Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Theodore F. Mazza

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2020 WI 73 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP600-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Theodore F. Mazza, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Theodore F. Mazza, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MAZZA 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 1, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2020 WI 73
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2019AP600-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Theodore F. Mazza, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Theodore F. Mazza, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
SEP 1, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Theodore F. Mazza has filed a 
petition for voluntary revocation of his license to practice law 
in Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.19.  
Attorney Mazza is the respondent in a case in which the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) has alleged 13 counts of misconduct 
arising out of two client matters.  The OLR sought revocation of 
Attorney Mazza's law license and also sought restitution on 
behalf of the two clients.  Attorney Mazza is also currently the 
subject of three additional pending OLR grievance matters that 
No. 
2019AP600-D   
 
2 
 
have not yet been fully investigated by the OLR or brought 
before the Preliminary Review Committee.  Attorney Mazza states 
in his petition that he cannot successfully defend against these 
multiple counts of misconduct.  By order dated May 15, 2020, 
Referee Kim M. Peterson recommends that Attorney Mazza's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin be revoked and that he be ordered 
to make restitution to three clients.   
¶2 
Attorney Mazza was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1965 and practices in Pewaukee.  In 1978, his law 
license was indefinitely suspended, with leave to apply for 
reinstatement after one year, for misconduct consisting of 
misuse of client funds and neglect of legal matters.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mazza, 82 Wis. 2d 598, 262 
N.W.2d 767 (1978).  In 1984, his law license was revoked based 
on his conviction of a criminal charge of conspiracy to commit 
theft as party to a crime.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mazza, 117 Wis. 2d 770, 345 N.W.2d 492 (1984).  This 
court reinstated Attorney Mazza's law license in 2002.  In re 
Reinstatement of Mazza, 2002 WI 36, 252 Wis. 2d 86, 643 
N.W.2d 83. 
¶3 
The OLR filed its complaint against Attorney Mazza on 
March 27, 2019.  The first client matter detailed in the 
complaint involved Attorney Mazza's representation of J.D. in a 
case in which J.D. was convicted of operating while intoxicated, 
5th offense.  In September 2008, J.D. was sentenced to one year 
in prison.  Attorney Mazza offered to manage J.D.'s affairs 
while he was incarcerated.  This offer arose in the course of 
No. 
2019AP600-D   
 
3 
 
and as a result of Attorney Mazza's lawyer-client relationship 
with J.D. 
¶4 
J.D. believed that Attorney Mazza would receive and 
pay all of J.D.'s bills, file J.D.'s 2007 and 2008 state and 
federal income tax returns, and arrange to terminate J.D.'s 
apartment lease and move his property into storage.   
¶5 
Notices from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue and 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding the tax returns were 
sent to Attorney Mazza's office, but Attorney Mazza failed to 
file, cause the returns to be filed, or discuss the tax returns 
with J.D. during his incarceration.  Due to Attorney Mazza's 
failure to file the returns, J.D. incurred interest and 
penalties.  
¶6 
Attorney Mazza did not pay J.D.'s apartment rent for 
several months, and he failed to timely terminate J.D.'s lease.  
Attorney Mazza also failed to pay J.D.'s outstanding bill for 
electrical service for the apartment and failed to pay other 
ongoing obligations, causing J.D.'s accounts to become past due 
or go into collections.  During J.D.'s incarceration, Attorney 
Mazza sold one of J.D.'s cars without J.D.'s authorization.  
Attorney Mazza has not accounted for the proceeds of the sale. 
¶7 
During 
J.D.'s 
incarceration, 
Attorney 
Mazza 
took 
possession of six silver dollars owned by J.D., valued at $300 
and a three-gallon jar of change valued at between $400-$500.  
Those items were never returned to J.D., nor has Attorney Mazza 
accounted for the proceeds from those items. 
No. 
2019AP600-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
During J.D.'s incarceration, Attorney Mazza withdrew 
funds from J.D.'s bank accounts for his own use or the use of 
others besides J.D. and transferred J.D.'s funds to Attorney 
Mazza's own business or personal accounts.  Attorney Mazza 
failed to leave adequate balances in J.D.'s checking account, 
which resulted in overdraft fees. 
¶9 
Attorney Mazza failed to make monthly payments toward 
J.D.'s daughter's student loan, which caused the loan to go into 
default, accrue interest, and be forwarded to a collection 
agency.   
¶10 In or about May 2009, Attorney Mazza represented 
J.D.'s daughter in a lawsuit relating to illegally downloaded 
music.  J.D.'s daughter signed a settlement agreement requiring 
monthly payments of $108 until $2,600 was paid in full.  
Attorney Mazza did not timely communicate with J.D., his 
daughter, or her mother about the required monthly payments.  
Between the date of the settlement agreement and December 2009, 
Attorney Mazza made a single payment of $216 toward the required 
monthly payments.  Attorney Mazza used J.D.'s funds to make that 
payment.  J.D. paid $324 toward the debt in December 2009, by 
paying the same to Attorney Mazza so that he could forward it to 
the creditor's attorney.  Attorney Mazza made another payment of 
$108 on February 26, 2010.  By letter dated that same day, 
Attorney Mazza notified J.D.'s daughter's mother that she or 
J.D.'s daughter would have to make payments going forward.   
¶11 J.D. was released from incarceration on August 27, 
2009 and took possession of his checkbook from Attorney Mazza on 
No. 
2019AP600-D   
 
