Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael D. Mandelman

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2015 WI 105 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2003AP3348-D, 2004AP2633-D, 2007AP2653-D and 
2011AP584-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael D. Mandelman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Michael D. Mandelman, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MANDELMAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 8, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
A.W. Bradley, J., concurs. (Opinion Filed). 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: R.G. Bradley, J., did not participate.    
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 105
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
Nos.    
2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Michael D. Mandelman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael D. Mandelman, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 8, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.  Reinstatement denied.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of Referee Hannah C. Dugan, recommending reinstatement of the 
law license of Attorney Michael D. Mandelman, with conditions, 
and recommending that the court impose the full costs of this 
proceeding on Attorney Mandelman.  The Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) took no position on reinstatement before the 
referee and did not appeal the referee's recommendation.  We 
therefore 
review 
the 
referee's 
report 
and 
recommendation 
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
2 
 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.33(3).  After fully 
reviewing this matter, we conclude that Attorney Mandelman has 
not satisfied the criteria required to resume the practice of 
law in this state, and we deny his petition for reinstatement.  
Attorney Mandelman is directed to pay the costs of this 
reinstatement proceeding, which total $8,074.65 as of June 1, 
2015. 
¶2 
Attorney Mandelman was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1980.  He practiced in Milwaukee, primarily in the 
area of personal injury and criminal law.  His license has been 
suspended since July 1, 2006.  On August 1, 2014, this court 
revoked Attorney Mandelman's law license for 22 counts of 
misconduct.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 
2014 WI 100, 358 Wis. 2d 179, 851 N.W.2d 401.  The revocation, 
which followed a lengthy disciplinary history, was imposed 
retroactive to May 29, 2009, thereby enabling him to seek 
reinstatement now rather than waiting the usual requisite five 
years. 
¶3 
Attorney Mandelman's disciplinary history culminating 
in his revocation includes seven prior disciplinary cases:   
 In 1990, he received a one-year suspension for 27 
counts of misconduct relating to multiple counts of 
failure to act with diligence; failing to promptly 
return files to clients; simultaneously representing 
multiple clients with adverse interests; settling a 
client's 
claim 
without 
authorization; 
failing 
to 
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
3 
 
communicate with clients; making a misrepresentation 
to 
the 
former 
Board 
of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
(BAPR), 
predecessor 
to 
the 
OLR, 
attempting to limit potential malpractice liability; 
and trust account violations.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Mandelman, 
158 
Wis. 
2d 
1, 
460 N.W.2d 749 (1990).  
 In 1994, he received an 18-month suspension for 
misconduct 
that 
included 
failing 
to 
act 
with 
diligence, failing to respond to clients' requests for 
information, failing to refund a client's retainer, 
violating the rules regarding trust accounts following 
his 1990 suspension, and failing to provide complete 
and accurate responses to BAPR.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Mandelman, 182 Wis. 2d 583, 
514 N.W.2d 11 (1994).  
 In 1999, he received a consensual private reprimand 
for making a false statement of fact to a tribunal.  
Private Reprimand No. 99-18. 
 In 2006, he received a consensual private reprimand 
for drawing a check from his business account to make 
a mortgage payment for a personal injury client.  
Private Reprimand No. 06-21. 
 Also in 2006, he received a nine-month suspension for 
multiple instances of misconduct including failing to 
act with reasonable diligence, failing to utilize a 
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
4 
 
written fee agreement in a medical malpractice case, 
and persuading a client to sign a release of claims 
against him without the client obtaining independent 
representation. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against Mandelman, 2006 WI 45, 290 Wis. 2d 158, 
714 N.W.2d 512.1  
 In 2009, he received a one-year suspension for 
misconduct 
including 
collecting 
a 
fee 
without 
performing any work for a client, failing to provide a 
client with a written settlement statement, retaining 
a client's funds for more than four years, making 
misrepresentations to a client, failing to obtain a 
client's signature on a settlement check, failing to 
deposit the settlement funds into a client trust 
account, and failing to provide a client's file and 
funds to the client.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mandelman, 2009 WI 40, 317 Wis. 2d 215, 
765 N.W.2d 788.  
 In 2014, this court revoked Attorney Mandelman's 
license 
for 
22 
counts 
of 
misconduct 
including 
                                                 
1 Notably, this decision also denied Attorney Mandelman's 
first petition for reinstatement because, while his suspension 
was pending, additional professional misconduct was discovered, 
including post-suspension trust account violations and, during 
reinstatement proceedings, he gave incomplete and evasive 
information to BAPR. 
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
5 
 
