
petition, including the representations required by 
SCR 22.29(4)(a) 
to 
(m) 
and 
22.29(5), 
are 
substantiated.  
(d) That he or she has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
with the requirements of SCR 22.26. 
3 SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(k) and (4m) provides that a petition 
for reinstatement shall show all of the following: 
(continued) 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
6 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
(a) 
The 
petitioner 
desires 
to 
have 
the 
petitioner's license reinstated.  
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during 
the period of suspension or revocation.  
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
will 
continue 
to 
comply 
with 
them 
until 
the 
petitioner's license is reinstated.  
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and 
learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities.  
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension 
or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach.  
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of 
and attitude toward the standards that are imposed 
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with the standards.  
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to 
the legal profession, the courts and the public as a 
person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 
them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence and in general to aid in the administration 
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 
the courts.  
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26.  
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license 
if reinstated.  
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation.  
(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 
petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to 
the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection for 
all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the 
(continued) 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
7 
 
attorney needs to demonstrate that the required representations 
in the reinstatement petition are substantiated. 
¶14 The referee concluded and we agree that Attorney 
Mularski has satisfied a number of the criteria required for 
reinstatement.  He has proven by clear and convincing evidence 
that he sincerely desires to have his license reinstated, 
SCR 22.29(4)(a); that he has not practiced law during the 
periods of his suspension and revocation, SCR 22.29(4)(b); and 
that he has maintained competence and learning in the law, 
SCR 22.29(4)(d).  He has explained how he would use his license 
if reinstated, SCR 22.29(4)(j), and he has outlined his 
activities during his revocation, SCR 22.29(4)(k).  Indeed, the 
referee concluded that Attorney Mularski "does have the moral 
character to practice law in Wisconsin," SCR 22.31(1)(a).  The 
OLR has not appealed that conclusion. 
¶15 However, the referee concluded that Attorney Mularski 
fell short of several of the reinstatement requirements.  The 
most significant problem is Attorney Mularski's undisputed 
failure to provide an accounting and demonstrate he has made 
full 
restitution 
to 
those 
individuals 
aggrieved 
by 
his 
misconduct.  Before addressing this issue we will briefly 
discuss the other concerns identified by the referee. 
¶16 The referee concluded that it would be detrimental to 
the administration of justice or subversive of the public 
                                                                                                                                                             
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability 
to do so. 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
8 
 
interest for Attorney Mularski to resume the practice of law, 
SCR 22.31(1)(b), 
noting 
his 
failure 
to 
have 
sought 
and 
identified a mentor in anticipation of his potential re-entry 
into the practice of law.  The referee also concluded that 
Attorney Mularski failed to establish that his conduct since the 
revocation 
has 
been 
exemplary 
and 
above 
reproach, 
SCR 22.29(4)(e), 
noting 
the 
"improvident 
claiming 
of 
tax 
exemptions for the couple's minor children" and his decision to 
provide references from individuals who were unfamiliar with his 
past.  Attorney Mularski himself conceded that he failed to 
satisfy SCR 22.29(4)(h), which requires a petitioner to fully 
comply with the requirements set forth in SCR 22.26.  Attorney 
Mularski concedes he did not timely notify all clients of his 
revocation in 2010. 
¶17 These concerns alone might not be insurmountable 
obstacles to reinstatement, particularly given the context in 
which Attorney Mularski's former spouse offered her testimony.  
However, the primary impediment to reinstatement is Attorney 
Mularski's failure to provide the court with an accounting and 
make arrangements for restitution.  Addressing restitution is 
required 
in 
all 
reinstatement 
proceedings, 
see, 
e.g., 
SCR 22.29(4)(c) and (4m), and was explicitly imposed in the 
order granting his petition for consensual license revocation. 
¶18 The referee found that "there is no evidence that 
Respondent furnished a complete accounting and proof that he has 
made full restitution to or settled all claims of all persons 
harmed 
by 
his 
misconduct" 
adding 
that, 
nothing 
in 
this 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
9 
 
