Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Brian P. Mularski

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2010 WI 113 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP85-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Brian P. Mularski, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Brian P. Mularski, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MULARSKI 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 10, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 113
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP85-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Brian P. Mularski, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Brian P. Mularski, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
SEP 10, 2010 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
has filed a disciplinary complaint charging Attorney Brian P. 
Mularski with 13 counts of misconduct in three client matters.  
Attorney Mularski is also subject to eight pending grievance 
investigations not yet charged.  Attorney Mularski petitions for 
the consensual revocation of his Wisconsin law license.  He 
states he cannot successfully defend himself against the 
professional misconduct alleged in the complaint and the pending 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
2 
 
investigations.  Also, he states he will perform an accounting 
and make the appropriate restitution.   
¶2 
Referee John Fiorenza has filed his recommendation 
that Attorney Mularski's license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
revoked.  Referee Fiorenza also recommends that Attorney 
Mularski 
provide 
an 
accounting 
of 
all 
the 
funds 
he 
misappropriated, and prove he has made restitution to those 
aggrieved by his misconduct.   
¶3 
Attorney Mularski was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2000 and has practiced most recently in Milwaukee.  
He has not been subject to prior discipline.  His license is 
currently suspended, however, for noncompliance with dues and 
trust account certification requirements.   
¶4 
We grant the petition and revoke Attorney Mularski's 
license to practice law in this state.  As a condition of any 
future petition for reinstatement, Attorney Mularski shall 
provide 
an 
accounting 
and 
demonstrate 
he 
has 
made 
full 
restitution to those individuals aggrieved by his misconduct as 
alleged in the OLR complaint and the pending investigations.  
Attorney 
Mularski 
is ordered to pay the costs of this 
proceeding. 
¶5 
The OLR complaint alleges the following misconduct:  
E.P. CLIENT MATTER (COUNTS 1 THROUGH 6) 
¶6 
In November 2004 E.P. retained Attorney Mularski in a 
personal injury matter.  The contingent fee agreement was not 
reduced to writing.  Although Attorney Mularski did not have 
E.P.'s permission to settle the case for $45,000, Attorney 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
3 
 
Mularski informed a casualty claims examiner that he would 
settle E.P.'s claim for $45,000 and pay the medical providers' 
liens with settlement proceeds.   
¶7 
In mid-December 2004 Attorney Mularski received a 
$45,000 check from the insurer, along with a release to be 
signed by E.P.  Attorney Mularski did not inform the lien 
holders of the receipt of the funds.  He deposited the funds in 
his law firm's trust account, but then ceased working at the 
firm.  On January 5, 2005, the firm issued a check to the 
Mularski Law Offices trust account in the amount of $40,416.67 
transferring the settlement funds (less attorney fees which had 
already been paid).  Attorney Mularski informed his former firm 
that the settlement was supposed to be $55,000, not the $45,000 
received.  He informed the firm he would be returning the 
$45,000 to the insurer and would file suit on his client's 
behalf.  However, when his former law firm attempted to confirm 
the settlement arrangement with the insurer, the firm was 
advised the claim had been settled for $45,000, including 
medical liens.   
¶8 
On January 8, 2005, E.P. signed a release stating the 
matter had been settled for $58,000.  Attorney Mularski issued a 
$10,000 check to his law office for legal fees and a $28,000 
check to E.P.  He advised E.P. he needed to resolve some issues 
with the insurer before he could give her the remainder of the 
settlement proceeds.   
¶9 
Attorney Mularski sent the insurer a letter on 
February 11, 2005, stating he would send the release that day 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
4 
 
and would be responsible for handling the outstanding medical 
liens.  Attorney Mularski sent the insurer a signed release for 
$45,000, purportedly signed by E.P.  However, the signature on 
the release was not E.P.'s.   
¶10 On April 14, 2005, Attorney Mularski issued a check 
from his trust account to E.P. for $6,124.56, with the notation 
"Settlement Reimbursement."  Although Attorney Mularski's client 
trust account had only $40,416.67 attributable to E.P., he had 
disbursed a total of $44,124.56 from his trust account relative 
to E.P.'s case.   
¶11 Attorney Mularski agreed to refund to E.P. $10,000 in 
fees.  He refunded $6,000 from his personal funds.  He did not 
promptly 
satisfy 
the 
medical 
liens. 
 
During 
the 
OLR 
investigation, Attorney Mularski was unable to produce E.P.'s 
file or any trust account records relating to his representation 
of E.P.   
¶12 The OLR's disciplinary complaint charges six counts 
arising from Attorney Mularski's misconduct in the E.P. matter:   
• Count One.  By failing to reduce his contingent fee 
agreement to writing, Attorney Mularski violated former 
SCR 20:1.5(c);1  
                                                 
1 Former SCR 20:1.5(c) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided: 
A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the 
matter for which the service is rendered, except in a 
matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by 
paragraph (d) or other law.  A contingent fee 
agreement shall be in writing and shall state the 
method by which the fee is to be determined, including 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
5 
 
• Count Two.  By informing the claims examiner that 
his client would settle for $45,000, without obtaining his 
client's agreement to settlement in that amount, Attorney 
Mularski violated former SCR 20:1.2(a);2  
• Count Three.  By failing to provide medical lien 
holders 
with 
written 
notice 
of 
his 
receipt 
of 
the 
settlement funds and by failing to satisfy the liens, 
Attorney Mularski violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1);3  
                                                                                                                                                             
the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the 
lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal, 
litigation and other expenses to be deducted from the 
recovery, and whether such expenses are to be deducted 
before or after the contingent fee is calculated.  
Upon conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer 
shall provide the client with a written statement 
stating the outcome of the matter and if there is a 
recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the 
method of its determination. 
2 Former SCR 20:1.2(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided: 
A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation, subject 
to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with 
the client as to the means by which they are to be 
pursued.  A lawyer shall inform a client of all offers 
of settlement and abide by a client's decision whether 
to accept an offer of settlement of a matter.  In a 
criminal case or any proceeding that could result in 
deprivation of liberty, the lawyer shall abide by the 
client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, 
as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury 
trial and whether the client will testify. 
3 Former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) (effective July 1, 2004, through 
June 30, 2007) provided: 
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client has an interest, or in which the lawyer has 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
6 
 
• Count Four.  By disbursing $44,124.56 from his trust 
account when he was holding only $40,416.67 in trust, 
thereby disbursing funds belonging to another party, 
Attorney Mularski violated former 20:1.15(b)(1);4  
• Count Five.  By failing to maintain trust account 
records, 
Attorney 
Mularski 
violated 
former 
SCR 20:1.15(e)(6);5 and  
• Count Six.  By making a number of misrepresentations 
to the insurer and his law firm, by modifying the release 
and obtaining his client's signature on the altered 
release, and by forging his client's signature on the 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
4 Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) (effective July 1, 2004, through 
June 30, 2007) provided:  
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. 
5 Former SCR 20:1.15(e)(6) (effective July 1, 2004, through 
June 30, 2007) stated, "A lawyer shall maintain complete records 
of trust account funds and other trust property and shall 
preserve those records for at least 6 years after the date of 
termination of the representation." 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
7 
 
release which was sent to the insurer, Attorney Mularski 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c).6   
K.C. CLIENT MATTER (COUNTS 7 THROUGH 9) 
¶13 The next matter involves K.C., who retained Attorney 
Mularski to represent him regarding an automobile accident.  
K.C. and his wife signed a release settling the matter with the 
insurer for $19,100.  The settlement provided that funds 
totaling $6,121.33 were held in Attorney Mularski's law firm 
trust account to pay some of the medical bills.   
¶14 On May 26, 2006, the date the release was signed, 
Attorney Mularski issued to K.C. a check for $10,000.  Checks 
were also issued to three medical providers, along with two 
checks to Attorney Mularski's law firm totaling $6,355 and $55 
for costs.  These disbursements left only $695 in trust for the 
remaining medical bills.  Attorney Mularski failed to inform 
K.C. that he was holding only $695 toward the remaining medical 
bills.  Also, Attorney Mularski failed to notify the medical 
providers of his receipt of the settlement funds and failed to 
pay the medical liens.   
¶15 On July 28, 2006, after receiving collection notices 
from the remaining medical care providers, K.C. requested 
Attorney Mularski relinquish any funds held for payment of the 
remaining bills.  Attorney Mularski issued a check to K.C. for 
$695.  The checks that had allegedly been issued to three 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
8 
 