mishandling of trust accounts and funds, commingling 
personal and business funds with client trust funds, 
converting client trust finds by engaging in trust 
account transactions that left negative balances in 
his own subsidiary accounts, failing to deliver trust 
funds to a client over a period of years, failing to 
keep complete and accurate trust account records, and 
on multiple occasions filing income tax returns that 
were false.  Attorney Mandelman also showed lack of 
diligence in another matter, failed to notify a client 
of his suspension in another, and also gave a false 
affidavit to the OLR.  Mandelman, 358 Wis. 2d 179.  
¶4 
On August 5, 2014, Attorney Mandelman filed a petition 
seeking reinstatement of his license to practice law.  The OLR 
filed a response dated January 15, 2015.  The OLR expressed 
several concerns in its initial response, noting that, because 
of time constraints imposed by the referee, it had insufficient 
time to investigate the reinstatement petition.   
¶5 
The referee conducted a public reinstatement hearing 
on February 4, 2015.  At the hearing, the OLR stated that it had 
deposed Attorney Mandelman and resolved many of the issues 
previously identified.  The OLR declined to take a formal 
position on reinstatement.   
¶6 
Attorney 
Mandelman 
and 
four 
additional 
witnesses 
appeared at the reinstatement hearing:  Attorney Mandelman's 
doctor, his faculty advisor, his employer for his student work 
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
6 
 
at the computer center at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 
and a friend/out-of-town lawyer.  Post-hearing, the referee 
permitted and received additional documentation in support of 
the 
petition, 
including 
a 
Board 
of 
Bar 
Examiner 
(BBE) 
certification of continuing legal education (CLE) compliance, a 
restitution payment to S.M., and documentation of efforts to 
make a restitution payment to B.S.  The referee filed her report 
and recommendation on May 12, 2015, recommending reinstatement 
with substantial conditions.  
¶7 
The 
standards 
applicable 
to 
all 
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 
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)(c) incorporates the statements that a petition for 
reinstatement must contain pursuant to SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m).  
Thus, the petitioning attorney must demonstrate that the 
required representations in the reinstatement petition are 
substantiated. 
¶8 
When 
reviewing 
referee 
reports 
in 
reinstatement 
proceedings, we utilize standards of review similar to those we 
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
7 
 
use 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 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.  
¶9 
Here, the referee concluded that Attorney Mandelman 
has demonstrated that he sincerely desires to have his license 
reinstated.  SCR 22.29(4)(a).   
¶10 The referee concluded that Attorney Mandelman has not 
practiced 
law 
during 
the 
period 
of 
his 
revocation.  
SCR 22.29(4)(b).  The referee accepted the evidence from the 
hearing that "a great deal of Mandelman's time was spent 
following 
rigorous 
conventional 
and 
experimental 
medical 
treatment protocols, and attending graduate school in a field 
unrelated to law."   
¶11 The referee concluded that Attorney Mandelman has 
complied with the terms of his suspension and revocation orders.  
SCR 22.29(4)(c); see also SCR 22.29(4)(h) (requiring that the 
petitioner has fully complied with the requirements set forth in 
SCR 22.26); SCR 22.31(1)(d).  For many years, Attorney Mandelman 
owed $12,793.24 in costs from his 2004 disciplinary matter and 
$6,397.54 in costs from his 2007 disciplinary matter.  In August 
of 2014, Attorney Mandelman paid those cost judgments by sending 
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
8 
 
cashier's checks in the appropriate respective amounts to the 
OLR.  The court also ordered Attorney Mandelman to pay 
$16,943.16 
in 
costs 
relating 
to 
the 
recent 
revocation 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney 
Mandelman 
entered 
into 
a 
payment 
arrangement with the OLR on August 21, 2014, to make $100 
monthly 
payments. 
 
Attorney 
Mandelman 
has 
made 
timely 
installment payments.   
¶12 The referee concluded that Attorney Mandelman has 
maintained competence and learning in the law.  SCR 22.29(4)(d).  
Although this evidence was not produced at the reinstatement 
hearing, the referee permitted Attorney Mandelman to obtain and 
to provide proof of certification of CLE compliance from the BBE 
post-hearing.  The BBE filed a certification with the court on 
February 9, 2015, stating that Attorney Mandelman was "currently 
in compliance with the court's CLE and EPR requirements for 
reinstatement."   
¶13 The 
referee 
concluded 
that 
Attorney 
Mandelman's 
conduct since the revocation has been exemplary and above 
reproach.  SCR 22.29(4)(e).  Admittedly, unlike a typical 
revocation, 
five 
years 
had 
not 
elapsed 
since 
Attorney 
Mandelman's license was revoked.  The referee based her 
conclusion relating to this requirement on the testimony of 
several people who spoke on behalf of Attorney Mandelman.  
Attorney 
Mandelman's 
academic 
mentor 
and 
chair 
of 
his 
dissertation committee at UW-Milwaukee testified respectfully 
about Attorney Mandelman's dissertation topic and work, which 
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
9 
 
involves the benefits to the elderly related to construction of 
co-housing facilities. 
 Attorney Mandelman's attorney and 
personal 
friend 
spoke 
highly 
of 
Attorney 
Mandelman 
and 
respectfully about his writings and presentations, specifying 
motorcycle rights litigation.  However, the referee's report 
notes that, "[w]hile the witness credibly stated that he 
believed Mandelman to be trustworthy and reliable, he also 
testified that he did not know about the specifics of [his] 
disciplinary 
history." 
 
