Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Christopher A. Mutschler

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2019 WI 92 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP1939-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Christopher A. Mutschler, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Christopher A. Mutschler, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MUTSCHLER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 25, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
September 17, 2019 
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the respondent-appellant, there were briefs filed by 
Christopher A. Mutschler, Sheboygan. 
 
For the complainant-respondent, there was a brief filed by 
Matthew 
J. 
Price 
and 
Foley 
& 
Lardner 
LLP, 
Milwaukee.   
 
 
2019 WI 92
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2010AP1939-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Christopher A. Mutschler,  
Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,   
 
 
Complaint-Respondent, 
 
 
v. 
 
Christopher A. Mutschler,   
 
 
Respondent-Appellant.   
FILED 
 
SEP 25, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement denied.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The respondent-appellant, Christopher A. 
Mutschler, 
appeals 
Referee 
Jonathan 
V. 
Goodman's 
report 
recommending that we deny Attorney Mutschler's petition for 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, 
following his 2011 consensual license revocation.  After fully 
reviewing this matter, we agree that Attorney Mutschler 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 Mutschler should be required to pay the 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
2 
 
costs of this reinstatement proceeding, which are $4,577.90 as 
of December 18, 2018.  
¶2 
Attorney Mutschler was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1991.  He practiced out of small or solo law 
offices 
in 
Milwaukee, 
Elkhart 
Lake, 
and 
Fond 
du 
Lac, 
predominantly in the area of criminal traffic defense.  At the 
time, Attorney Mutschler had no prior discipline with the 
exception of a temporary suspension imposed against him for his 
willful failure to cooperate with the OLR's investigation 
concerning the conduct that ultimately led to his consensual 
license revocation.  
¶3 
Attorney Mutschler's misconduct was serious.  At the 
time of his revocation, there were 59 grievances pending against 
him.  Nearly all followed a similar pattern.  Attorney Mutschler 
would obtain payment of an advance fee, often a flat fee, to 
represent a client in a traffic, operating while intoxicated 
(OWI), or a criminal case.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mutschler, 2011 WI 74, 336 Wis. 2d 241, 804 N.W.2d 680.  
In OWI and traffic cases, Attorney Mutschler would frequently 
advise the client to enter a no contest plea and promise that he 
would win the case on appeal.  In some cases, Attorney Mutschler 
would never notify the client of the scheduled hearing on the 
pending charge or citation, so the client would fail to appear.  
In some cases, Attorney Mutschler himself would fail to appear 
at the scheduled hearing.  Consequently, the presiding judge 
would enter a default judgment against the client.  In other 
cases, the client would enter a guilty or no contest plea, then 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
3 
 
Attorney Mutschler would either fail to file an appeal or would 
fail to prosecute the appeal properly, which would lead to the 
dismissal of the client's appeal.  Attorney Mutschler also 
frequently failed to communicate adequately with his clients.  
In some cases, his clients made dozens of telephone calls but 
Attorney Mutschler never returned them.  In many cases, Attorney 
Mutschler simply stopped communicating at all with the clients, 
requiring them either to hire new counsel or to proceed on their 
own without counsel.  
¶4 
In addition, in 2008, pursuant to a plea agreement, 
Attorney Mutschler pled no contest to a charge of uttering a 
forgery, a felony, and to a charge of possession of an illegally 
obtained prescription medication, a misdemeanor.  The forgery 
count was subject to a deferred prosecution agreement and was 
later dismissed on the prosecutor's motion.  These charges 
stemmed from Attorney Mutschler being caught in the act of 
forging prescription forms and using such forms to obtain pain 
medication.  
¶5 
As noted, 
Attorney Mutschler eventually filed a 
petition for consensual license revocation which this court 
granted on July 14, 2011.  We noted that Attorney Mutschler 
likely committed dozens of violations of SCRs 20:1.3 (lack of 
diligence), 
20:1.4 
(failure 
to 
communicate), 
20:l.15(b)(4) 
(failure to hold unearned fees in trust), 20:1.16(d) (failure to 
return 
unearned 
advance 
payments 
upon 
termination), 
and 
20:8.4(c) 
(engaging 
in 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation).  As part of his consensual revocation order, 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
4 
 
