Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Melinda R. Alfredson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2016AP001400-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2017-02-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
2017 WI 6 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP1400-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Melinda R. Alfredson, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Melinda R. Alfredson, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALFREDSON 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 1, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, J. concurs (opinion filed). 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2017 WI 6
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2016AP1400-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Melinda R. Alfredson, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Melinda R. Alfredson, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 1, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed pursuant 
to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Melinda R. Alfredson.  In the 
stipulation, Attorney Alfredson admits that she committed 
professional misconduct, and she agrees with the OLR's request 
that her license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a 
period of 60 days.  Attorney Alfredson also agrees that she 
No. 
2016AP1400-D   
 
 
 
2 
should pay restitution totaling $1,809.71 to two parties, 
divided as set forth below. 
¶2 
After careful review of the matter, we accept the 
stipulation and impose the requested discipline.  Because 
Attorney Alfredson entered into a comprehensive stipulation 
before the appointment of a referee, we do not require her to 
pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney 
Alfredson 
was 
admitted 
to 
practice 
in 
Wisconsin in 2009.  She has no prior disciplinary history. 
¶4 
In July 2016, the OLR filed a complaint alleging that 
Attorney Alfredson had engaged in sixteen counts of misconduct 
arising out of her representation of two clients (K.H. and 
N.W.), her violations of trust account rules, and her failure to 
cooperate with the OLR's investigation into these matters.  In 
September 
2016, 
the 
OLR 
and 
Attorney 
Alfredson 
filed 
a 
stipulation pursuant to SCR 22.12.  We take the following facts 
from the parties' stipulation. 
CLIENT K.H. 
¶5 
In January 2013, K.H. hired Attorney Alfredson to 
represent him regarding two claims he had unsuccessfully pursued 
with the Social Security Administration (SSA).  Attorney 
Alfredson filed an appeal on behalf of K.H. and attended a video 
hearing with K.H. before a SSA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in 
May 2013.  In June 2013, the ALJ denied K.H.'s claims.  
No. 
2016AP1400-D   
 
 
 
3 
¶6 
K.H. and Attorney Alfredson received a notice of the 
ALJ's decision, which included instructions that a written 
appeal must be filed within 60 days of June 30, 2013.  K.H. 
instructed Attorney Alfredson to file an appeal.  Although 
Attorney Alfredson claimed to the OLR that she sent a letter to 
the local SSA office on August 9, 2013, informing the SSA of 
K.H.'s intent to appeal, the SSA office received no such letter.   
¶7 
On August 13, 2013, Attorney Alfredson drafted an 
appeal in letter form and reviewed the draft with K.H.  K.H. 
requested revisions to the appeal letter.  Although Attorney 
Alfredson claimed to the OLR that she made K.H.'s requested 
revisions and submitted the appeal letter to the local SSA 
office on August 13, 2013, the SSA office received no such 
letter.   
¶8 
Between August 2013 and October 2014, K.H. asked 
Attorney Alfredson to check the status of the appeal multiple 
times.  Although Attorney Alfredson claimed to the OLR that she 
contacted the local SSA office multiple times, and that each 
time she was told the appeal was open and pending, the SSA 
office has no documentation of any phone calls from Attorney 
Alfredson.  The SSA's file also shows that no appeal was filed 
and that the case was closed.  Had Attorney Alfredson called the 
SSA office to request the status of K.H.'s case, she would have 
been informed that the case was closed.   
¶9 
In October 2014, K.H. contacted the SSA office to 
check on the status of his appeal.  He was told that the case 
was closed because no appeal was filed.  
No. 
2016AP1400-D   
 
 
 
