Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael D. Mandelman

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2018-05-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
2018 WI 56 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2003AP3348-D, 2004AP2633-D, 2007AP2653-D, 
2011AP584-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael D. Mandelman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Michael D. Mandelman, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
 
ON THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF MANDELMAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 24, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, J., dissents (opinion filed). 
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: A.W. BRADLEY, J., did not participate.    
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2018 WI 56
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
No.   2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
 2011AP584-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael D. Mandelman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael D. Mandelman, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 24, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement denied. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule (SCR) 22.33(3),1 a report filed by Referee James W. Mohr, 
Jr., recommending the court reinstate the license of Attorney 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.33(3) provides:  "If no appeal is timely filed, the 
supreme 
court 
shall 
review 
the 
referee's 
report, 
order 
reinstatement, with or without conditions, deny reinstatement, 
or order the parties to file briefs in the matter." 
No. 
2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
 2011AP584-D   
 
2 
 
Michael D. Mandelman to practice law in Wisconsin, with 
conditions.  The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) did not 
appeal the referee's recommendation.  After fully reviewing this 
matter, we conclude that Attorney Mandelman 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 Mandelman should be required to pay the 
costs of this reinstatement proceeding, which were $7,674.57 as 
of October 10, 2017. 
¶2 
The 
standards 
that 
apply 
to 
all 
petitions 
for 
reinstatement after a disciplinary suspension or revocation are 
set forth in SCR 22.31(1).2  In particular, the petitioning 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.31(1) provides: 
(1) 
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. 
No. 
2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
 2011AP584-D   
 
3 
 
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.  
¶3 
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 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(k) and (4m) provides that a petition 
for reinstatement shall show all of the following: 
(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.  
(continued) 
No. 
2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
 2011AP584-D   
 
4 
 
attorney shall demonstrate that the required representations in 
the reinstatement petition are substantiated. 
¶4 
When 
reviewing 
referee 
reports 
in 
reinstatement 
proceedings, we utilize standards of review similar to those we 
use for reviewing referee reports in disciplinary proceedings. 
We do not overturn a referee's findings of fact unless they are 
clearly erroneous.  On the other hand, 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 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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 
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability 
to do so. 
No. 
2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
 2011AP584-D   
 
5 
 
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. 
¶5 
Attorney Mandelman was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1980.  He has been the subject of seven 
disciplinary proceedings.  His license has been suspended or 
revoked since 2006. 
¶6 
In 1990, Attorney Mandelman was suspended for one year 
for 27 counts of misconduct that affected more than a dozen 
clients.  The complaint included misconduct from 1985 and 
involved multiple counts of failing to act with diligence, 
failing to promptly return files to clients, simultaneously 
representing multiple clients with adverse interests, settling a 
client's claim without authorization, failing to communicate 
with clients, and making a misrepresentation to the former Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
(BAPR), 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 158 Wis. 2d 1, 460 
N.W.2d 749 
(1990). 
In 
this, 
Attorney 
Mandelman's 
first 
disciplinary proceeding, the referee expressed concern about the 
"pattern of a large number and repeated offenses over a period 
of several years."  This court commented that the misconduct 
"establish[ed] a definite pattern of Attorney Mandelman's 
disregard of very basic ethical obligations of lawyers."  Id.  
¶7 
When 
that 
suspension 
ended, 
Attorney 
Mandelman 
petitioned for reinstatement of his license.  The court denied 
his 
reinstatement 
petition 
on 
two 
grounds: 
additional 
professional misconduct was discovered, including his post-
No. 
2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
 2011AP584-D   
 
