Title: Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility v. Michael D. Mandelman

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

Nos. 89-0170-D and 93-1839-D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
 
 
Nos.  89-0170-D and 93-1839-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN             :                IN SUPREME COURT 
                                                                   
 
 
In the Matter of the Reinstatement of the 
License of MICHAEL D. MANDELMAN to Practice 
Law in Wisconsin. 
 
FILED 
 
 
DEC 21, 1995 
 
 
 Marilyn L. Graves 
  Clerk of Supreme Court 
  
Madison, WI  
 
                                                                
   
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
license 
reinstatement 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license reinstated with condition. 
 
PER CURIAM.   On September 28, 1995, the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility (Board) filed its report recommending 
that the petition of Michael D. Mandelman for the reinstatement of 
his license to practice law be granted.  Based on the report of 
the district professional responsibility committee, to which the 
reinstatement petition was referred for investigation and a public 
hearing, 
and 
on 
that 
committee's 
unanimous 
favorable 
recommendation, the Board determined that Mr. Mandelman satisfied 
 
Nos. 89-0170-D and 93-1839-D 
 
 
 
2 
the requirements for license reinstatement set forth in SCR 
22.28(4).1   
 
We determine that Mr. Mandelman has established entitlement 
to reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  
Nonetheless, we express concern with the record's disclosure of 
Mr. Mandelman's substantial debts and his actions in respect to 
them.  Moreover, as a portion of the professional misconduct for 
                     
     1  SCR 22.28 provides, in pertinent part:  Reinstatement. 
 
. . . 
 
(4)  The petition for reinstatement shall show that:   
 
(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 and will continue to comply with them until the petitioner's 
license is reinstated.   
 
(d)  The petitioner has maintained competence and learning in 
the law, including a list of specific activities pursued.   
 
(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 
of SCR 22.26.   
 
(i)  The petitioner indicates the proposed use of the license 
if reinstated.   
 
(j)  The petitioner has fully described all business 
activities during the period of suspension or revocation.   
 
(k)  The petitioner has made restitution or settled all 
claims from persons injured or harmed by petitioner's misconduct 
or, if the restitution is not complete, petitioner's explanation 
of the failure or inability to do so.   
 
Nos. 89-0170-D and 93-1839-D 
 
 
 
3 
which his license to practice law was suspended involved the 
handling of his client trust account, we impose as a condition of 
his continued practice periodic reporting to the Board of his 
dealings with client funds and with his trust account.   
 
Mr. Mandelman was licensed to practice law in Wisconsin in 
1980 and practiced in Milwaukee.  The court suspended his license 
for one year as discipline for numerous acts of professional 
misconduct in 1990.  Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 
158 Wis. 2d 1, 460 N.W.2d 749.  When the suspension period ended, 
Mr. Mandelman petitioned for reinstatement of his license.  The 
court denied that petition on two grounds:  while that suspension 
was pending, additional professional misconduct was discovered, 
including his post-suspension violation of the rules governing the 
handling of his client trust account; during the reinstatement 
proceeding itself, he gave incomplete and evasive responses to the 
district committee and to the Board.  In response to that 
additional professional misconduct, the court suspended Mr. 
Mandelman's license for an additional 18 months, consecutive to 
the 
termination 
of 
the 
earlier 
suspension. 
 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Mandelman, 182 Wis. 2d 583, 514 N.W.2d 11 
(1994).   
 
In 
the 
instant 
proceeding, 
the 
district 
professional 
responsibility committee thoroughly reviewed Mr. Mandelman's 
reinstatement petition and held a public hearing on it.  The 
committee filed a lengthy report with the Board in which it 
 
Nos. 89-0170-D and 93-1839-D 
 
 
 
4 
expressed significant concern with the fact that Mr. Mandelman has 
incurred substantial personal debt and state and federal income 
tax liability, the latter exceeding $1,000,000, but elected to use 
approximately $750,000 of his own funds to pursue business 
ventures rather than apply it to his debts.  Those business 
ventures were unsuccessful, causing Mr. Mandelman not only to lose 
his investment but to incur additional debt.   
 