4 
¶10 K.H. left Attorney Alfredson a voicemail informing her 
that the SSA office had closed his file.  Attorney Alfredson 
claimed to the OLR that she called the SSA office to check on 
the status of K.H.'s appeal, and that she was told that the 
matter was still open and that she should file the appeal again 
if there was uncertainty about whether the appeal had been 
filed.  Attorney Alfredson also claimed to the OLR that she 
filed a duplicate copy of the appeal letter on October 20, 2014.  
However, the SSA office has no documentation of any phone calls 
from Attorney Alfredson in October 2014, nor of an appeal letter 
from Attorney Alfredson dated October 20, 2014.  Despite 
requests for a copy of the purported appeal letter, Attorney 
Alfredson did not provide it to the OLR.   
¶11 In the stipulation, Attorney Alfredson admits that she 
committed the following counts of professional misconduct during 
her representation of K.H.: 
 Count One:  By failing to pursue the appeal as 
agreed 
upon 
with 
K.H., 
Attorney 
Alfredson 
violated SCR 20:1.3.1 
 Count Two:  By failing to provide accurate case 
status information upon K.H.'s request, Attorney 
Alfredson violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).2 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:l.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCRs 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) provides: "A lawyer shall (3) 
keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the 
matter," and "(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information." 
No. 
2016AP1400-D   
 
 
 
5 
 Count Three:  By providing false case status 
information to K.H., Attorney Alfredson violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c).3 
 Count Four:  By providing false information 
regarding the filing of the appeal to the OLR, 
Attorney 
Alfredson 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(6),4 
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).5   
CLIENT N.W. 
¶12 In mid-April 2014, N.W. retained Attorney Alfredson to 
represent him in a custody and paternity matter.  This matter 
arose after a domestic incident occurred between N.W. and the 
mother of his children, D.N.  As a result of the incident, N.W. 
was taken into custody.  D.N. moved to the State of Oregon with 
the children.   
¶13 D.N. filed for, and obtained, a restraining order 
against N.W.  After being served with the restraining order, 
N.W. entered into a retainer contract with Attorney Alfredson, 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
4 
SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
5 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 22.03(6)." 
No. 
2016AP1400-D   
 
 
 
6 
which provided that she would represent him on custody and 
placement issues for an advanced fee of $1,500.  N.W. also 
entered into a fee agreement with Attorney Alfredson, which 
provided that the advanced fee would be placed into Attorney 
Alfredson's business account.  N.W.'s mother made an initial 
payment of $400 by credit card, which was deposited into 
Attorney Alfredson's business account.  The remaining $1,100 of 
the advanced fee was later paid to Attorney Alfredson and 
deposited into her business account.   
¶14 Attorney Alfredson drafted court papers, including a 
petition for custody, placement, and child support, but did not 
file the paperwork in a Wisconsin circuit court until almost 
three months later, in July 2014.  Attorney Alfredson told the 
OLR that she delayed filing the paperwork because she did not 
know where to serve D.N.   
¶15 Attorney Alfredson and N.W. never discussed the delay 
in filing the legal action.  Had Attorney Alfredson told N.W. 
that she did not know where to serve D.N., N.W. would have 
provided Attorney Alfredson with an address at which he had 
recently and successfully served D.N. in a different legal 
matter.  In addition, both N.W. and Attorney Alfredson were 
aware of D.N.'s address in Oregon because it was included on the 
restraining order that had been served upon N.W. 
¶16 After filing the petition for custody, placement, and 
child support, Attorney Alfredson made no effort to obtain 
service on D.N.  Nevertheless, she claimed that a process server 
in Oregon had twice attempted to obtain service on D.N., and she 
No. 
2016AP1400-D   
 
 
 