6 
 
suspension violation of the rules governing the handling of his 
client trust account and, during the reinstatement proceeding 
itself, he gave incomplete and evasive responses to the district 
committee and to the BAPR. 
¶8 
In response to the additional professional misconduct, 
the court suspended Attorney Mandelman's license for 18 months, 
imposed 
consecutive 
to 
the 
termination 
of 
the 
earlier 
suspension.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 
182 Wis. 2d 583, 514 N.W.2d 11 (1994).  That misconduct included 
failing to act with diligence, failing to respond to clients' 
requests for information, failing to refund a client's retainer, 
violating the rules regarding trust accounts following his 1990 
suspension, and failing to provide complete and accurate 
responses to BAPR.  Id.  
¶9 
In 1995, we reinstated Attorney Mandelman's license 
with certain conditions that were intended to ensure that 
Attorney 
Mandelman 
remained 
compliant 
with 
our 
rules.  
Unfortunately, those conditions did not accomplish the desired 
result. 
¶10 In 1999, Attorney Mandelman received a consensual 
private reprimand for making a false statement of fact to a 
tribunal.  Private Reprimand No. 1999-18 (electronic copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/ 
002085.html).   
¶11 On December 12, 2003, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging 13 counts of misconduct.  The parties litigated the 
No. 
2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
 2011AP584-D   
 
7 
 
case vigorously, and, in 2006, we suspended Attorney Mandelman 
for nine months for multiple instances of misconduct, including 
failing to act with reasonable diligence, failing to utilize a 
written fee agreement in a medical malpractice case, and 
persuading a client to sign a release of claims against him 
without the client obtaining independent representation.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 2006 WI 45, 290 
Wis. 2d 158, 714 N.W.2d 512. 
¶12 In 2006, Attorney Mandelman also received a separate 
consensual private reprimand for drawing a check from his 
business account to make a mortgage payment of a personal injury 
client. 
 
Private 
Reprimand 
No. 
2006-21 
(electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/ 
001927.html).   
¶13 In 
2009, 
Attorney 
Mandelman, 
who 
had 
not 
been 
reinstated, was suspended for one year for additional misconduct 
that included collecting a fee without performing any work for 
the client, failing to provide the client with a written 
settlement statement, retaining a client's funds for more than 
four years, making misrepresentations to a client, failing to 
obtain a client's signature on a settlement check and failing to 
deposit the settlement funds into the client trust account, and 
failing to provide a client's file and funds to the client.  In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 2009 WI 40, 317 
Wis. 2d 215, 765 N.W.2d 788. 
No. 
2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
 2011AP584-D   
 
8 
 
¶14 On August 1, 2014, in the wake of the discovery of 
still more misconduct, this court revoked Attorney Mandelman's 
license to practice law, pursuant to a stipulation between 
Attorney Mandelman and the OLR.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mandelman, 2014 WI 100, 358 Wis. 2d 179, 851 N.W.2d 401.  
The misconduct in the revocation proceeding involved 22 counts 
of misconduct for Attorney Mandelman's handling of trust 
accounts and funds, including commingling personal and business 
funds with client trust funds, converting client trust funds by 
engaging in trust account transactions that left negative 
balances in his own subsidiary accounts, failing to deliver 
trust funds to a client over a period of years, failing to keep 
complete and accurate trust account records, and on multiple 
occasions, filing income tax returns that were false.  Attorney 
Mandelman's misconduct also included lack of diligence in a 
matter, failing to notify a client of his suspension in another, 
and providing a false affidavit to the OLR.  Id. 
¶15 The revocation was made retroactive to May 29, 2009, 
the effective date of a prior one-year suspension from which 
Attorney Mandelman had not been reinstated.  Accordingly, he was 
immediately eligible to file a reinstatement petition, and he 
did so on August 5, 2014.  
¶16 We 
denied 
that 
petition. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Mandelman, 2015 WI 105, 365 Wis. 2d 457, 871 
N.W.2d 682.  We observed:  
No. 
2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
 2011AP584-D   
 