5 
 
September 2, 2009.  J.D. asked Attorney Mazza several times each 
month to stop being his financial power of attorney of record on 
his bank statements, but Attorney Mazza did not accompany J.D. 
to the bank to remove himself from the accounts until March, 
2010. 
¶12 On multiple occasions, Attorney Mazza transferred sums 
between his business account and J.D.'s savings account without 
J.D.'s authorization.  Attorney Mazza failed to provide J.D. 
with a written or oral accounting of the funds and property 
managed and disbursed by him during J.D.'s incarceration.  In 
total, Attorney Mazza failed to account for at least $19,001.97 
of J.D.'s funds, which Attorney Mazza transferred from J.D.'s 
accounts to Attorney Mazza's own accounts or disbursed from 
J.D.'s accounts for purposes unrelated to J.D.'s interests. 
¶13 After he was released from incarceration, J.D. asked 
Attorney Mazza about funds J.D. believed were missing from his 
accounts.  Attorney Mazza falsely responded that the money was 
"tied up" because the IRS had frozen Attorney Mazza's accounts. 
¶14 In 2016, J.D. filed a grievance with the OLR asserting 
that Attorney Mazza had converted and mismanaged J.D.'s assets 
and property and failed to pay numerous of J.D.'s debts, causing 
J.D. financial harm.  Attorney Mazza misrepresented to the OLR 
that he had paid every legitimate outstanding bill of which he 
was aware, and he misrepresented that he only disbursed funds 
from J.D.'s accounts to pay J.D.'s expenses or to reimburse 
himself for his use of his own money to pay J.D.'s expenses. 
No. 
2019AP600-D   
 
6 
 
¶15 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect with to Attorney Mazza's handling of 
J.D.'s funds:   
Count 1:  By failing to diligently and promptly pursue 
his clients' interests in:  (i) timely paying J.D.'s 
debts; (ii) timely terminating J.D.'s apartment lease; 
(iii) managing J.D.'s assets in accordance with J.D.'s 
wishes; (iv) timely filing J.D.'s 2007 and 2008 tax 
returns, and (v) having settled a civil action on 
J.D.'s daughter's behalf, timely communicating with 
J.D.'s 
daughter 
about 
the 
settlement 
terms 
and 
payments due or pursuing her interests in ensuring 
that payments due under her settlement agreement were 
timely made, in each instance, Attorney Mazza violated 
SCR 20:1.3.1    
Count 2:  By failing to hold J.D.'s funds and property 
in trust, separate from Attorney Mazza's own funds and 
property, 
Attorney 
Mazza 
violated 
former 
SCR 20:1.15(j)(1).2 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 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, 2016 WI 21 (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 
2016). 
Former SCR 20:1.15(j)(1)provides:   
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own funds or property, those funds or that 
property of clients or 3rd parties that are in the 
lawyer's 
possession 
when 
acting 
in 
a 
fiduciary 
capacity that directly arises in the course of, or as 
a result of, a lawyer-client relationship or by 
appointment of a court. 
No. 
2019AP600-D   
 