7 
billed N.W. $75 for a service fee in August 2014.  In a letter 
to the OLR, Attorney Alfredson claimed that "service was not 
delayed" until August 2014; rather, that was "simply when the 
bill was paid."  In a subsequent letter to the OLR, Attorney 
Alfredson stated that she never received a bill from a process 
server and that she was unable to provide proof of attempted 
service.  
¶17 In late August 2014, N.W. requested that Attorney 
Alfredson refund the full advanced fee of $1,500.   Attorney 
Alfredson responded that she was unable to return the fee and 
that "monies have to be transferred from the trust account 
(where your retainer sits) and a grace period is required to be 
waited."  This statement was false, as the funds had been 
deposited into Attorney Alfredson's business account.   
¶18 On August 28, 2015, Attorney Alfredson sent a letter 
to N.W. stating that she was terminating her representation of 
N.W. and closing her file.  She did not include in the closing 
letter any information about the ability to contest the fee.   
¶19 During the course of the OLR's investigation, Attorney 
Alfredson told the OLR in an email that N.W. "never contested" 
his bill, even though she had sent him "a letter upon closing 
that stated that he had 30 days to let me know if he contested 
his bill, per the terms of our retainer agreement."  This 
statement was false, as Attorney Alfredson did not include in 
the closing letter any information about N.W.'s ability to 
contest the fee.  Moreover, far from having "never contested" 
his bill, as Attorney Alfredson claimed, N.W. had requested a 
No. 
2016AP1400-D   
 
 
 
8 
full refund of the $1,500 advanced fee. Although Attorney 
Alfredson acknowledged to the OLR during the course of its 
investigation that N.W. is entitled to some sort of refund, 
Attorney Alfredson has not refunded any portion of the $1,500 
fee to N.W. 
¶20 In early September 2014, N.W. asked a different 
attorney to take over his case in place of Attorney Alfredson.  
On September 9, 2014, successor counsel sent Attorney Alfredson 
a Consent and Order for Substitution of Attorneys.  On September 
14, 2014, N.W. sent Attorney Alfredson an email asking her to 
"sign off on my case."  Attorney Alfredson replied to N.W.'s 
email by stating that she had received the Consent and Order for 
Substitution of Attorneys on September 11, 2014, and that she 
had "turned it in" on September 12, 2014.  However, Attorney 
Alfredson did not file the Consent and Order for Substitution of 
Attorneys until October 9, 2014.  Her signature on the document 
was dated September 8, 2014——a day before successor counsel sent 
her the document and three days before she received the 
document.  
¶21 In the stipulation, Attorney Alfredson admits that she 
committed the following counts of professional misconduct during 
her representation of N.W.: 
 Count Five:  By failing to ever serve D.N. and 
delaying the filing of the court papers in the 
Wisconsin circuit court case until July 2014, 
Attorney Alfredson violated SCR 20:1.3.  
 Count Six:  By failing to provide written notice 
to N.W. regarding his ability to dispute the fee 
No. 
2016AP1400-D   
 
 
 
9 
and participate in binding arbitration to resolve 
any dispute over the amount of the fee at the 
termination 
of 
her 
representation, 
Attorney 
Alfredson violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)(b).6 
 Count Seven:  Having acknowledged that N.W. is 
entitled to a refund of an unspecified amount, by 
failing to refund to N.W. any portion of the 
advanced fee, Attorney Alfredson violated SCR 
20:1.16(d).7 
 Count Eight:  By asserting to N.W. that she was 
unable to refund an advanced fee because the fee 
was located in trust when the fee had been 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)(b) provides:  
Upon termination of the representation, the lawyer 
shall deliver to the client in writing all of the 
following: (1) a final accounting or an accounting 
from the date of the lawyer's most recent statement to 
the end of the representation, regarding the client's 
advanced fee payment with a refund of any unearned 
advanced fees; (2) notice that, if the client disputes 
the amount of the fee and wants that dispute to be 
submitted to binding arbitration, the client must 
provide written notice of the dispute to the lawyer 
within 30 days of the mailing of the accounting; and 
(3) notice that, if the lawyer is unable to resolve 
the dispute to the satisfaction of the client within 
30 days after receiving notice of the dispute from the 
client, the lawyer shall submit the dispute to binding 
arbitration. 
7 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:  
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall 
take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to 
protect 
a 
client's 
interests, 
such 
as 
giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
No. 
2016AP1400-D   
 
 
 