Attorney 
Mutschler 
was 
required 
to 
make 
restitution 
to 
individual clients and the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection (the Fund) totaling $246,723, reflecting monies owed 
to some 45 clients, and to comply with SCR 22.26.  Mutschler, 
336 Wis. 2d 241. 
¶6 
On November 10, 2017, Attorney Mutschler filed this 
petition for reinstatement.  The OLR opposed his petition.  The 
court appointed Referee Goodman.  Referee Goodman conducted a 
one-day hearing on July 12, 2018.  Attorney Mutschler testified 
on his own behalf, and also elicited testimony from a friend, 
Howard Schumacher.  On August 13, 2018, the referee issued a 
report 
recommending 
the 
court 
deny 
Attorney 
Mutschler's 
petition.  Attorney Mutschler appealed and the parties filed 
briefs. 
¶7 
Attorney Mutschler contends that he has satisfied the 
requirements for reinstatement.  Attorney Mutschler also reasons 
that the only way he will ever satisfy his restitution 
obligations will be if he is permitted to practice law again.  
He asks the court to reinstate him so he can make headway 
against those restitution obligations.  
¶8 
The 
standards 
that 
apply 
to 
petitions 
for 
reinstatement after a disciplinary suspension or revocation are 
set forth in SCR 22.31(1).  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 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
5 
 
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.  In addition, 
SCR 22.31(1)1 incorporates the statements that a petition for 
reinstatement must contain pursuant to SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(k) and 
(4m).2  Thus, the petitioning attorney needs to demonstrate that 
                                                 
1 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. 
2 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.  
(continued) 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
6 
 
the required representations in the reinstatement petition are 
substantiated.  
¶9 
On review, we accept a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  We review a referee's legal 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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 
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability 
to do so. 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
7 
 
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.  
¶10 The referee concluded, and we agree, that Attorney 
Mutschler satisfied several of the criteria required for 
reinstatement.  Attorney Mutschler has demonstrated that he 
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);3 and that he has maintained 
competence and learning in the law, SCR 22.29(4)(d).4  He has 
                                                 
3 The referee found that Attorney Mutschler has not 
practiced law during his revocation.  We accept that finding.  
Certain questions were raised about an incident when Attorney 
Mutschler's employer asked him to accompany a property manager 
to a court hearing to help her with an eviction proceeding.  
Attorney Mutschler disclosed in that court proceeding that, "he 
was not an attorney and was not engaged in the practice of law 
and that he was there merely to support the apartment manager."  
(Emphasis in original.)  The OLR questioned whether he should 
have accompanied the property manager to court, but conceded 
that other attorneys engaged in similar conduct and were not 
found to have violated the rules or denied reinstatement on that 
basis.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hyndman, 2002 
WI 
6, 
¶¶7-14, 
249 
Wis. 2d 650, 
638 
N.W.2d 293; 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against George, 2010 WI 116, ¶¶5-22, 
329 Wis. 2d 333, 789 N.W.2d 577. 
4 The referee made no finding on the issue of Attorney 
Mutschler's learning and competency, but it is not disputed that 
the Board of Bar Examiners filed a memorandum stating that 
Attorney Mutschler "is currently in compliance with the court's 
CLE and EPR requirements for reinstatement."  The record 
reflects Attorney Mutschler's successful completion of numerous 
continuing legal education classes. 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
8 
 
also explained how he would use his license if reinstated, 
SCR 22.29(4)(j),5 and he has outlined his activities during his 
revocation, SCR 22.29(4)(k).  
¶11 With 
respect 
to 
the 
remaining 
prerequisites 
to 
reinstatement, our review is complicated by the fact that the 
referee did not make specific findings or conclusions with 
respect to several factors.6  In the absence of adverse findings, 
Attorney Mutschler reasons that "as Referee Goodman has found, 
Mr. Mutschler has satisfied all of the necessary criteria for 
reinstatement, other than repaying the Fund."  
¶12 The referee focused on the most significant challenge 
facing 
Attorney 
Mutschler's 
reinstatement 
petition: 
 
his 
undisputed failure to make any restitution to clients aggrieved 
by his misconduct.  Addressing restitution is required in all 
reinstatement proceedings, see, e.g., SCR 22.29(4)(c) and (4m), 
                                                 