9 
 
The scope and seriousness of Attorney Mandelman's 
prior misconduct reveals a lawyer who lacked a proper 
understanding of and attitude toward the standards 
that are imposed upon members of the bar.  
. . .  
Attorney Mandelman has accepted responsibility for his 
misconduct, 
but 
the 
mitigating 
effect 
of 
his 
acceptance 
of 
responsibility 
must 
be 
viewed 
in 
relation to his extensive disciplinary history along 
with the number of counts and the nature of his 
misconduct.  The hard work Attorney Mandelman has 
undertaken to restructure his life and pay past due 
obligations to clients, creditors, and the court 
system 
is 
commendable, 
but 
not 
sufficient 
to 
demonstrate that reinstatement is appropriate at this 
time.  He has cleaned up his act; now he must stay the 
course.  This record lacks sufficient evidence that 
things will be different if he is reinstated to the 
practice of law again. 
¶17 On March 21, 2017, Attorney Mandelman filed a second 
petition for the reinstatement of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  The OLR filed a response on July 31, 2017, stating 
that it did not oppose Attorney Mandelman's reinstatement but 
recommended that if reinstated, his practice be subject to 
certain conditions. 
¶18 The referee conducted a public hearing on August 31, 
2017.  Attorney Mandelman testified on his own behalf and called 
seven 
additional 
witnesses, 
including 
four 
attorneys, 
an 
architect, an employer, his faculty advisor, and a friend who 
credits Attorney Mandelman with offering her emotional support 
and encouraging her to obtain treatment.4  The referee noted that 
                                                 
4 Several additional letters supporting Attorney Mandelman's 
petition were also received into evidence. 
No. 
2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
 2011AP584-D   
 
10 
 
many of these witnesses were not aware of Attorney Mandelman's 
prior disciplinary problems, but all spoke to his current 
demeanor and felt that he was intelligent, hard-working, 
responsible, and trustworthy.  The referee described their 
testimony in support of Attorney Mandelman's reinstatement as 
"honest and sincere."  The referee filed his report on 
September 20, 2017, recommending conditional reinstatement.  
¶19 Many of the criteria we consider in reinstatement 
proceedings focus on what the lawyer has done since suspension 
or revocation.  The referee found, and we agree, that Attorney 
Mandelman has satisfied these criteria.  The referee found that 
Attorney Mandelman had 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); that 
he has complied with the terms of the suspension and revocation 
orders, SCR 22.29(4)(c);5 that he has maintained competence and 
learning in the law, SCR 22.29(4)(d);6 that his conduct since the 
                                                 
5 The referee noted that Attorney Mandelman has not yet paid 
the entire amount of costs owed to the OLR, but he has executed 
an installment agreement and is making payments as his resources 
permit.  As the referee noted, Attorney Mandelman's level of 
debt is a concern but that, alone, would not preclude his 
reinstatement. 
6 The referee noted that Attorney Mandelman is compliant 
with his CLE requirements, has completed a number of CLE 
courses, and has taken and successfully passed the Multistate 
Professional Responsibility Examination. 
No. 
2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
 2011AP584-D   
 
11 
 
revocation 
has 
been 
exemplary 
and 
above 
reproach, 
SCR 22.29(4)(e);7 
and 
that 
he 
has 
complied 
with 
the 
SCR 22.26(1)(e) 
affidavit, 
SCR 22.29(4)(h). 
 
In 
addition, 
Attorney Mandelman outlined his activities during his suspension 
and revocation as required by SCR 22.29(4)(k),8 and stated that 
if reinstated, he wants to engage in the practice of civil 
litigation and work for a law firm or organization and to 
specialize in construction law, as required by SCR 22.29(4)(j).  
The referee found, further, that Attorney Mandelman has made 
restitution to or satisfied all claims of persons injured or 
harmed by his misconduct, as required by SCR 22.29(4)(4m).   
¶20 We accept the referee's findings and conclusions on 
these requirements for reinstatement.  
¶21 As 
the 
referee 
discerned, 
our 
concern 
in 
this 
reinstatement proceeding relates to whether Attorney Mandelman 
                                                 
7 The referee noted that Attorney Mandelman's conduct has 
been exemplary both in avoiding any inappropriate behavior, and 
in affirmatively seeking employment, while at the same time 
helping others.   
8 Attorney Mandelman obtained a master's degree and as of 
the date of the reinstatement hearing had nearly completed a PhD 
in architecture at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.  He 
has cared for an ailing mother, worked in a computer lab for the 
architecture department, assisting students by troubleshooting 
problems with computer equipment, and worked closely with 
department faculty and staff members.  He has been a property 
manager, taught classes to high school students, has been 
employed as a staff architect, worked at other part time jobs, 
and has assisted others in a counseling role. 
 