10 
deposited directly into her business account, 
Attorney Alfredson violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
 Count Nine:  By asserting to the OLR that upon 
termination of representation she provided N.W. 
with written notice of his ability to contest the 
fee when she had not done so, Attorney Alfredson 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
 Count Ten:  By charging N.W. a $75 service fee 
and asserting that she was billing for attempted 
service when she was never billed by a process 
server, 
Attorney 
Alfredson 
violated 
SCR 
20:8.4(c). 
 Count Eleven:  By providing false case status 
information to N.W. regarding her filing of the 
Consent and Order for Substitution of Attorneys, 
Attorney Alfredson violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
 Count Twelve:  By failing to timely file the 
Consent and Order for Substitution of Attorneys, 
Attorney Alfredson violated SCR 20:1.16(d).   
VIOLATIONS OF TRUST ACCOUNT RULES  
¶22 Attorney Alfredson practiced as Alfredson Law Offices 
for just over two years, from mid-November 2013 through late 
January 2016.  Attorney Alfredson was the only attorney 
affiliated with that firm.  Attorney Alfredson maintained a 
trust account at U.S. Bank.   
¶23 During the time that she operated Alfredson Law 
Offices, Attorney Alfredson represented L.Z. in a divorce 
matter.  L.Z. removed and partially spent about $5,000 from the 
couple's joint bank account.  The circuit court ordered L.Z. to 
provide an accounting of the money that had been spent, pay 
$1,000 to the opposing counsel for attorney fees, and deposit 
No. 
2016AP1400-D   
 
 
 
11 
the balance of the money in Attorney Alfredson's trust account.  
Notwithstanding this court order, no funds related to L.Z.'s 
case were ever deposited in Attorney Alfredson's trust account.   
¶24 The opposing counsel in the matter repeatedly tried to 
contact Attorney Alfredson to determine the status of the 
accounting and the payment of his $1,000 fee award.  Attorney 
Alfredson did not respond to the opposing counsel's inquiries.   
¶25 At a subsequent court hearing, Attorney Alfredson told 
the opposing counsel that her trust account contained $900 of 
the funds at issue, which she would in turn forward to him in 
partial payment of his fee award.  This statement was false; 
Attorney Alfredson had no funds relating to L.Z. in her trust 
account, and the balance in the account was $11.49.   
¶26 Approximately two months after making this statement, 
Attorney Alfredson disbursed a $900 check from her trust account 
to opposing counsel, even though there were no funds relating to 
L.Z. in her trust account and the balance in the trust account 
at that time was $1.29.  The check cleared several days later, 
after Attorney Alfredson deposited a $284 check from the State 
Public Defender's Office for earned legal fees to the trust 
account, as well as $640 in cash. 
¶27 Several other trust account discrepancies are at issue 
in this disciplinary proceeding.  Between September 5, 2014, and 
April 3, 2015, Attorney Alfredson deposited six checks totaling 
$1,698.29 to her trust account that consisted of earned fees or 
other funds belonging to her.  Between September 5, 2014, and 
April 15, 2015, Attorney Alfredson made six disbursements 
No. 
2016AP1400-D   
 
 
 
12 
totaling $1,783 from her trust account for personal purposes; 
she wrote one trust account check for her law office rent, and 
five trust account checks to family members (her father, 
brother-in-law, and husband).  Starting on April 2, 2015, 
Attorney Alfredson's trust account was overdrawn.  Attorney 
Alfredson did not attempt to rectify the deficit in her trust 
account.  The account had a negative balance of $309.71 until 
June 3, 2015, when the bank charged off the negative balance and 
closed the trust account.  
¶28 In addition, between September 2014 and April 2015, 
Attorney Alfredson made seven internet deposits to her trust 
account via her cell phone, totaling $1,733.29. 
¶29 Finally, Attorney Alfredson failed to timely cooperate 
with the OLR's investigation of the above-described trust 
account discrepancies.  She either failed to respond to the 
OLR's 
inquiries, 
or 
when 
she 
did 
respond, 
she 
provided 
incomplete or contradictory information.   
¶30 In the stipulation, Attorney Alfredson admits that she 
committed the following counts of professional misconduct: 
 Count Thirteen:  By depositing at least $1,698.29 
in earned fees and personal or law firm funds to 
her trust account, by paying her law office rent 
for September 2014 from the trust account, and by 
issuing a total of five trust account checks to 
her father, brother-in-law, and husband, Attorney 
Alfredson deposited and retained funds belonging 
to herself or her law firm in her client trust 
account and used those funds to pay personal and 
No. 
2016AP1400-D   
 