The committee noted that Mr. Mandelman was negotiating with 
the state and federal tax authorities to establish payment plans 
to reduce the resulting tax liens and that the proceeds of the 
sale of an investment property are to be applied to the federal 
tax lien.  Also, Mr. Mandelman paid some $350,000 toward his 
personal debts, but less than 10 percent of that amount went to 
his trade creditors; almost one-third was paid for his office 
lease and approximately $200,000 went to law firms for fees 
incurred as a result of his various legal problems.   
 
Notwithstanding its concerns, the committee unanimously 
concluded that Mr. Mandelman satisfied the requirements for 
license reinstatement.  That conclusion was based in part on the 
committee's acknowledgement of Mr. Mandelman's "thoroughness and 
timeliness in responding to documentation requests," in contrast 
to his responses during the earlier reinstatement proceeding, and 
its assessment of the "completeness and candor of his testimony 
and in his overall demeanor as a witness."  Following review of 
the committee's report, the Board agreed with the committee's 
 
Nos. 89-0170-D and 93-1839-D 
 
 
 
5 
recommendation 
that 
Mr. 
Mandelman's 
petition 
for 
license 
reinstatement be granted.     
 
Our review of the record developed by the district committee 
leads us to share its concern about Mr. Mandelman's judgment in 
choosing to invest substantial funds in business ventures rather 
than to begin paying his lawful obligations.  While we are 
concerned with Mr. Mandelman's choice not to commit substantial 
funds to reduce his debts other than those for legal fees, in 
particular 
those 
owing 
to 
the 
state 
and 
federal 
taxing 
authorities, we accept the recommendation of the Board that his 
petition for license reinstatement be granted.   
 
We also accept the Board's recommendation concerning the 
disposition of funds currently retained in Mr. Mandelman's client 
trust account.  Because of his numerous trust account violations, 
that account has a balance of approximately $7400.  Due to his 
failure to keep adequate records, the ownership of those funds 
cannot be determined.  The Board recommended that those funds be 
turned over to the Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation for its use 
and for payment of any provable claims against those funds that 
may arise.   
 
Thus, the Board noted, those funds will be available to pay 
the monetary claim against Attorney Mandelman of a former client 
on whose behalf he failed to pay various medical expenses in a 
personal injury action and a fine in a traffic matter, even though 
he had funds to do so.  Upon submission of adequate documentation 
 
Nos. 89-0170-D and 93-1839-D 
 
 
 
6 
to support that claim, reimbursement to the former client shall be 
made either by Mr. Mandelman or, if the claim is established 
following transfer of the funds, by the Foundation.   
 
Finally, because Mr. Mandelman's professional misconduct 
concerned, in part, his failure to comply with the court's rules 
governing attorney trust accounts, we determine it appropriate to 
impose on his resumption of the practice of law a condition to 
ensure his compliance with those rules.  Accordingly, we require 
that quarterly for the two years following reinstatement of his 
license to practice law Mr. Mandelman submit to the Board records 
of his trust account as the Board may specify.   
 
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of the 
license of Michael D. Mandelman to practice law in Wisconsin is 
granted and his license to practice law is reinstated, effective 
the date of this order.   
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within seven days of the date of 
this order, Michael D. Mandelman shall pay to the Wisconsin Trust 
Account Foundation the funds in his client trust account and that 
reimbursement from those funds be made as specified in this order. 
  
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael D. Mandelman shall furnish 
trust account records to the Board as specified herein.   
 
DONALD W. STEINMETZ and JON P. WILCOX, JJ., dissent.   
 
JANINE P. GESKE, J., did not participate.   
 
Nos. 89-0170-D and 93-1839-D 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
                                                              
 
Case No.: 
 
89-0170-D and 93-1839-D 
                                                              
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
In the Matter of the Reinstatement 
 
 
 
of the License of Michael D. Mandelman 
 
 
 
to Practice Law in Wisconsin. 
 
 
 
_____________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
REINSTATEMENT OF MANDELMAN 
 
                                                              
 
Opinion Filed:  
December 21, 1995 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
                                                              
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
                                                              
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
STEINMETZ, J. and WILCOX, J., dissent 
 
Not Participating: 
GESKE, J., did not participate 
                                                              
 
ATTORNEYS: