Title: OLR v. Christopher A. Mutschler

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2021 WI 47 
 
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. 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY MUTSCHLER REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS 
Reported at 388 Wis. 2d 486,933 N.W.2d 99 
PDC No:2019 WI 92 - Published 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 25, 2021   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
KAROFSKY, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2021 WI 47
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, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Christopher A. Mutschler, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 25, 2021 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report filed by Referee Robert 
E. Kinney recommending that the court reinstate the license of 
Christopher A. Mutschler to practice law in Wisconsin.  Since no 
appeal has been filed from the referee's report and recommendation, 
our review proceeds pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.33(3).1  
                                                 
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. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
2 
 
After careful review of the matter, we adopt the referee's findings 
of fact and conclusions of law and agree that Attorney Mutschler's 
petition for reinstatement should be granted.  As is our normal 
practice, we also direct that the costs of this reinstatement 
proceeding, which are $9,028.76 as of March 29, 2021, be paid by 
Attorney Mutschler. 
¶2 
Attorney Mutschler was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1991 and practiced predominately in the area of 
criminal traffic defense. 
¶3 
In 2011, this court accepted Attorney Mutschler's 
petition for the consensual revocation of his Wisconsin law license 
and ordered him to pay restitution totaling $246,723 within 180 
days.  At the time of his revocation, there were 59 grievances 
pending against Attorney Mutschler.  In virtually all of the cases, 
Attorney Mutschler would obtain payment of an advanced fee to 
represent a client in a traffic, operating while intoxicated, or 
a criminal case.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mutschler, 
2011 WI 74, 336 Wis. 2d 241, 804 N.W.2d 680.  Attorney Mutschler 
would frequently advise the client to enter a no contest plea and 
promised that he would win the case on appeal.  In some cases, 
Attorney Mutschler never notified the client of the scheduled 
hearing on the pending charge or citation, so the client would 
fail to appear.  Sometimes Attorney Mutschler himself would fail 
to appear at scheduled hearings, with the result being that a 
default judgment was entered against the client.  In other cases, 
the client would enter a guilty or no contest plea, and Attorney 
Mutschler would either fail to file an appeal or would fail to 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
3 
 
prosecute the appeal properly, which would lead to the appeal being 
dismissed.  Attorney Mutschler frequently failed to communicate 
adequately with his clients, with the result being that many had 
to either hire new counsel or proceed on their own without counsel. 
¶4 
In addition, in 2008, 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 arose from Attorney Mutschler being caught 
in the act of forging prescription forms and using the forms to 
obtain pain medication. 
¶5 
Attorney Mutschler filed his first petition for 
reinstatement in 2017.  The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
opposed the petition.  After an evidentiary hearing, Referee 
Jonathan V. Goodman stated that in his 11 years of handling OLR 
cases, Attorney Mutschler's case posed the most difficult one the 
referee had seen.  Referee Goodman ultimately recommended that 
this court deny Attorney Mutschler's petition for reinstatement 
because of Attorney Mutschler's failure to have paid restitution 
or to have established a plan to do so.  Attorney Mutschler 
appealed.  This court concluded that the facts of record supported 
the referee's determination that, "there 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."  In re Reinstatement of Mutschler, 
2019 WI 92, 388 Wis. 2d 486, 933 N.W.2d 99. 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
Attorney Mutschler filed his second petition for 
reinstatement on July 17, 2020.  A hearing was held, via Zoom, 
before the referee on January 28, 2021.  The witnesses at the 
hearing were Attorney Mutschler and K.D., a former client, who 
retained Attorney Mutschler to represent him in a traffic offense 
case in 2008 or 2009.  At the hearing, Attorney Mutschler 
apologized to K.D.  K.D. testified that he paid Attorney Mutschler 
$5,500, later found out that Attorney Mutschler had missed 
deadlines in the case, which prompted K.D. to file a grievance 
against Attorney Mutschler and required him to hire a new attorney 
and pay him another $5,500.  In spite of this unpleasant 
experience, K.D. harbors no animosity toward Attorney Mutschler.  
He testified at the hearing:  
Everybody makes mistakes in life.  Chris Mutschler was 
a very nice guy when I met him.  He went through some 
hard times, I understand. . . . I'm not here to cut his 
throat.  I am here to say I would like reparations for 
the money that was basically, kind of, stolen from me.  
But after this many years if he wants to go back and 
practice being a lawyer using his abilities that God 
gave him, I'm not going to stand in the way. . . . I do 
want to reiterate that everybody deserves a second 
chance, and I don't think there's one of you guys sitting 
on the panel that haven't made a mistake that you regret.  
I accept Chris's apology and I hope you give him a second 
chance.   
¶7 
By the time of the hearing, Attorney Mutschler had paid 
$3,200 of restitution to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection (the Fund).  He testified that it would be very 
difficult for him to locate many of his former clients, and he 
knew if he paid the Fund there would be an unassailable track 
record of his payments.  Attorney Mutschler testified that the 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
5 
 