medical providers on May 26, 2006, were not mailed to the 
providers until late September 2006 after K.C. had filed a 
grievance with the OLR.  Attorney Mularski requested the medical 
providers accept a reduced payment and each medical provider 
negotiated a reduced amount.   
¶16 As a result of Attorney Mularski's handling of the 
K.C. 
matter, 
the 
OLR 
complaint 
alleges 
three 
counts 
of 
misconduct:   
• Count Seven.  By failing to submit four of his 
client's medical bills and by failing to ensure payment was 
timely sent to the other three medical providers, Attorney 
Mularski violated SCR 20:1.3;7 
• Count Eight.  By failing to adequately explain to 
his client that only $695 was held to cover the remaining 
medical bills, Attorney Mularski violated SCR 20:1.4(b);8 
and  
• Count 
Nine.  By 
indicating 
on 
the 
settlement 
statement that medical providers had agreed to certain 
reductions when they had not done so, and by indicating to 
those same medical providers that the settlement K.C. 
received was insufficient to cover their bills when, in 
                                                 
7 SCR 20:1.3 states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
8 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. 
2008AP85-D   
 
9 
 
fact, 
it 
was 
sufficient, 
Attorney 
Mularski 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c).   
A.W. CLIENT MATTER (COUNTS 10 THROUGH 13) 
¶17 On April 24, 2006, Allstate Insurance Company issued a 
settlement check payable to Attorney Mularski's law firm, to 
Attorney Mularski's client, A.W., and to a medical center which 
had a lien on the settlement proceeds.  The check was deposited 
into Attorney Mularski's law firm trust account and appeared to 
have been endorsed by all three payees, including the medical 
center.  Attorney Mularski did not notify the medical center of 
his receipt of the settlement funds or provide any payment of 
its lien.   
¶18 In September 2006, when a representative from a 
financial recovery firm attempted to collect on the medical 
center's lien, the representative was informed that A.W.'s 
matter had been settled and a check had been issued and 
negotiated.  The representative of the financial recovery firm 
discovered that the medical center's signature on the check 
appeared to be forged.   
¶19 Attorney 
Mularski informed the OLR that another 
financial recovery firm, AAM, Inc., had authorized him to 
endorse the check on the medical center's behalf.  Attorney 
Mularski stated he forwarded a copy of the check to AAM.  
Attorney Mularski eventually paid the medical center's lien with 
his personal funds after a grievance was filed with the OLR.   
¶20 Attorney Mularski provided the OLR with a copy of a 
letter he allegedly sent to AAM, which was later found to have 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
10 
 
been fabricated and was provided to mislead the OLR.  AAM was 
not representing the medical center, but was retained to collect 
a bill A.W. incurred with the Itasca Fire Department.  Although 
Attorney Mularski had informed AAM that a check had been cut for 
the Itasca Fire Department, AAM never received the check.  
Eventually, A.W. paid the bill directly.   
¶21 As a result of his misconduct in the A.W. matter, 
Attorney Mularski was charged with four violations: 
• Count Ten.  By failing to notify a medical provider 
of the settlement and by immediately distributing the 
settlement proceeds to his client, despite the existence of 
a lien by the medical provider, Attorney Mularski violated 
former SCR 20:1.15(d);9  
                                                 
9 Former SCR 20:1.15(d) (effective July 1, 2004, through 
June 30, 2007) provided, in pertinent part:   
(1) Notice and disbursement.  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.  
(2) Accounting. 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 tender a full written 
accounting regarding the property.  
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
11 
 
• Count Eleven.  By endorsing a check on a medical 
provider's behalf when he did not have the authority to do 
so, Attorney Mularski violated SCR 20:8.4(c);  
• Count Twelve.  By misrepresenting to the OLR the 
circumstances under which he endorsed the check on the 
medical provider's behalf, thus making a misrepresentation 
during the course of an investigation, Attorney Mularski 
violated SCR 22.03(6);10 and  
• Count 
Thirteen.  By 
submitting 
to 
the 
OLR 
a 
fabricated 
letter 
allegedly 
having 
been 
sent 
to 
a 
collection agency, when the letter had in fact not been 
sent and contained information contrary to the information 
Attorney Mularski had previously provided the OLR during 
the course of the investigation, Attorney Mularski violated 
SCR 22.03(6). 
¶22 In addition to the allegations of the OLR complaint, 
Attorney Mularski states that he is unable to defend himself 
against 
allegations 
made 
in 
eight 
pending 
grievance 
investigations for which no disciplinary complaint has yet been 
filed, as follows: 
C.U. CLIENT MATTER 
                                                 
10 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. 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
12 
 
¶23 Attorney Mularski was retained to represent C.U. in a 
personal injury matter.  After obtaining a settlement on C.U.'s 
behalf, Attorney Mularski failed to hold the funds in trust, 
failed to satisfy a medical lien held by C.U.'s health insurance 
company, failed to maintain proper trust account records and, 
during 
the 
OLR's 
investigation, 
Attorney 
Mularski 
made 
misrepresentations to the OLR regarding his communications with 
and 
records 
obtained 
from 
a 
bank. 
 