No. 
2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
 2011AP584-D   
 
12 
 
has the moral character to practice law in this state, 
SCR 22.31(1)(a); whether the resumption of his practice would be 
detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of 
the public interest, SCR 22.31(1)(b); whether he has a proper 
understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are 
imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity with 
them, SCR 22.29(4)(f); and whether he can be safely recommended 
as a person fit to represent clients and to aid in the 
administration of justice in this state, SCR 22.29(4)(g).  
¶22 The referee acknowledged the difficulty inherent in 
these assessments.  He observed: 
No one can predict the future - certainly not this 
Referee. The judgment that is asked to be made is an 
intuitive one, based upon observation of witnesses, 
common sense and experience. 
I believe everyone lives with the hope that people can 
change themselves, and if they do, they are perhaps 
entitled to a second chance. 
After giving this matter a great deal of thought, and 
for the following reasons, I believe that time has 
arrived for Mr. Mandelman.  I believe he has earned 
the right to resume practicing law, subject to a 
number of recommended restrictions, set forth below. 
¶23 The referee concluded that Attorney Mandelman had met 
his burden of proof on these factors such that reinstatement, 
albeit 
conditional 
reinstatement, 
was 
appropriate. 
 
See 
Referee's Report at 14-15, Findings of Fact (FF) 18, FF 20-21 
and Conclusions of Law (CL) 9-11.   
No. 
2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
 2011AP584-D   
 
13 
 
¶24 We 
benefit 
from 
the 
referee's 
findings 
and 
conclusions, particularly when, as here, the referee has 
provided us with such a thoughtful and well-structured report.  
The ultimate determination of who may practice law in Wisconsin 
however, remains with this court.  We disagree with these 
specific findings and we reach a different conclusion of law 
with respect to SCRs 22.29(4)(f)-(g) and 22.31(1)(a)-(b).9   
¶25 These criteria require us to undertake a comprehensive 
assessment of the lawyer and this includes consideration of the 
nature of the lawyer's underlying misconduct. See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hersh, 108 Wis. 2d 450, 321 
N.W.2d 927 (1982).  In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
                                                 
9 Specifically, we reject FF 18 (finding that "Mandelman now 
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 in the future"); FF 20 (finding 
that 
"Mandelman 
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 court"); and FF 21 (finding "Mandelman presently 
has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin and that 
his resumption of the practice of law, under the conditions set 
forth below, will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest").   
We reach a different conclusion of law than the referee 
with respect to CL 9 (concluding that "Mandelman has therefore 
satisfied 
the 
requirements 
of 
SCR 
22.29(4)(f)"); 
CL 
10 
(concluding that "Mandelman therefore satisfied the requirements 
of SCR 22.29(4)(g)"); CL 11 (concluding that "Mandelman has 
satisfied the requirements of SCR 22.31(1)(a) and (b)").   
No. 
2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
 2011AP584-D   
 