7 
 
Count 3:  By converting to his own use funds and 
property entrusted to him by J.D., Attorney Mazza 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c).3 
Count 4:  By misrepresenting to J.D. that J.D.'s funds 
were "tied up" due to actions by the Internal Revenue 
Service, Attorney Mazza violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count 5:  By making misrepresentations to the OLR, 
Attorney Mazza violated SCR 22.03(6),4 enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(h).5 
¶16 The 
other 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint arose out of Attorney Mazza's representation of P.L, 
who contacted Attorney Mazza to represent her in a dispute with 
her landlord.  Before or within a reasonable time after 
commencing his representation of P.L., Attorney Mazza failed to 
enter into a written fee agreement with her or clearly 
communicate the basis or rate of his fees or expenses for which 
she would be responsible. 
¶17 During the representation, Attorney Mazza failed to 
maintain contemporaneous or accurate records of his actions on 
                                                 
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 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 
or SCR 22.04(1)." 
No. 
2019AP600-D   
 
8 
 
behalf of or time spent in representing P.L., failed to send her 
any billing statements, and failed to communicate to her fees 
being incurred in the representation.   
¶18 During the representation, P.L., repeatedly asked 
Attorney Mazza and his non-lawyer assistant, Katie Boerschinger, 
for a billing statement or explanations of the fees accruing.  
Neither Boerschinger nor Attorney Mazza explained to P.L. the 
actual fees being accrued, nor did they provide her with a 
billing statement. 
¶19 Between February 5 and March 7, 2016, P.L. made three 
payments of fees to Attorney Mazza totaling $300.  In September 
2016, P.L.'s landlord filed an action for damages against her.  
Attorney Mazza filed a counterclaim on P.L.'s behalf seeking 
damages of $1,900 and attorney's fees.  During a December 8, 
2016 hearing, the circuit court dismissed the landlord's claim 
and entered judgment in P.L.'s favor on the counterclaim in the 
amount of $1,900.  That amount was offset with credits in the 
landlord's favor in the amount of $1,300.  Attorney Mazza told 
the circuit court his fees were $1,000.  The landlord was 
ordered to pay P.L. a total of $600 in net damages plus $1,000 
in actual attorney's fees. 
¶20 On or about January 13, 2017, Attorney Mazza received 
a check for $1,600 from P.L.'s landlord.  Of that amount, $600 
belonged to P.L.  Attorney Mazza should have held in trust at 
least $600 pending notice to P.L., and either her agreement as 
to its disbursement or the resolution of any disputes as to how 
it should be disbursed.  Attorney Mazza deposited the check into 
No. 
2019AP600-D   
 
9 
 
his business account and within six days he used the funds for 
his own purposes. 
¶21 In late January 2017, P.L. called Attorney Mazza's 
office to ask about the status of the judgment payment, at which 
time Boerschinger informed P.L. the judgment payment had been 
received.  Boerschinger also told P.L. that her legal fees 
related to the dispute with the landlord totaled approximately 
$1,800 but that "they" had decided to keep the $1,600 received 
from the landlord and call P.L.'s account "even."   
¶22 In a January 31, 2017 email, P.L. asked Boerschinger 
to email her a copy of her bill.  Neither Attorney Mazza nor 
Boerschinger responded.  Between February 7 and March 8, 2017, 
P.L. repeatedly asked for an accounting of Attorney Mazza's fees 
and the balance of her funds.  Neither Attorney Mazza nor 
Boerschinger responded. 
¶23 On March 15, 2017 Attorney Mazza met with P.L. to 
discuss filing bankruptcy.  He quoted P.L. a flat fee of $1,900 
for the bankruptcy representation, but offered to credit $600 of 
the judgment payment from her landlord against those fees.  
Between March 15 and April 19, 2017, Attorney Mazza and P.L. 
exchanged numerous emails in which P.L. repeatedly asked 
Attorney Mazza for an accounting of the fees incurred in her 
litigation and about the cost and timing of filing bankruptcy.  
Attorney Mazza promised to provide P.L. an accounting of the 
work he had performed regarding the litigation with her 
landlord, and he promised to meet certain deadlines with regard 
to her filing bankruptcy.  However, he did not timely provide an 
No. 
2019AP600-D   
 
10 
 
accounting of his fees and did not meet his deadlines with 
regard to the bankruptcy paperwork. 
¶24 On April 20, 2017, a day after receiving an email from 
P.L. asking for an invoice, Attorney Mazza emailed P.L. a 
statement of his services that claimed fees of $2,750.  He did 
not include the dates when services were purportedly provided.  
The April 20, 2017 statement misrepresented the amount of fees 
P.L. had incurred.  P.L. requested that Attorney Mazza explain 
the costs he incurred in representing her.  Attorney Mazza never 
provided P.L. with that information. 
¶25 Attorney Mazza never filed a bankruptcy petition on 
P.L.'s behalf, nor did he provide any meaningful services to her 
related to a potential bankruptcy filing.  Attorney Mazza never 
paid P.L. any of the $1,600 he received from her landlord.  He 
misrepresented to the OLR that the $1,600 did not include 
attorney's fees and that the entire amount represented damages 
awarded to P.L.  Attorney Mazza also misrepresented to the OLR 
that the funds he received from P.L.'s landlord were deposited 
into his business account by accident or inadvertently, despite 
the fact he promptly disbursed those funds from his business 
account for his own purposes or the purposes of his firm.  He 
also misrepresented to the OLR that he had represented P.L. in 
four distinct matters, including a restraining order and a 
bankruptcy filing when in fact P.L. represented herself with 
regard to the restraining order and Attorney Mazza was not 
authorized to bill for any bankruptcy-related services.   
No. 
2019AP600-D   
 
11 
 
¶26 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Mazza's representation of 
P.L.: 
Count 6:  By failing before or within a reasonable 
time after commencing his representation to clearly 
and accurately explain the basis or rate of his fees, 
including services for which P.L. would be billed and 
whether she would be billed for services provided by 
non-lawyer 
staff, 
Attorney 
Mazza 
violated 
SCR 20:1.5(b)(1).6 
Count 7:  By failing to timely respond to P.L.'s 
reasonable requests for information concerning the 
fees and expenses she could incur or had incurred, 
Attorney Mazza violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(3).7 
Count 8:  By failing to promptly notify P.L. of his 
office's receipt of the $1,600 payment from her 
landlord, Attorney Mazza violated SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).8 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) provides:   
The scope of the representation and the basis or 
rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will 
be responsible shall be communicated to the client in 
writing, before or within a reasonable time after 
commencing the representation, except when the lawyer 
will charge a regularly represented client on the same 
basis or rate as in the past.  If it is reasonably 
foreseeable that the total cost of representation to 
the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000 
or less, the communication may be oral or in writing.  
Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or 
expenses shall also be communicated in writing to the 
client.   
7 SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall promptly 
respond to a client's request for information concerning fees 
and expenses." 
8 Former 
SCR 
20:1.15(d)(1) 
was 
renumbered 
as 
SCR 20:1.15(e)(1).  The text of the rule was not changed and 
provides:   
No. 
2019AP600-D   
 
12 
 
Count 9:  By depositing the $1,600 check from P.L.'s 
landlord in his business account, and thereafter 
failing to hold the portion of the $1,600 in which 
P.L. had an interest in trust until he was authorized 
to 
disburse 
it, 
Attorney 
Mazza 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).9 
Count 10:  By using the entire $1,600 payment from 
P.L.'s landlord, a portion of which included P.L.'s 
$600 damages, for his own or his firm's purposes 
without P.L.'s authorization to do so, Attorney Mazza 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count 11:  By failing, upon her requests, to timely 
provide P.L. with an accounting, Attorney Mazza 
violated SCR 20:1.15(d)(2).10 
Count 12:  By failing to provide P.L. with an accurate 
understanding of the timing and steps necessary to 
prepare and file her bankruptcy petition, so that she 
                                                                                                                                                             
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client has an interest, or in which the lawyer has 
received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or 
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client 
or 3rd party in writing.  Except as stated in this 
rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement 
with the client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to 
the client or 3rd party any funds or other property 
that the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive. 
9 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides:   
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 
3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation.  All funds of 
clients and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm 
in connection with a representation shall be deposited 
in one or more identifiable trust accounts. 
10 SCR 20:1.15(d)(2) provides:  "Upon final distribution of 
any trust property or upon request by the client or a 3rd party 
having an ownership interest in the property, the lawyer shall 
promptly 
render 
a 
full 
written 
accounting 
regarding 
the 
property." 
No. 
2019AP600-D   
 
13 
 
could make informed decisions about the bankruptcy and 
about Attorney Mazza's representation, Attorney Mazza 
violated SCR 20:1.4(b).11 
Count 13:  By making misrepresentations to the OLR 
during the course of its investigation, Attorney Mazza 
violated SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶27 Attorney Mazza is also the subject of three additional 
grievance 
investigations. 
 
The 
first 
arises 
out 
of 
his 
representation of J.L. in a divorce action.  The OLR is 
investigating 
allegations 
that 
Attorney 
Mazza 
failed 
to 
diligently advance his client's interests; failed to timely 
communicate with the client; failed to respond to the client's 
reasonable requests for information; borrowed money from the 
client without complying with the requirements of SCR 20:1.8(a); 
failed to provide the client with billing statements or an 
accounting despite repeated requests; failed to refund the 
unearned portion of fees paid by the client; and made 
misrepresentations to the OLR during the investigation of the 
grievance.   
¶28 The OLR is also investigating a grievance filed by 
S.P., who hired Attorney Mazza to represent him a divorce case.  
In that matter the OLR is investigating allegations that 
Attorney Mazza failed to diligently advance the client's 
interests; refunded only $250 of the $3,500 in advanced fees 
paid by the client; failed to respond to the client's reasonable 
requests for information; failed to provide the client with an 
                                                 
11 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides:  "A lawyer shall explain a matter 
to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation." 
No. 
2019AP600-D   
 
14 
 
accounting despite the client's request; attempted to cause the 
client to withdraw his grievance as a condition to refunding 
some portion of the unearned fees; failed to timely provide 
information and records to the OLR; and made misrepresentations 
to the OLR. 
¶29 The final grievance being investigated by the OLR 
arose out of Attorney Mazza's service as treasurer for the Saint 
Vincent de Paul Conference – Saint Francis of Assisi Parish 
(Conference), a non-profit organization affiliated with Attorney 
Mazza's local Catholic parish, from approximately March 28, 2018 
until 
October 
31, 
2018. 
 
In 
that 
matter, 
the 
OLR 
is 
investigating allegations that Attorney Mazza converted to his 
own use or the use of other clients or third parties at least 
$9,500 of the Conference's funds entrusted to him as treasurer; 
made misrepresentations to and provided the Conference with 
false reports and records in an effort to hide his conversion of 
funds; 
made 
misrepresentations 
to 
law 
enforcement; 
and 
commingled the Conference's funds in his IOLTA client trust 
account when the Conference was not a client and the Conference 
repeatedly instructed Attorney Mazza to open a separate account 
to hold their funds. 
¶30 Attorney Mazza's petition for consensual revocation 
states 
that 
he 
is 
seeking 
consensual 
revocation 
freely, 
voluntarily, and knowingly.  He states that he understands that 
he is giving up his right to contest the OLR's allegations.  He 
agrees that he should be ordered to make restitution to three 
clients:  $19,001.97 to J.D., $600 to P.L., and $3,250 to S.P.  
No. 
2019AP600-D   
 
15 
 
The OLR supports Attorney Mazza's petition for consensual 
license revocation.  Referee Peterson, similarly, recommends 
that Attorney Mazza's law license be revoked.   
¶31 Having reviewed Attorney Mazza's petition, the OLR's 
complaint, the OLR's summary of the additional three grievances 
it 
is 
investigating, 
and 
the 
OLR's 
and 
the 
referee's 
recommendations, we accept Attorney Mazza's petition for the 
revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  The 
seriousness of his misconduct demonstrates the need to revoke 
his law license to protect the public, the courts, and the legal 
system from the repetition of misconduct; to impress upon 
Attorney Mazza the seriousness of his misconduct; and to deter 
other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carranza, 2014 WI 121, ¶49, 358 
Wis. 2d 522, 855 N.W.2d 683.  
¶32 We determine that Attorney Mazza should be required to 
pay restitution to the three clients mentioned in his petition.  
Finally, as is our usual custom, we deem it appropriate to 
require Attorney Mazza to pay the full costs of this proceeding, 
which are $2,642.34 as of June 12, 2020.   
¶33 IT IS ORDERED that Theodore F. Mazza's petition for 
consensual license revocation is granted. 
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Theodore F. 
Mazza to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked effective October 
6, 2020. 
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Theodore F. Mazza shall pay to the Office of 
No. 
2019AP600-D   
 
16 
 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$2,642.34 as of June 12, 2020. 
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Theodore F. Mazza shall pay restitution as 
follows:   
 $19,001.97 to J.D.;  
 $600 to P.L.; and  
 $3,250 to S.P. 
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution specified above 
is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Theodore F. Mazza shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person who is licensed to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
revoked.   
 
 
No. 
2019AP600-D   
 
 
 
1