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

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2011 WI 74 
 
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, 
     v. 
Christopher A. Mutschler, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF PETITION FOR CONSENSUAL LICENSE 
REVOCATION 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 14, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2011 WI 74
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, 
 
     v. 
 
Christopher A. Mutschler, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 14, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the petition of Attorney 
Christopher A. Mutschler for the consensual revocation of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  See SCR 22.19.  
¶2 
Attorney Mutschler was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1991.  He most recently practiced law in Fond du 
Lac. 
¶3 
Attorney Mutschler has not previously been the subject 
of professional discipline.  His license to practice law in 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
2 
 
Wisconsin, however, has been temporarily suspended since March 
2010 due to his willful failure to cooperate with the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation's (OLR) grievance investigations concerning 
his conduct.  See SCR 22.03(4).  His license remains suspended 
as of the date of this opinion. 
¶4 
The petition for consensual revocation and the OLR's 
summary of the misconduct allegations against Attorney Mutschler 
state that there are 59 separate investigations pending against 
him.  The OLR's summary indicates that for each investigation 
there appear to be violations of multiple rules.  Thus, if a 
formal complaint were to be filed against Attorney Mutschler, 
there could apparently be scores or even hundreds of counts of 
professional 
misconduct. 
In 
addition 
to 
the 
underlying 
misconduct at issue in these grievance investigations, Attorney 
Mutschler would also be subject to multiple additional counts 
related to his failure to cooperate with the OLR's separate 
grievance investigations.   
¶5 
Nearly 
all 
of 
the 
grievances 
against 
Attorney 
Mutschler appear to follow a similar pattern.  In general, 
Attorney Mutschler would obtain payment of an advance fee, which 
was often a flat fee, to represent a client in a traffic, OWI, 
or criminal case.  In OWI and traffic cases, Attorney Mutschler 
would then often 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, leading to 
the client failing to appear.  In some cases, Attorney Mutschler 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
3 
 
himself would fail to appear at the scheduled hearing.  The 
failure to appear by the client or Attorney Mutschler would 
often lead the judge presiding over the citation or charge to 
enter a default judgment against the client.  In other cases, 
the client would, in fact, enter a guilty or no contest plea, 
but Attorney Mutschler would then either fail to file an appeal 
or would fail to prosecute the appeal properly, which would lead 
to the dismissal of the appeal. 
¶6 
In a large majority of the cases, the grievance 
alleges that Attorney Mutschler failed to communicate adequately 
with his client.  In some cases, the clients made dozens of 
telephone calls (up to 100 calls in some instances), 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. 
¶7 
Some examples of the numbers of possible violations 
may provide some context for the scope of Attorney Mutschler's 
professional misconduct.  In 57 of the 59 investigations, the 
OLR alleges a possible violation of SCR 20:1.3,1 which requires a 
lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness.  In 53 
of 
the 
investigations, 
there 
are 
possible 
failures 
to 
communicate properly with clients, in violation of SCR 20:1.4.2  
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 states "[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:1.4 provides as follows:  
(a) A lawyer shall: 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
4 
 
In 54 of the grievance investigations, there is an allegation 
that Attorney Mutschler failed to hold unearned fees and advance 
payments received from clients in trust until earned, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).3  In 52 of the investigations, 
                                                                                                                                                             
(1) Promptly inform the client of any decision or 
circumstance with respect to which the client's 
informed consent, as defined in SCR 20:1.0(f), is 
required by these rules;  
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the 
means by which the client's objectives are to be 
accomplished; 
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter;  
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information; and 
(5) consult with the client about any relevant 
limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer 
knows that the client expects assistance not permitted 
by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. 
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation. 
The OLR's misconduct summary indicates that in some 
instances Attorney Mutschler's misconduct may have been covered 
by the prior version of this rule, which was in effect prior to 
July 1, 2007, and provided as follows: 
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information. 
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent 
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation.   
3 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) states:   
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
5 
 
there is an allegation that Attorney Mutschler failed to take 
reasonable steps to protect his clients' interests upon the 
termination of the representation, including returning unearned 
advance payments, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d).4  Finally, the 
                                                                                                                                                             
Unearned fees and cost advances.  Except as 
provided in par. (4m), unearned fees and advanced 
payments of fees shall be held in trust until earned 
by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to sub. (g).  
Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for payment of 
costs shall be held in trust until the costs are 
incurred. 
The OLR's misconduct summary indicates that in some 
instances Attorney Mutschler's misconduct may have been covered 
by the prior version of this rule, which was in effect prior to 
July 1, 2007, and provided as follows: 
Unearned fees and cost advances.  Unearned fees 
and advanced payments of fees shall be held in trust 
until earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to 
SCR 20:1.15(g).  Funds advanced by a client or 3rd 
party for payment of costs shall be held in trust 
until the costs are incurred. 
4 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:   
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred.  The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
The OLR's misconduct summary indicates that in some 
instances Attorney Mutschler's misconduct may have been covered 
by the prior version of this rule, which was in effect prior to 
July 1, 2007, and provided as follows: 
 