14 
 
Penn, 2002 WI 5, ¶8, 249 Wis. 2d 667, 638 N.W.2d 287, this court 
held: 
[T]he referee conducting a hearing on the petition for 
reinstatement must engage in a full and unrestricted 
evaluation of the petitioner's past, present, and 
predicted future behavior, as well as any other 
relevant information going to the issue of whether the 
petitioner has the moral character to practice law in 
this state and whether his or her resumption of the 
practice 
of 
law 
would 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
administration of justice or subversive to the public 
interest. 
¶26 From Attorney Mandelman's very first disciplinary 
proceeding in 1990, we observed a "definite pattern of Attorney 
Mandelman's disregard of very basic ethical obligations of 
lawyers."  Since then, Attorney Mandelman has come before this 
court many times, each time having committed serious misconduct 
that affected numerous clients and encompassed not only neglect, 
but dishonesty and fraud.  In 1995, we tried conditional 
reinstatement.  It failed.  Five disciplinary proceedings 
ensued, culminating in Attorney Mandelman's license revocation. 
¶27 As a result of his pervasive, serious, and very 
troubling pattern of misconduct, Attorney Mandelman has created 
a heavy burden for himself.  We conclude that Attorney Mandelman 
has failed to meet his burden to prove to this court that he 
possesses the requisite moral character to practice law in this 
state, that he has a proper understanding of and attitude toward 
the standards imposed upon members of the bar, that he will act 
in conformity with those standards, and that he can be safely 
No. 
2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
 2011AP584-D   
 
15 
 
recommended as a person fit to be consulted by others, to 
represent them, and to otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence.  See SCR 22.29(4)(f) and (g). 
¶28 Moreover, we cannot say, with certainty, that the 
passage of time alone will be sufficient to persuade us that 
Attorney Mandelman will practice law in a manner that is honest, 
ethical, and above reproach.  
¶29 We recognize that our holding today will leave 
Attorney Mandelman asking what else he can do to persuade this 
court to reinstate his law license.  We recognize that he cannot 
undo his past misconduct.  This conundrum does not mean, 
however, that this court is somehow compelled to reinstate his 
license.  An attorney whose license was suspended or revoked for 
misconduct has no right to reinstatement.  Lathrop v. Donohue, 
10 Wis. 2d 230, 237, 102 N.W.2d 404, 408 (1960) (observing that 
the practice of law is not a right but a privilege).  Nothing in 
our prior attorney disciplinary decisions implies that a 
petitioner 
for 
reinstatement 
enjoys 
a 
presumption 
of 
rehabilitation upon the expiration of a specified term of 
suspension, 
much 
less 
revocation. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Hyndman, 2002 WI 6, ¶4, 249 Wis. 2d 650, 638 
N.W.2d 293. 
¶30 This assessment is not intended to be punitive.  
Attorney Mandelman deserves much credit for his impressive 
accomplishments and we have every confidence that he has the 
capacity to flourish and succeed in other professional and 
No. 
2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
 2011AP584-D   
 
16 
 
personal endeavors.  Rather, the primary justification for the 
moral character requirement embodied in our reinstatement rules 
is to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession. 
Any doubt concerning a lawyer's moral character should be 
resolved in favor of protecting the public by denying the 
petition for reinstatement.  
¶31 With respect to the costs of this reinstatement 
proceeding, it is this court's general practice to assess the 
full costs of a proceeding against a respondent.  
See 
SCR 22.24(1m).  We find no extraordinary circumstances that 
would warrant a reduction in the costs imposed and we find it 
appropriate to assess the full costs of the reinstatement 
proceeding against Attorney Mandelman.   
¶32 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement is 
denied.  
¶33 IT IS FURTHER OREDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Michael D. Mandelman shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$7,674.57 as of October 10, 2017. 
¶34 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., did not participate. 
 
 
No.  2003AP3348-D.ssa 
2004AP2633-D.ssa 
2007AP2653-D.ssa 
2011AP584-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶35 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   (dissenting).  I dissent 
because I conclude that the court is not consistent in its 
rulings on reinstatements.  See Petition for Readmission After 
Voluntary Resignation of Keith B. Daniels, Jr., unpublished 
order (Apr. 20, 2018) (Ann Walsh Bradley, J., dissenting) 
(highlighting the court's failure to explain inconsistent 
results of two similarly situated petitioners).  The court's 
failure to properly explain its inconsistent decisions raises 
due process concerns.   
 
 
No.  2003AP3348-D.ssa 
2004AP2633-D.ssa 
2007AP2653-D.ssa 
2011AP584-D.ssa 
 
1