 
 
13 
business 
expenses, 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:1.15(b)(3).8  
 Count 
Fourteen: 
 
By 
making 
seven 
internet 
deposits to her trust account, totaling $1,733.29 
between September 5, 2014 and April 3, 2015, 
Attorney Alfredson violated SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c.9   
 Count Fifteen:  By failing to address the 
overdrafts of her trust account for more than a 
month, resulting in the bank having to close the 
trust account and absorb the negative balance of 
$309.71, 
Attorney 
Alfredson 
violated 
SCR 
20:8.4(c). 
 Count Sixteen:  By failing to timely cooperate 
with the OLR's investigation of her trust account 
discrepancies, Attorney Alfredson violated SCR 
22.03(2)10 and (6), as enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).     
                                                 
8 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to 
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule."  See 
S. Ct. Order 14-07, (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016).  
Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 
2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme 
court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2016.  
SCR 20:1.15(b)(3) provides:  "No funds belonging to the 
lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient to pay 
monthly account service charges, may be deposited or retained in 
a trust account." 
9 SCR 20:l.15(e)(4)c provides:  "A lawyer shall not make 
deposits to or disbursements from a trust account by way of an 
Internet transaction." 
10 SCR 22.03(2) provides:  
Upon commencing an investigation, the director shall 
notify the respondent of the matter being investigated 
unless 
in 
the 
opinion 
of 
the 
director 
the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The 
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 
request for a written response. The director may allow 
additional time to respond. Following receipt of the 
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP1400-D   
 
 
 
14 
¶31 The 
parties' 
stipulation 
provides 
that 
Attorney 
Alfredson does not contest the facts and misconduct alleged by 
the OLR or the discipline that the OLR is seeking.  The 
stipulation further provides that Attorney Alfredson fully 
understands the misconduct allegations against her, her right to 
contest those allegations, and the ramifications that would 
follow from this court's imposition of the stipulated level of 
discipline.  The stipulation further provides that Attorney 
Alfredson understands her right to counsel, that she is entering 
into the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily, and that her 
entry into the stipulation represents her admission of the 
misconduct described above.  Attorney Alfredson agrees in the 
stipulation that it would be appropriate for this court to 
impose a 60-day suspension of her license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  Attorney Alfredson further agrees that a restitution 
award in the amount of $1,500 to N.W. and $309.71 to U.S. Bank 
would be appropriate.   
¶32 The 
OLR 
filed 
a 
memorandum 
in 
support 
of 
the 
stipulation.  The OLR cited several cases that it claims support 
its request for a 60–day suspension:  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Bartz, 2015 WI 61, 362 Wis. 2d  752, 864 
N.W.2d 881 (60-day suspension for five counts of misconduct 
related to one client matter; lawyer had one prior private 
                                                                                                                                                             
response, 
the 
director 
may 
conduct 
further 
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
No. 
2016AP1400-D   
 
 
 
15 
reprimand); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Paul, 2007 WI 
11, 298 Wis. 2d 629, 726 N.W.2d 253 (60-day suspension for eight 
counts of misconduct related to one client matter; lawyer had no 
prior discipline); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bowe, 
2011 WI 48, 334 Wis. 2d 360, 800 N.W.2d 367 (public reprimand 
for five counts of misconduct related to one client matter; 
lawyer had one prior private reprimand); In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Tishberg, 2014 WI 118, 358 Wis. 2d 483, 860 
N.W.2d 263 (public reprimand for five counts of misconduct 
related to one client matter; lawyer had no prior discipline).   
¶33 The OLR acknowledges that these cited cases are 
distinguishable from the facts at hand in certain respects.  For 
example, Attorney Alfredson engaged in significantly more counts 
of misconduct than the disciplined lawyers in the cited cases; 
the sixteen misconduct counts here far exceed the five involved 
in Bartz, Bowe, and Tishberg, and the eight involved in Paul.  
This case also involves more extensive misconduct——spread over 
multiple matters——than the cited cases, each of which involved 
misconduct committed in a single client matter.   
¶34 The OLR additionally notes that there are more 
aggravating than mitigating factors here.  On the aggravating 
side of the ledger, the OLR notes that Attorney Alfredson 
engaged in dishonest conduct with selfish motives by making 
misrepresentations to K.H., N.W., and the OLR, each of which was 
designed to conceal her misconduct or delay refunding unearned 
fees.  The OLR also notes that Attorney Alfredson engaged in a 
pattern of inappropriate behavior, has expressed no remorse, and 
No. 
2016AP1400-D   
 