The 
OLR 
began 
an 
investigation into misconduct involving trust account violations 
and misrepresentation to the OLR during its investigation.   
J.C. CLIENT MATTER 
¶24 After the statute of limitations had run, Attorney 
Mularski filed a complaint in a personal injury matter on behalf 
of J.C. alleging that J.C.'s accident had occurred one year 
after its actual occurrence.  The complaint was eventually 
dismissed for failure to prosecute.  Attorney Mularski never 
informed J.C. of the dismissal; instead, he forwarded a 
fabricated release purportedly from the defendant's insurance 
company allegedly settling the matter for $125,000.  After 
making several misrepresentations to J.C., Attorney Mularski 
admitted to her that he had made mistakes in her case that would 
prevent her from collecting from the defendant's insurance 
company. 
 
The 
OLR 
commenced 
an 
investigation 
regarding 
misconduct involving lack of diligence, failure to properly 
inform the client of circumstances regarding her case, lack of 
candor toward a tribunal, and dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation.   
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
13 
 
K.W. CLIENT MATTER 
¶25 Attorney Mularski was retained by K.W. to file a claim 
against the City of Milwaukee.  Attorney Mularski told K.W. her 
claim had settled and would be paid out over two years.  K.W. 
began receiving monthly payments eventually totaling $30,000, 
allegedly from the proceeds of the purported settlement.  
Attorney Mularski failed to respond to K.W.'s request for her 
file.  When K.W. contacted the City of Milwaukee regarding the 
matter, she was informed no claim had been filed on her behalf 
and no settlement had been reached.  Attorney Mularski admitted 
that he had been paying K.W. with his personal funds.  The OLR 
began an investigation regarding misconduct involving diligence, 
communication, and conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation.   
E.D. CLIENT MATTER 
¶26 Attorney Mularski was retained by E.D. in a personal 
injury matter, which settled for the policy limit of $50,000.  
Attorney Mularski also settled with the driver individually for 
an additional $10,000.  Attorney Mularski has been unable to 
provide any releases or settlement documents related to E.D.'s 
case.  E.D. received some of the settlement proceeds and was 
told additional funds would be held to pay his medical 
providers.  Although one provider was paid by Attorney Mularski, 
another was never paid, resulting in a judgment being entered 
against E.D.  The OLR began an investigation into misconduct 
involving communication with a client and conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.     
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
14 
 
C.D. CLIENT MATTER 
¶27 Attorney Mularski represented C.D. in a personal 
injury matter that settled for $44,750.  Attorney Mularski 
retained $10,000 of the settlement funds to pay various 
creditors; however, the creditors were not paid.  Records from 
Attorney Mularski's former law firm indicate that Attorney 
Mularski forged endorsements on the checks made out to C.D.'s 
medical providers and converted the funds for his personal use.  
Attorney Mularski has since repaid the firm and the firm in turn 
has paid C.D.'s creditors.  The OLR commenced an investigation 
into 
misconduct 
involving 
trust 
account 
violations 
and 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.   
S.C. CLIENT MATTER 
¶28 Attorney Mularski represented S.C. in a small claims 
action against her landlord and obtained a judgment on S.C.'s 
behalf of $5,000 plus costs.  S.C.'s grievance asserts that 
Attorney Mularski failed to take adequate steps to collect on 
the judgment and misled her regarding a court date allegedly set 
to 
hear 
the 
collection 
matter. 
 