employment he has been able to obtain since his revocation has 
paid de minimus wages and "there's just no way on $17,000 a year 
I can pay everybody back that I need to pay as quickly as I need 
to pay them."  He said if his license is reinstated he has a job 
waiting that will pay $65,000 a year to start, and that income 
will allow him to significantly increase his payments, both in 
terms of restitution and in terms of paying off his other debts. 
¶8 
The referee issued his report and recommendation on 
March 9, 2021.  The referee concluded that Attorney Mutschler has 
satisfied the requirements for reinstatement of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin and recommends that his petition for 
reinstatement be granted. 
¶9 
Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) provides the standards to be 
met for reinstatement.2  Specifically, the petitioner must show by 
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or she has 
the moral character to practice law, that his or her resumption of 
the practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration 
of justice or subversive to the public interest, and that he or 
she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of the order of 
suspension.  In addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c) incorporates the 
statements that a petition for reinstatement must contain pursuant 
                                                 
2 Effective January 1, 2021, substantial changes were made to 
the rules pertaining to lawyer disciplinary procedures, including 
the reinstatement rules, SCR 22.29 through 22.33. See S. Ct. Order 
19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12, 2020 WI 
62 (issued June 30, 2020, eff. Jan. 1, 2021).  Because this 
reinstatement proceeding commenced prior to January 1, 2021, 
unless otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme court 
rules will be to those in effect prior to January 1, 2021. 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
6 
 
to SCR 22:29(4)(a)-(m).  Thus, the petitioning attorney must 
demonstrate that the required representations in the reinstatement 
petition are substantiated.   
¶10 When 
reviewing 
referee 
reports 
in 
reinstatement 
proceedings, we utilize standards of review similar to those used 
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 in fact satisfied 
the criteria for reinstatement, on a de novo basis.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jennings, 2011 WI 45, ¶39, 334 
Wis. 2d 335, 801 N.W.2d 304; In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gral, 2010 WI 14, ¶22, 323 Wis. 2d 280, 779 N.W.2d 168. 
¶11 The OLR did not dispute that Attorney Mutschler desires 
to have his license reinstated; he has not practiced law during 
the period of his revocation; he has maintained competence and 
learning in the law by attendance at identified educational 
activities; his proposed use of his license if reinstated was 
appropriate; and he provided a full description of all business 
activities during the period of revocation.  The referee readily 
agreed 
that 
Attorney 
Mutschler 
satisfied 
all 
of 
those 
requirements. 
¶12 Throughout the course of this reinstatement proceeding, 
the OLR expressed concern about several of the reinstatement 
criteria, and the referee discussed those issues at length in his 
report.  We will, likewise, discuss them in some detail.  First, 
the OLR contended that Attorney Mutschler made an inaccurate 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
7 
 
statement in his second reinstatement petition when he said, 
"ultimately, the referee [in the first reinstatement proceeding] 
concluded that the petitioner met the conditions except for [his 
payment of and plans to pay restitution]."  The OLR argued that by 
making this statement, Attorney Mutschler engaged in conduct since 
the revocation which has not been exemplary and above reproach.  
Referee Kinney termed the OLR's position "a bridge too far."  The 
referee noted that Attorney Mutschler made the same argument in 
his appeal from Referee Goodman's recommendation that his first 
petition for reinstatement be denied, and this court referenced it 
in its opinion by saying:  "[i]n 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.'"  Mutschler, 2019 WI 
92, ¶11.  The referee said not only did this court not criticize 
Attorney Mutschler's reasoning in this regard, it did not expressly 
say it disagreed with it.  To the contrary, the referee said 
Attorney 
Mutschler's 
statement 
appeared 
to 
be 
a 
fair 
interpretation of Referee Goodman's report, which focused only on 
the restitution issue in ultimately recommending that Attorney 
Mutschler's bid for reinstatement be denied. 
¶13 Second, the OLR argued that Attorney Mutschler's failure 
to protect client files weighed against granting his reinstatement 
petition.  The referee noted that at one point Attorney Mutschler 
was evicted from his law office and rented a storage unit into 
which he placed items of property from his law office, including 
10 to 15 client files.  Attorney Mutschler did not have sufficient 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
8 
 
resources to pay the rental arrearages and as a result, in 2015 he 
was subsequently barred from accessing the storage unit and its 
contents were removed and disposed of.   
¶14 The referee said in determining the seriousness of 
Attorney Mutschler's breach of his duty to protect client files, 
it was important to note that no client ever asked for the return 
of a file.  The referee opined that was not surprising given that 
Attorney Mutschler specialized in drunk driving defense and the 
typical file was likely to have contained little more than a copy 
of a citation or a criminal complaint.  The referee noted there 
was unlikely to be any work product in the files because Attorney 
Mutschler admitted in his consensual revocation proceeding that 
because of his addiction he did little or nothing of value for his 
clients during that time period.  The referee also opined that the 
contents of the files could have been readily replicated by 
successor counsel obtaining copies from the court files or 
prosecutors' offices.  In addition, the referee stated that the 
client files at issue dated back to 2008 to 2010, and under 
standard Wisconsin dispositional guidelines, by 2015 those cases 
would likely have been long since disposed of and the files 
useless.  The referee said attempting to retrieve the files would 
have been a meaningless waste of time, and it was more prudent for 
Attorney Mutschler to have prioritized his rent, child support 
payments, and efforts to reinstate his driver's license rather 
than spending money to retrieve old case files that were obsolete. 
¶15 Third, the OLR expressed concern that Attorney Mutschler 
had filed an unsigned affidavit of compliance in the first 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
9 
 
reinstatement proceeding.  The referee noted that Attorney 
Mutschler testified at the first reinstatement hearing that he had 
made an inadvertent error and sent the wrong copy of the affidavit 
along with his original reinstatement petition.  He promptly 
corrected the mistake.  The referee noted that in its post hearing 
brief, the OLR readily conceded this should not be a bar to 
reinstatement. 
¶16 Fourth, the OLR pointed out that when Attorney Mutschler 
was asked to produce tax returns for 2015 to 2019, he failed to 
produce returns for 2015 and 2016.  The referee noted that in its 
post hearing brief, the OLR acknowledged that Attorney Mutschler 
was not employed during those years and presumably had no 
reportable income.   
¶17 Fifth, the OLR pointed out that Attorney Mutschler has 
accumulated child support and maintenance arrears totaling over 
$400,000 and this should be a relevant consideration as to whether 
his conduct since his revocation has been exemplary.  The referee 
noted 
that 
Attorney 
Mutschler 
testified 
at 
the 
second 
reinstatement hearing that at the time of his divorce, which he 
termed "the absolute worse time in my life," he stipulated to child 
support and maintenance of $3,400 or $3,500 per month, an amount 
far beyond his means even at the time he agreed to it.  Attorney 
Mutschler testified, "I just stipulated because with the mind of 
the depressive addict I thought I could do that."  Attorney 
Mutschler ultimately petitioned to reduce his child support and 
maintenance obligations to $350 per month, but by the time he did 
so, the amount of the arrearage was staggering.  The referee notes 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
10 
 
that Wisconsin law prohibited the circuit court from retroactively 
wiping out any arrears before Attorney Mutschler's motion for a 
reduction in his obligations was filed.  See Wis. Stat. 
§ 767.59(1m).  In addition, the referee points out that 
§ 767.511(6) mandates that interest of one percent per month be 
assessed on arrearage.  As a result, the referee notes that each 
month Attorney Mutschler makes a payment of $400 he falls further 
behind by $3,600.  The referee notes that the OLR concedes that 
since May 2015, Attorney Mutschler has made his court order support 
obligations by paying $400 per month. 
¶18 Sixth, the OLR expressed concern about the amount of 
Attorney Mutschler's personal debt.  The referee notes that for 
several years Attorney Mutschler has taken on no new debt and has 
been able to repay much of the loan debt he owed to friends.   
¶19 Seventh, the OLR expressed concern that for several 
years Attorney Mutschler drove on a suspended driver's license.  
The referee notes that Attorney Mutschler truthfully acknowledged 
that since he did not have the money to pay off various traffic 
tickets, his driver's license was suspended and he continued to 
drive on a suspended license.  However, the referee also notes 
that Attorney Mutschler paid off all traffic fines years ago, took 
the steps necessary to reinstate his driver's license, paid the 
requisite reinstatement fee, and now drives legally.   
¶20 Eighth, the OLR, as in the first reinstatement 
proceeding, 
continued 
to 
express 
concern 
about 
Attorney 
Mutschler's failure to pay much in the way of restitution. 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
11 
 
¶21 The referee said the eight concerns raised by the OLR 
represent a very small part of the whole story in this case, and 
while it is appropriate to reach back into a petitioner's past, 
that must be done in a balanced way.  The referee said during 
Attorney Mutschler's 18 years of practice he rose to the pinnacle 
of his profession, lectured regularly, wrote a treatise for the 
State Bar and for the Wisconsin Impaired Driving Center at the 
University of Wisconsin, authored and published dozens of 
articles, and was called upon to testify before the Wisconsin 
Legislature on four occasions regarding amendments to the traffic 
code.  The referee said the lifeblood of drunk driving defense is 
motion practice, and Attorney Mutschler had an outstanding 
reputation for thinking outside the box in crafting innovative 
motions.   
¶22 The referee said, "when the petitioner fell, he fell 
hard."  The referee pointed to Attorney Mutschler's testimony at 
the first reinstatement hearing about his addiction to pain 
medication, and he explained how he ultimately went about getting 
sober.  The referee also noted that Attorney Mutschler testified 
at the second reinstatement hearing that the OLR summoned him to 
appear for a meeting at their offices in Madison to discuss the 59 
grievances that had been filed against him, and almost immediately 
upon his arrival in Madison, Attorney Mutschler signed a petition 
acknowledging that he could not successfully defend against the 
allegations of misconduct and he agreed to the consensual 
revocation of his law license. 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
12 
 
¶23 The referee said that during the time since his 
revocation, Attorney Mutschler has lived an extremely frugal 
existence; has maintained sobriety; has accepted very modest 
employment opportunities; has kept current on his child support 
obligation; and has acknowledged his wrongdoing and apologized to 
his former clients.  The referee said, "as much as he would like 
to be able to do so, Mr. Mutschler cannot turn back the hands of 
the clock."  The referee said as a result of this proceeding, 
Attorney Mutschler's life has become an open book.  The referee 
noted 
that 
the 
record 
contains 
six 
separate 
letters 
of 
recommendation from Attorney Mutschler's former colleagues.  The 
referee 
said, 
"I 
have 
never 
previously 
read 
letters 
of 
recommendation which were as strong and unequivocal, and in which 
the authors had obviously taken so much time to carefully describe 
the changes they had observed."   
¶24 The referee notes that if reinstated, Attorney Mutschler 
has a job waiting which will pay him a starting salary of $65,000.  
Attorney Mutschler has indicated that $500 per month will be 
automatically taken from his wages by wage assignment and paid 
toward restitution, potentially benefitting dozens of his former 
clients.  The referee also notes that Attorney Mutschler will have 
no involvement with billing or fees at the law firm and he will be 
strictly handling a motion practice.   
¶25 For all of these reasons, the referee found by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence, that Attorney Mutschler has 
met all of the criteria for reinstatement of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin.   
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
13 
 
¶26 As noted, the OLR has not appealed the referee's 
recommendation.  Upon review of the record, we agree with the 
referee that Attorney Mutschler has indeed established by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he has satisfied all of 
the criteria necessary for reinstatement.   
¶27 As the referee noted, this court's denial of Attorney 
Mutschler's first reinstatement petition focused on his failure to 
make any restitution payments or have a repayment plan in mind.  
Since his first reinstatement petition was denied, Attorney 
Mutschler has made valiant efforts to begin paying restitution, 
and although his meager income and other financial obligations, 
including child support, have not allowed him to make much of a 
dent in the amount owed, he has made a start, and it appears he 
has done the best he could under the circumstances.  As the referee 
also noted, if Attorney Mutschler's license is reinstated, his 
employer will automatically deduct $500 per month from his wages 
to go toward restitution.  With the possibility of salary increases 
over time, reinstatement of Attorney Mutschler's license will give 
him the capacity to whittle down his restitution obligations in a 
way that would never be possible if he were precluded from resuming 
his profession as an attorney.  Accordingly, we adopt the referee's 
findings of fact and conclusions of law, and we accept the 
referee's recommendation that Attorney Mutschler's license to 
practice law is Wisconsin should be reinstated.  As is our standard 
policy, we also find it appropriate to impose the full costs of 
this proceeding on Attorney Mutschler. 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
14 
 
¶28 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Christopher A. 
Mutschler to practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective 
the date of this order. 
¶29 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 $9,028.76 
as of March 29, 2021. 
¶30 JILL J. KAROFSKY, J., did not participate. 
 
 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
 
 
1