5 The record indicates that Attorney Mutschler has been 
offered a legal job with a law firm that handles criminal 
traffic cases and he provided documentary support for the offer.   
6 For example, the referee did not specifically render a 
conclusion as to whether Attorney Mutschler has the moral 
character to practice law in Wisconsin; whether his resumption 
of 
the 
practice 
of 
law 
would 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
administration of justice; whether Attorney Mutschler has proven 
that his conduct since revocation has been exemplary and above 
reproach; whether Attorney Mutschler has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and will continue 
to comply until the petitioner's license is reinstated; or 
whether Attorney Mutschler has a proper understanding and 
attitude toward the standards imposed upon Bar members or 
whether he can safely be recommended as fit to practice law.  
 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
9 
 
and bears on many of the outstanding reinstatement criteria.  
Supreme Court Rule 22.29(4)(c) and (4m) require that the 
petitioner has made restitution to or settled all claims of 
persons injured or harmed by the petitioner's misconduct, 
including reimbursement to the Fund for all payments made from 
the Fund, or, if not, the petitioner's explanation for the 
failure or inability to do so.   
¶13 Attorney Mutschler acknowledges that he has not paid 
restitution.  He contends, however, that this should not 
preclude his reinstatement because he has explained his failure 
or inability to do so.  He attributes his failure to pay 
restitution 
to 
his 
inability 
to 
pay. 
 
He 
cites 
his 
"significantly limited income despite efforts to obtain a higher 
paying position."   
¶14  The referee explained his adverse recommendation, as 
follows: 
Mr. Mutschler has made no attempt to make arrangements 
to pay $1.00 to his restitution, and for that matter, 
there has been no evidence that he has made payments 
on any of his debts.  The obvious reason, of course, 
is that he was unemployed and, therefore, did not have 
the funds to make any payments. 
Secondly, after being employed for a period of one 
year as a hotel desk clerk, he left that employment to 
care for his sick grandmother.  While it is certainly 
noble to take care of one's relative who is ill, this 
writer cannot imagine that Mr. Mutschler would have 
time to do this if he had not lost his license, and 
still was in the midst of an active practice defending 
traffic violators.  Yet here, he completely abandoned 
a steady job, apparently without giving any thought to 
paying restitution or paying his other debts. 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
10 
 
. . .  
It appears he has had odd jobs since he resigned from 
the hotel, but nothing permanent. 
Mr. Mutschler testified that he had not come up with a 
plan for paying back his restitution in the event that 
his license was reinstated.   
Referee Rpt. p. 4.  The referee concluded, "[t]here is nothing 
in this record that gives the Referee confidence that Mr. 
Mutschler would engage in a program to repay his restitution 
once he became employed if his license was reinstated."   
¶15 Essentially, on appeal, Attorney Mutschler says the 
referee's finding that he has no repayment plan in mind is 
clearly erroneous.  He cites the following exchange from the 
evidentiary hearing: 
Referee: Okay. Have you developed any kind of a plan 
for starting to repay this approximately $250,000 debt 
to either the client compensation fund of the state 
bar or to individual clients assuming that you were 
able to begin practicing law again with the Melowski 
law firm? 
Respondent: Yes, I actually have discussed with [his 
potential 
future 
employer] 
that 
I 
have 
this 
outstanding debt that I owe to the state bar client 
protection fund, and I told him that - or I asked him, 
I guess, not told him - it was more of a question - as 
to whether or not, when I get paid, if it would be 
possible to set something up whereby instead of 
getting my whole paycheck, a certain amount could just 
be straightaway sent off to the bar as part of my 
compensation, or if that was something that was just 
too complicated to do and that I would have to pay out 
of my, you know, own account to the bar. So, yeah, I 
actually 
did 
mention 
that 
to 
[his 
prospective 
employer]. 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
11 
 
Referee: And do you have a figure in mind that you 
would be able to pay per paycheck or per month to 
start paying this debt off? 
Respondent: I guess that depends on what we negotiate 
the salary to be. I mean, ultimately, you know, if 
it's a $40,000 salary versus, let's say, I could 
negotiate a $60,000 salary - it's going to be a vastly 
different amount. But I - at this time, I really don't 
have a specific number until I know what I'm getting 
compensated. 
R37 at 104:23 to 106:l; R-App. at 112-114. 
¶16  The referee's conclusion that Attorney Mutschler has 
failed to adequately satisfy his restitution obligation in a 
manner sufficient to warrant reinstatement rests on implicit and 
intertwined 
findings 
about 
the 
credibility 
of 
Attorney 
Mutschler's claim that he made adequate efforts to do so. 
Typically, we defer to a referee's credibility determinations. 
See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gamiño, 2011 
WI 42, 334 Wis. 2d 279, 801 N.W.2d 299.  When a court does not 
make an explicit finding, an implicit finding may suffice, but 
only if the facts of record support it.  State v. Echols, 175 
Wis. 2d 653, 672, 499 N.W.2d 631 (1993). 
¶17 Attorney Mutschler owes $246,723 in restitution.  He 
has made no restitution payments.  He attributes this to his 
inability to pay.  The record indicates that after his 
revocation, Attorney Mutschler worked for a period of time at 
minimum wage as a third-shift night clerk at the Candlewood 
Suites in Brown Deer, Wisconsin.  He left this position to care 
for a family member.  He was later employed at La Coppa, LLC, 
which manufactured and sold sorbet and gelato until the company 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
12 
 
closed.  While employed at La Coppa, Attorney Mutschler acted as 
a human resources manager, promulgating an employee handbook, 
hiring and training cafe workers, ordering food supplies, and 
organizing participation in festivals across the state.  Since 
then, Attorney Mutschler has only performed sporadic, small odd 
jobs, such as yard work, painting, and furniture moving.  He 
subsists on a small stipend from a family member and resides 
with his mother.  He has not been regularly employed since 2014. 
Attorney 
Mutschler 
maintains, 
however, 
that 
he 
has 
unsuccessfully applied for literally hundreds of jobs.  
¶18 In response to the OLR's suggestion that he has been 
unrealistic in his job search, Attorney Mutschler vigorously 
defends his efforts to obtain employment.  He points to his 
friend's uncontested testimony at the hearing that Attorney 
Mutschler applied for "numerous" jobs and was repeatedly 
rejected, but it was never for a lack of trying.  Attorney 
Mutschler asserts, as well, that he did apply on more than one 
occasion to such minimum-wage employers as McDonald's, WalMart, 
Kwik Trip, et al., all without success.  He says that, "[f]or 
the OLR to even imply there was a lack of either willingness or 
diligence on Mr. Mutschler's part to gain employment is beyond 
ludicrous and borders on the cruel."  Attorney Mutschler says 
that "this Court can rest assured that any failure to repay the 
Fund to this point was not the product of an uncaring, 
indifferent, or callous attitude on Mr. Mutschler's part." 
¶19 We conclude that the facts of record support the 
referee's determination that, "[t]here is nothing in this record 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
13 
 