The 
OLR 
commenced 
an 
investigation regarding a lack of diligence and dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.   
J.H. CLIENT MATTER 
¶29 Attorney Mularski represented J.H. in personal injury 
and property damage matters.  Attorney Mularski obtained a 
settlement on J.H.'s behalf in both matters.  Attorney Mularski 
conceded he continues to hold funds belonging to J.H., has 
failed to act with diligence in his representation of J.H., and 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
15 
 
has failed to adequately communicate with J.H.  The OLR 
commenced an investigation regarding misconduct involving a lack 
of 
diligence, 
failure 
to 
communicate, 
and 
trust 
account 
violations.   
S.D. CLIENT MATTER 
¶30 Attorney Mularski represented S.D. in a personal 
injury matter.  Attorney Mularski represented to S.D. that he 
had 
obtained 
a 
settlement 
on 
her 
behalf 
and 
sent 
her 
approximately $80,000.  There is no evidence that a settlement 
was ever reached and S.D. signed no papers with respect to any 
settlement.  S.D. claims Attorney Mularski failed to communicate 
throughout the representation and she never entered into a 
written fee agreement, despite Attorney Mularski's representing 
her on a contingent fee basis.  The OLR commenced an 
investigation into misconduct involving failure to communicate, 
fees, and dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.   
¶31 After 
Attorney 
Mularski 
filed 
the 
petition 
for 
consensual revocation, the court issued orders to show cause 
requiring the parties to address restitution.  In response, the 
OLR contends that of the 11 client matters, five former clients 
are entitled to restitution in amounts ranging from just over 
$700 to approximately $12,000, for a total of approximately 
$19,000.  Attorney Mularski asserts that no funds are due to any 
client.  His response is not consistent with his petition, which 
states that he would provide an accounting and make appropriate 
restitution.   
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
16 
 
¶32 We 
accept 
Attorney 
Mularski's 
petition 
for 
the 
revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  See 
SCR 22.19(1), (2), and (5).11 
The 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Mularski's 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 
Mularski the seriousness of his misconduct, and to deter other 
attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 
Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910.   
¶33 We order restitution to be paid as a condition of any 
reinstatement petition.  In the case of In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Dugan, 
112 
Wis. 2d 653, 
656-57, 
334 
N.W.2d 228 (1983), the court revoked the attorney's license and 
required him to show he made full restitution to his clients at 
                                                 
11 SCR 22.19(1), (2), and (5) provide: 
(1) An 
attorney 
who 
is 
the 
subject 
of 
an 
investigation 
for 
possible 
misconduct 
or 
the 
respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme 
court a petition for the revocation by consent or his 
or her license to practice law.   
(2) The petition shall state that the petitioner 
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of 
misconduct. 
. . .  
(5) The supreme court shall grant the petition 
and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or 
deny the petition and remand the matter to the 
director or to the referee for further proceedings. 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
17 
 
such time as he would seek reinstatement.  See also In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grade, 2007 WI 108, ¶15, 304 
Wis. 2d 531, 735 N.W.2d 523.  We employ that procedure here.  At 
such time as he would seek reinstatement, Attorney Mularski 
shall prove he has made full restitution to those individuals 
aggrieved by his misconduct as set forth in the complaint and 
the pending OLR investigations.  See SCR 22.29(4m).12  
¶34 We impose full costs.  The OLR seeks costs totaling 
$1,304.82 as of December 22, 2009.  Under SCR 22.24(1m),13 to 
award less than full costs, the court must find "extraordinary 
circumstances."  Attorney Mularski has not objected to the costs 
and has not alleged extraordinary circumstances to justify a 
reduction in costs.  Consequently, Attorney Mularski shall bear 
the entire costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
                                                 
12 SCR 22.29(4m) states a petition for reinstatement shall 
show: 
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. 
13 SCR 22.24(1m) reads, in part:  
The court's general policy is that upon a finding 
of misconduct it is appropriate to impose all costs, 
including the expenses of counsel for the office of 
lawyer regulation, upon the respondent.  In cases 
involving extraordinary circumstances the court may, 
in the exercise of its discretion, reduce the amount 
of costs imposed upon a respondent. 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
18 
 
¶35 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Brian P. Mularski to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order. 
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brian P. Mularski comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
revoked. 
¶37 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
as 
a 
condition 
of 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, 
Brian P. Mularski furnish a complete accounting and prove he has 
made full restitution to or settled all claims of all persons 
harmed by the misconduct subject of this proceeding as set forth 
in the complaint and investigations appended to the petition for 
revocation. 
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Brian P. Mularski shall pay the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
 
No. 
2008AP85-D   
 
 
 
1