 
 
16 
appears indifferent to making restitution, having failed to 
refund any portion of N.W.'s fee advance or to refund U.S. Bank 
for the overdrafts on her trust account.  Only one factor is 
present on the mitigating side of the ledger:  the fact that 
Attorney Alfredson does not have a prior disciplinary record. 
¶35 The central issue for this court is whether a 
suspension greater than the 60-day minimum suspension is in 
order.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grady, 188 
Wis. 2d 98, 108-09, 523 N.W.2d 564 (1994) (explaining that 
generally the minimum length of a license suspension is 60 
days).  After careful review, we accept the stipulation and 
impose the jointly requested sanction of a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney Alfredson's Wisconsin law license, plus restitution 
payments of $1,500 to N.W. and $309.71 to U.S. Bank.  We note 
that this sanction, on these facts, is modest.  We also note 
that Attorney Alfredson has no prior disciplinary history.  If 
she had been previously disciplined, a longer suspension would 
be in order.  We remind Attorney Alfredson that the court may 
impose progressively severe sanctions when an attorney engages 
in repeated misconduct.  We impose the sanction to which the 
parties stipulated with the expectation that Attorney Alfredson 
will not commit future misconduct subjecting her to additional 
discipline. 
¶36 Because 
Attorney 
Alfredson 
entered 
into 
a 
comprehensive stipulation, thereby obviating the need for the 
appointment of a referee and a full disciplinary proceeding, we 
do not impose costs in this matter.   
No. 
2016AP1400-D   
 
 
 
17 
¶37 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Melinda R. Alfredson 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 
days, effective March 15, 2017. 
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Melinda R. Alfredson shall make restitution in 
the amount of $1,500 to N.W. and $309.71 to U.S. Bank. 
¶39 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Melinda R. Alfredson shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this decision is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
 
 
No.  2016AP1400-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶41 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   (concurring).  I write 
separately to point out that this decision seems to continue a 
trend of this court's imposing too light discipline following 
the parties' entry into a stipulation.  See, e.g., In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Krogman, 2015 WI 113, 365 
Wis. 2d 628, 872 N.W.2d 657 (Abrahamson, J., dissenting); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 2015 WI 111, 365 
Wis. 2d 682, 872 N.W.2d 649 (Abrahamson, J., dissenting).   
¶42 I am concerned that the stipulation has become a way 
to engage in plea (including sentencing) negotiations forbidden 
by this court.  The court has written: 
[W]e note that the OLR is not authorized to plea 
bargain disciplinary matters, although it may enter 
into stipulations of fact and law and jointly request 
the imposition of a certain level of discipline that 
is supported by the particular facts of a matter.  
See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Barrock, 
2007 
WI 
24, 
¶5, 
299 
Wis. 2d 207, 
727 
N.W.2d 833; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Robinson, 
2007 
WI 
17, 
¶5, 
299 
Wis. 2d 49, 
726 
N.W.2d 896; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Paul, 
2007 
WI 
11, 
¶22, 
298 
Wis. 2d 629, 
726 
N.W.2d 253; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Morrissey, 2005 WI 169, ¶27, 286 Wis. 2d 579, 707 
N.W.2d 142; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Malloy, 
2002 
WI 
52, 
¶13, 
252 
Wis. 2d 597, 
644 
N.W.2d 663.  
¶43 I concur rather than dissent because it is too 
cumbersome for the court to reject a stipulation.  
No.  2016AP1400-D.ssa 
 