that gives the Referee confidence that Mr. Mutschler would 
engage in a program to repay his restitution once he became 
employed if his license was reinstated."  We take no position as 
to whether Attorney Mutschler might have approached his job 
search differently, or his decision to leave a stable job to 
care for a family member.  What stands out is the undisputed 
fact that in the nearly seven years between the time his license 
was revoked and his reinstatement petition, Attorney Mutschler 
never made any contact with the Fund or his former clients to 
make any arrangements for repayment of any part of his 
restitution obligation.    
¶20 As the OLR observed, there is a difference between not 
having enough money to fully pay restitution, and "making 
absolutely no discernable efforts to directly address one's 
obligations to the many victims of his misconduct."  In the 
OLR's view, Attorney Mutschler falls into the latter category.  
The referee reluctantly agreed and we defer to his credibility 
determination 
and 
his 
resulting 
conclusion 
that 
Attorney 
Mutschler failed to carry his burden of proof regarding 
SCR 22.29(4)(4m), requiring a 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."). 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
14 
 
¶21 Attorney 
Mutschler's 
failure 
to 
satisfy 
this 
prerequisite regarding restitution precludes his reinstatement. 
Our decision in this regard is consistent with another matter in 
which we recently denied reinstatement to a lawyer who was also 
revoked by consent, largely because he failed to provide an 
accounting or make restitution to a number of clients and his 
former law firm as ordered by the court.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Mularski, 2018 WI 99, 384 Wis. 2d 97, 919 
N.W.2d 368. Unlike Attorney Mutschler, Attorney Mularski had 
actually made substantial restitution payments.  Id., ¶4.  
¶22 As noted, the referee did not make specific findings 
or conclusions on several of the remaining reinstatement 
criteria.  We opt not to remand this matter to the referee for 
additional findings and conclusions because further proceedings 
before the referee would incur additional costs that would be 
assigned to Attorney Mutschler, yet would not alter our 
determination that reinstatement is not warranted at this time.   
¶23 We would be remiss and our opinion incomplete, 
however, if we failed to address an important aspect of Attorney 
Mutschler's personal history that he raises in his petition. 
When much of the underlying misconduct occurred, Attorney 
Mutschler was grappling with opiate addiction.  Attorney 
Mutschler reports having been sober since 2008; there is nothing 
in the record to the contrary.  This is highly commendable.  The 
OLR expresses great concern that Attorney Mutschler does not 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
15 
 
regularly participate in addiction programing or counseling.7  In 
the absence of any record evidence indicating that Attorney 
Mutschler's recent or present conduct is actively affected by 
addiction or depression, we are deeply reluctant to suggest 
Attorney Mutschler's management of these medical issues is 
somehow an adverse factor in this reinstatement proceeding.  
¶24 On a related note, Attorney Mutschler cites case law 
suggesting he believes that the question of medical incapacity 
may be relevant here.  We disagree.  Attorney Mutschler was not 
found to be subject to a medical incapacity in his underlying 
petition for consensual license revocation.  
¶25 This court has repeatedly reaffirmed that a lawyer 
does not enjoy a presumption of rehabilitation, see In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hyndman, 2002 WI 6, ¶4, 249 
Wis. 2d 650, 
638 
N.W.2d 293; 
and 
there 
is 
no 
right 
to 
reinstatement, see In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Banks, 
2010 WI 105, 329 Wis. 2d 39, 787 N.W.2d 809.  The cases Attorney 
Mutschler cites, including 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Belke, 2015 WI 41, 362 Wis. 2d 55, 862 N.W.2d 861, do 
                                                 
7 Attorney Mutschler regularly attended Alcoholics Anonymous 
(AA) meetings from 2007-2009.  He was advised to attend AA 
instead of Narcotics Anonymous meetings.  He estimates attending 
approximately two dozen AA meetings since 2009.  With respect to 
depression treatment, Attorney Mutschler attended individual 
counseling in 2007-2008, which he says he terminated due to 
cost.  He reports not having suffered from severe depression 
since becoming sober. 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
16 
 
not persuade us that he has satisfied the requirements for 
license reinstatement. 
¶26 Finally, 
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 Mutschler.  
¶27 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement is 
denied.  
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Christopher A. Mutschler shall pay to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$4,577.90 as of December 18, 2018. 
 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
 
 
1