proceeding "gave any inkling that there was a plan to commence 
repayment."  Accordingly, the referee concluded that Attorney 
Mularski 
failed 
to 
carry 
his 
burden 
of 
proof 
regarding 
SCR 22.29(4)(4m) (requiring the lawyer to demonstrate that he or 
she has made restitution to or satisfied all claims of persons 
injured or harmed by his misconduct) and SCR 22.29(4)(c) 
(requiring that he comply with the terms of the suspension and 
revocation orders); see also SCR 22.31(1)(d) (requiring clear 
and convincing evidence that he "has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and with the 
requirements of SCR 22.26.").4  
¶19 The 
OLR 
agrees, 
noting 
that 
during 
the 
OLR's 
investigation and at the hearing, Attorney Mularski was unable 
to identify the amounts he owed to his former clients, or 
provide documentation of payment.   
¶20 Attorney 
Mularski 
acknowledges 
that 
he 
has 
not 
provided the required accounting, much less satisfied his 
restitution obligations.  He contends this should not preclude 
his reinstatement because, he says, creating the required 
                                                 
4 The referee also concluded that Attorney Mularski failed 
to establish that he can be safely recommended to the legal 
profession, the courts, and the public, SCR 22.29(4)(g), for 
these same reasons.  The referee made no explicit finding or 
conclusion with respect to SCR 22.29(4)(f), but the record 
supports the implicit conclusion that Attorney Mularski has 
failed to demonstrate a proper understanding of and attitude 
toward the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar 
and will act in conformity with them. 
 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
10 
 
accounting is an impossible task.  He says that he has "provided 
all documentation he has available to show what has been paid, 
and what may be due.  No additional records are available, and 
for the referee to find that [Mularski] has failed to meet his 
burden is clearly erroneous."   
¶21 We disagree. The record confirms that this is a 
challenging problem to unravel, but also demonstrates that there 
is more Attorney Mularski could do to respond to this court's 
order and the requirement for reinstatement. 
¶22 Creating an accounting that will identify the amount 
of restitution owed to Attorney Mularski's former clients is 
challenging because there are separate, sometimes overlapping, 
orders and judgments.  As noted, in the criminal proceeding 
Attorney Mularski was ordered to pay $338,019.96 in restitution 
to the Eisenberg firm.5  The allegations in the underlying OLR 
disciplinary complaint overlap with those in the criminal 
complaint, but also contained separate claims relating to 
clients Attorney Mularski represented before he joined the 
Eisenberg firm.  
¶23 Meanwhile, some former clients have been reimbursed by 
the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection and others 
                                                 
5 Attorney Mularski says this dollar amount was intended to 
represent a "cap" on restitution to reimburse the firm's trust 
account, with the understanding that the amount might be reduced 
upon evidence that he had satisfied obligations to clients.  For 
purposes of this proceeding he does not contest this dollar 
amount. 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
11 
 
have obtained civil judgments against Attorney Mularski.  These 
judgments total hundreds of thousands of dollars.  At least some 
of these judgments and reimbursements presumably overlap with 
client matters that comprise the criminal order for restitution.  
¶24 Attorney Mularski says that he has no way to determine 
which clients have been reimbursed without reviewing trust 
account records from the Eisenberg firm. He says that the 
Eisenberg firm has repeatedly declined to provide him with trust 
account information.  He reminds the court that during his 
probation, a no-contact order precluded him from directly 
seeking this information from his former firm.  Attorney 
Mularski says he sought assistance obtaining these records from 
the 
circuit 
court, 
the 
district 
attorney's 
office, 
the 
Department of Corrections, and the OLR, but to no avail.  
Indeed, he appears to blame the OLR for his predicament, 
complaining that the:  "OLR had the authority to call witnesses 
and request the information required to establish the amount of 
restitution due and owing and calculate an accurate balance 
due," and that the "OLR's decision to not contact the Eisenberg 
firm to provide the relevant Trust Account records cannot be 
held against the Respondent-Appellant."     
¶25 However, 
this 
is 
revisionist 
history. 
 
The 
difficulties regarding restitution long predate the criminal 
proceeding and ensuing criminal restitution and no-contact 
orders.  Before we accepted Attorney Mularski's petition for 
consensual license revocation in 2010, we were concerned about 
the clients who were owed restitution, and issued detailed 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
12 
 
orders seeking to resolve restitution as to the clients 
implicated in that proceeding.  
¶26 For example, over eight years ago, by order dated 
March 23, 2010, we directed Attorney Mularski to show cause why 
an accounting and restitution should not be ordered as follows:  
E.P.: restitution of $4,000 and an accounting;  
K.C.: restitution of $6,121.33 and an accounting;  
A.B. Medical Center: restitution of an undetermined 
amount and an accounting;  
C.U.: restitution of an undetermined amount and an 
accounting;  
J.C.: restitution of $125,000 and an accounting;  
K.W.: restitution of $30,000 and an accounting;  
E.D.: restitution of $39,000 and an accounting;  
C.D.: restitution of an undetermined amount and an 
accounting;  
S.C.: restitution of $5,000 and an accounting;  
J.H.: restitution of an undetermined amount and an 
accounting; and  
S.D.: restitution of an undetermined amount and an 
accounting.   
OLR v. Mularski, No. 2008AP85-D, unpublished order (Wis. S. Ct. 
March 23, 2010). 
¶27 The OLR filed a response agreeing that several of 
these clients were entitled to restitution in amounts ranging 
from just over $700 to approximately $12,000, for a total of 
approximately $19,000.  Attorney Mularski, in turn, filed a 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
13 
 
response essentially maintaining that no restitution was due to 
any of these clients. 
¶28 Despite his first-hand knowledge that this court was 
keenly interested in ascertaining appropriate restitution to 
compensate clients injured by Attorney Mularski's misconduct, 
Attorney Mularski provided this court with no documentation, 
much less an accounting, even with respect to the clients 
identified in earlier court orders or those Attorney Mularski 
represented before he joined the Eisenberg firm.  For example, 
both parties made repeated reference to a "spread-sheet" that 
apparently reflects Attorney Mularski's best effort to establish 
an accounting, but this document was not produced in this 
proceeding.  Without it neither the referee nor this court has 
any way of independently determining whether the accounting 
challenge is indeed an impossible task. 
¶29 We wholly agree that the burden of proving a lawyer 
has met the requirements for reinstatement rests with Attorney 
Mularski, not the OLR.  We understand the OLR's position to be 
that the lawyer disciplinary system is not designed to provide 
the mechanism to collect restitution in every case.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nussberger, 2009 WI 103, ¶23, 
321 Wis. 2d 576, 775 N.W.2d 525, ("while this court frequently 
imposes 
restitution, 
historically 
the 
purpose 
of 
lawyer 
discipline is not to make whole those harmed by attorney 
misconduct").  However, given the complexity of this task, we 
encourage the parties to cooperate to try to establish an 
accounting and a restitution repayment schedule.  
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
14 
 
¶30 We conclude that Attorney Mularski has failed to meet 
his burden to prove to this court that he has satisfied all the 
requirements of SCR 22.31(1) necessary to justify reinstatement 
of his license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶31 With respect to the costs of this reinstatement 
proceeding, it is our general practice to assess the full costs 
of 
the 
proceeding 
against 
the 
petitioning 
attorney. 
See 
SCR 22.24(1m).  Nothing in this case warrants a reduction in the 
costs, and we impose the full costs of the reinstatement 
proceeding on Attorney Mularski.   
¶32 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement is 
denied.  
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Brian P. Mularski shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$6,000.60, as of September 19, 2018. 
 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
 
 
1