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
6 
 
OLR indicates that in 26 of the investigations there may be a 
possible violation of SCR 20:8.4(c),5 which prohibits attorneys 
from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation. 
¶8 
In addition to misconduct related to representations 
of clients, the OLR's summary of misconduct also indicates that 
Attorney Mutschler engaged in criminal conduct.  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.  According to the OLR's summary of 
misconduct, these charges stemmed from Attorney Mutschler being 
caught in the act of forging prescription forms and using such 
forms to obtain pain medication on March 26, 2007.  The police 
later discovered that Attorney Mutschler had also successfully 
used a forged prescription form to obtain pain medication on 
March 5, 2007. 
                                                                                                                                                             
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. 
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to " engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
7 
 
¶9 
Attorney 
Mutschler's 
petition 
for 
consensual 
revocation acknowledges that he cannot successfully defend 
himself 
against 
the 
professional 
misconduct 
allegations 
described in the OLR's misconduct summary.  In addition, in the 
petition Attorney Mutschler avows that his filing of the 
petition is being done freely, voluntarily, and knowingly.  He 
acknowledges that he has the right to contest the charges 
against him and the right to retain counsel to advise and assist 
him in these matters, and states that he is giving up these 
rights.  Attorney Mutschler further acknowledges that if the 
court grants his petition and revokes his license, he will be 
subject to the provisions of SCRs 22.26-22.33.  
¶10 We must also address the issue of restitution in 
connection with Attorney Mutschler's petition for revocation.  
In the petition Attorney Mutschler states that he cannot 
successfully defend against the restitution orders sought by the 
OLR.  The OLR's misconduct summary included a statement for each 
investigation as to whether restitution was sought.  Those 
restitution statements were summarized in a chart attached to 
the OLR's recommendation in support of the petition for 
revocation by consent.  The restitution chart showed that the 
OLR requested restitution awards in 45 of the 59 investigations 
it was conducting.  Thus, Attorney Mutschler's statement in his 
petition indicates that he did not and does not contest a 
restitution award to some person or entity in those matters.  In 
a number of cases, however, there remained some uncertainty over 
to whom a restitution award was owed because there was still a 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
8 
 
claim for reimbursement pending before the Wisconsin Lawyers' 
Fund for Client Protection (the Fund).  Thus, it was not clear 
whether the restitution award should be granted in favor of the 
client or the Fund.  The Fund has subsequently decided a number 
of those claims, clarifying the proper recipient of any 
restitution to be paid by Attorney Mutschler.  The OLR has 
submitted updated restitution recommendations based on the 
decisions made by the Fund.  Attorney Mutschler has not disputed 
those 
updated 
restitution 
recommendations, 
and 
we 
award 
restitution accordingly. 
¶11 In one matter, client G.V. and his mother T.S. asked 
this court to award restitution to them in the amount of the 
$13,500 that they had paid to Attorney Mutschler, although the 
OLR had not requested a restitution award in their matter.  They 
asserted that they had demonstrated to the OLR that Attorney 
Mutschler 
had 
engaged 
in 
dishonesty 
and 
other 
ethical 
violations.  This court ordered the OLR to file a response to 
their restitution request.   
¶12 The OLR's response stated its policy is to seek 
restitution when (1) the rights of the grievant or the 
respondent attorney in a collateral proceeding will not likely 
be prejudiced, (2) the funds to be restored do not constitute 
incidental or consequential damages, (3) the funds to be 
restored were in the respondent lawyer's direct control, and (4) 
the 
amount 
of 
any 
restitution 
award 
can 
be 
reasonably 
ascertained.   
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
9 
 
¶13 The OLR explained that it did not seek restitution for 
G.V. and T.S. because Attorney Mutschler had performed a 
substantial amount of work in that matter.  Pursuant to a 
representation agreement, G.V. and T.S. paid Attorney Mutschler 
a $13,500 flat fee to represent G.V. in a criminal proceeding at 
the trial level.  Attorney Mutschler performed a substantial 
amount of work in moving the circuit court to allow G.V. to 
withdraw his guilty plea, although the motion was unsuccessful.  
Moreover, although the agreement obligated Attorney Mutschler to 
perform services only in the trial court, he also agreed to 
handle G.V.'s appeal at no additional charge.  Further, Attorney 
Mutschler did file a subsequent motion for additional sentence 
credit, which the circuit court granted, resulting in a benefit 
to G.V.  Thus, unlike many of the matters being investigated, 
Attorney Mutschler did perform a substantial amount of work on 
behalf of G.V., which meant that the amount of any restitution 
award was unclear and could not be easily and reasonably 
ascertained. 
¶14 T.S. and G.V. filed a reply to the OLR's response 
along with a number of supporting documents.  They claimed that 
Attorney Mutschler had not really done that much work for G.V. 
and that other members of his firm had made appearances instead 
of Attorney Mutschler.  They asserted, among other things, that 
Attorney Mutschler failed to respond to their telephone calls 
and letters, that much of the work done by Attorney Mutschler 
and his firm was not satisfactory, and that Attorney Mutschler 
had been dishonest with them.  They also disagreed that Attorney 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
10 
 