2 
 
¶44 I advocated for the creation of a committee to review 
the procedures of the OLR and recommend changes.1  A majority of 
the justices finally created such a committee.  I would hope 
that the Office of Lawyer Regulation Procedure Review Committee 
studies both plea negotiations and stipulations.   
¶45 Unfortunately, the Committee was formed without any 
input from the bench, bar, or public.   
¶46 The members of the Committee are:   
• 
Hon. (ret.) Gerald Ptacek (chair) 
• 
Attorney Michael Apfeld (Godfrey & Kahn) 
• 
Mr. Mark Baker (WS Darley & Co.) 
• 
Attorney Rick Esenberg (Wisconsin Institute for Law & 
Liberty) 
• 
Attorney Edward Hannan (Hannan Legal LLC) 
• 
Attorney Amy Jahnke (Anderson, O'Brien, Bertz, Skrenes 
& Golla LLP) 
• 
Attorney Terry Johnson (Peterson, Johnson & Murray SC) 
• 
Attorney Catherine La Fleur (La Fleur Law Office SC) 
                                                 
1 See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Osicka, 
2014 WI 34, ¶38, 353 Wis. 2d 675, 847 N.W.2d 333 (Abrahamson, 
C.J., concurring); 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Osicka, 2014 WI 33, ¶37, 353 Wis. 2d 656, 847 N.W.2d 343 
(Abrahamson, C.J., concurring); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Johns, 2014 WI 32, ¶¶68-76, 353 Wis. 2d 746, 847 
N.W.2d 179 (Abrahamson, C.J., dissenting); In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Kratz, 2014 WI 31, ¶¶73-75, 353 Wis. 2d 696, 
851 N.W.2d 219 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring); Rule Petition 15-
01, In the Matter of the Review of the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (petition filed Feb. 6, 2015; dismissed by a vote of 
the majority of the court Dec. 21, 2015). 
No.  2016AP1400-D.ssa 
 
3 
 
• 
Attorney Frank LoCoco (Husch Blackwell LLP) 
• 
Professor Michael McChrystal (Marquette University Law 
School) 
• 
Attorney David Meany (Wisconsin Department of Justice) 
• 
Attorney 
Jennifer 
Nashold 
(Wisconsin 
Division 
of 
Hearings & Appeals) 
• 
Attorney Joseph Ranney (DeWitt Ross & Stevens SC) 
• 
Attorney Jacquelynn Rothstein (Board of Bar Examiners) 
• 
Attorney Carrie Schneider (Outagamie County District 
Attorney's Office) 
• 
Attorney Paul Schwarzenbart (Stafford Rosenbaum LLP) 
• 
Attorney Christopher Sobic (State Public Defender's 
Office) 
• 
Attorney Rod Rogahn (Rogahn Jones LLC) 
• 
Hon. David Wambach (Jefferson County Circuit Court 
Judge) 
¶47 Unfortunately the Committee has only one public 
member.  No charge was provided to the Committee, but it has 
adopted a mission statement.2  No time has been proposed within 
which the committee is to complete its work.  Unfortunately, the 
committee has no web site and does not publicly announce its 
meetings or distribute its minutes widely.  Fortunately, the 
                                                 
2 "It is the mission of the OLR Procedure Review Committee 
to review OLR procedures/process and structure and to report to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court recommendations for changes to the 
current Supreme Court rules that would increase the efficiency 
and effectiveness of the OLR procedures/process." 
No.  2016AP1400-D.ssa 
 
4 
 
committee has an able reporter——Attorney Marsha Mansfield of the 
University of Wisconsin Law School faculty.   
¶48 I hope that the Committee's work will be more public 
and will benefit from public participation to improve the 
procedures for disciplining lawyers, for both the public and for 
lawyers. 
¶49 For the reasons set forth, I write separately.  
 
 
No.  2016AP1400-D.ssa 
 
5