Mutschler had been responsible for obtaining sentence credit for 
G.V.  They did note that they had filed a claim with the Fund, 
but their claim materials had been returned with an explanation 
from a Fund representative that their claim did not meet the 
Fund's criteria for restitution.  
¶15 With respect to our disposition of the petition, it is 
clear under the facts of this matter that the petition for 
consensual revocation should be granted.  The descriptions of 
the 59 pending investigations show a disturbing pattern of 
Attorney Mutschler taking an individual's money and then doing 
little or no legal work to earn that money.  Attorney Mutschler 
has demonstrated that he does not appreciate the obligations 
that apply to an individual who has been granted the privilege 
to practice law in this state. 
¶16 With respect to restitution, we impose the restitution 
requested in the OLR's updated restitution request.  The amounts 
of restitution in the various client matters and the person or 
entity to whom restitution is owed are set forth in Appendix A 
to this opinion, based on the OLR's updated restitution request.  
See SCR 22.29(4m) (a lawyer petitioning for reinstatement must 
prove that he or she has made restitution to or settled all 
claims of persons harmed by the lawyer's misconduct, or must 
explain his/her failure or inability to do so). 
¶17 With respect to the restitution request of G.V. and 
T.S., we conclude that restitution is not appropriate regarding 
Attorney Mutschler's representation of G.V.  Although G.V. and 
T.S. may object to the quality of the work, it is clear that 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
11 
 
Attorney Mutschler and his firm did perform a substantial amount 
of work on G.V.'s behalf.  Whether that work was appropriate and 
fulfilled Attorney Mutschler's contractual obligation to G.V. 
and T.S. would require an extensive evidentiary hearing or trial 
and extensive fact-finding, which is not consistent with the 
focus of disciplinary proceedings on whether an attorney 
violated the rules of professional conduct and should receive 
some form of discipline.  There are other venues for resolving 
such monetary issues. 
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license 
revocation is granted. 
¶19 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
license 
of 
Christopher A. Mutschler to practice law in Wisconsin is 
revoked, effective as of the date of this order. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date 
of this order Christopher A. Mutschler shall pay restitution in 
the amounts and to the individuals or entities set forth in 
Appendix A to this opinion. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Christopher A. Mutschler 
shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the 
duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin 
has been revoked. 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
12 
 
Appendix A 
 
Individual or Entity to Whom Owed 
Amount 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (the 
Fund) (Grievance re: Client Gary W.) 
 
$ 14,000 
Client Patricia C. 
$  2,250 
Client Kurt D. 
$  4,500 
Client Marcie S. 
$  2,500 
Client Shauna S. 
$  4,000 
Client Scott R. 
$  5,000 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Joshua V.) 
$  2,500 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Clinton M.) 
$ 10,000 
Client Jason J. 
$  4,500 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Maureen D.) 
$  5,000 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Joseph L.) 
$    700 
Client Jamie H. 
$  4,500 
Client Ricky B. 
$  4,500 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Steve D.) 
$  4,250 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Allen B.) 
$  4,500 
Client James R. 
$  6,000 
Client Sherry L. (or to the Fund if claim paid) 
$  8,500 
The Fund (Grievance re: Sheila F.) 
$  5,500 
Client John S. 
$  4,500 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Severt J.) 
$  4,500 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Jason V.) 
$  5,000 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Jennifer L.) 
$    841 
Client Matthew K. (or to the Fund if claim paid) 
$  4,500 
Client Dave M. 
$  5,653 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Vipul K.) 
$ 14,500 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Glen H.) 
$  5,440 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Tanya W.) 
$  4,250 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client John N.) 
$  7,500 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Jason H.) 
$  4,500 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client James K.) 
$  7,000 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Linda D.) 
$  4,000 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Melodie D.) 
$  4,439 
Client William K.  
$  6,500 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Scott C.) 
$  5,000 
Client Ruben M. (or to the Fund if claim paid) 
$  5,000 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Jared C.) 
$  4,250 
Client Tony M. (or to the Fund if claim paid) 
$  6,500 
Client Eugene K. (or to the Fund if claim paid) 
$  2,000 
Client Jason Z. 
$  8,500 
Constance D. (Grievance re: Client Kurt D.)(or to the 
Fund if claim paid) 
$ 15,000 
Client Terri G. 
$  4,650 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Christopher C.) 
$  3,500 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Jason B.) 
$  4,500 
The Fund (Grievance re: Client Mark S.) 
$  7,000 
Client Sherill O. 
$  5,000 
TOTAL: 
$246,723 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
13 
 
 
No. 
2010AP1939-D   
 
 
 
1