Attorney 
Mandelman's 
UW-Milwaukee 
employment supervisor testified credibly and convincingly about 
Attorney Mandelman's work ethic, his helpfulness, and his 
camaraderie with other students and faculty.   
¶14 The referee concluded that Attorney Mandelman has the 
moral character to practice law in this state.  SCR 22.29(4)(e).   
¶15 The 
referee 
concluded 
that 
Attorney 
Mandelman 
satisfied SCR 22.29(4)(j), which requires a description of the 
petitioner's proposed use of the license if reinstated.  At the 
hearing, Attorney Mandelman spoke at some length about his 
future plans, if reinstated.  These include practice in a 
structured environment, although he did not rule out the 
prospect of returning to solo practice in the future. 
¶16 The 
referee 
concluded 
that 
Attorney 
Mandelman 
satisfied SCR 22.29(4)(k), which requires a lawyer seeking 
reinstatement to provide a full description of all of the 
petitioner's business activities during the period of suspension 
or revocation.  The reinstatement petition contains a full 
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
10 
 
description of Attorney Mandelman's activities between his 
suspension in 2006 and the 2015 reinstatement hearing.  Attorney 
Mandelman completed a Master's Degree in Architecture and was 
admitted to the Ph.D. program in Architecture at UW-Milwaukee, 
where he completed and passed qualifying exams.   
¶17 Since 2009, Attorney Mandelman has also worked in 
retail sales at Office Depot, Weston Properties, and at 
UW-Milwaukee in a variety of assistant jobs, including in his 
academic department and in a print shop producing product, 
supervising students, and handling money pursuant to sales.  
Evidence from the hearing also indicates that he has engaged in 
some property management work. 
¶18 In addition, SCR 22.29(4m) requires and the referee 
concluded that Attorney Mandelman 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.  
¶19 In our May 29, 2009 suspension order, we ordered 
Attorney Mandelman to pay $1,250 in restitution to S.M. and 
$2,200 in restitution to B.S. within 60 days.  On June 10, 2009, 
the OLR reminded Attorney Mandelman that those payments were to 
be made by July 28, 2009.   
¶20 Attorney Mandelman had not made restitution to these 
clients when he filed this reinstatement petition.  However, 
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
11 
 
Attorney Mandelman has since done so.  On January 14, 2015, the 
OLR received emailed correspondence from Attorney Mandelman that 
included a copy of a $1,250 cashier's check payable to S.M.  The 
record indicates that Attorney Mandelman sent the check to S.M. 
and that S.M. accepted the payment.   
¶21 At 
the 
reinstatement 
hearing, 
Attorney 
Mandelman 
explained that he had been unable to locate B.S.  After the 
hearing, Attorney Mandelman provided proof that he deposited a 
check for $2,200 in the Unclaimed Property Fund payable 
to/redeemable by B.S.  The referee thus found that Attorney 
Mandelman "provided documentation within 20 days of the hearing 
date that he has complied fully with the terms of the order of 
revocation with respect to the payment of restitution."2   
¶22 We accept the referee's findings and conclusions on 
each of the foregoing requirements for reinstatement. 
¶23 The issues in this reinstatement proceeding, however, 
relate to the remaining requirements for reinstatement.  The 
rules also impose on the petitioner the burden of demonstrating 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he has a 
proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that 
are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with them, and that he can be safely recommended as a person fit 
                                                 
2 The referee's report, on pages 6 and 9, mistakenly states 
that B.S. was the one who accepted payment and that S.M.'s check 
was deposited into the Unclaimed Property Fund.  This is 
incorrect. 
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
12 
 
to represent clients and to aid in the administration of justice 
in this state.  SCR 22.29(4)(f)-(g).   
¶24 With respect to SCR 22.29(4)(f), the referee was 
persuaded by Attorney Mandelman and his witnesses' testimony 
that he has accepted responsibility for his misconduct and has 
"new insights" into his behaviors and conditions during his 
period of suspension.  With respect to SCR 22.29(4)(g), the 
referee 
concluded 
that, 
"based 
on 
the 
petition 
and 
the 
testimony," this element is satisfied, subject to recommended 
conditions.   
¶25 We are not persuaded that Attorney Mandelman has 
provided clear and convincing evidence that he has satisfied 
SCR 22.29(4)(f) and (g); as such, we disagree with the referee's 
conclusions of law on these issues.  
¶26 For many years, Attorney Mandelman suffered from a 
chronic 
illness 
with 
symptoms 
including 
chronic 
fatigue. 
Attorney 
Mandelman 
cited 
his 
health 
issues 
in 
previous 
disciplinary and reinstatement proceedings.  The reinstatement 
record here indicates that, after many years, his illness was 
finally effectively treated and his doctor reports that his 
current medical prognosis good.  
¶27 However, as Attorney Mandelman concedes, his medical 
condition neither caused nor excuses his prior professional 
misconduct.  Attorney Mandelman's disciplinary history reflects 
persistent patterns not only of neglect, but of fraud.  His 
extensive misconduct history cannot all be attributed to side 
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
13 
 
effects of his illness.  In short, his recovery bodes well for 
Attorney Mandelman, but is not sufficient to persuade us that he 
should be permitted to practice law again. 
¶28 The scope and seriousness of Attorney Mandelman's 
prior 
misconduct 
reveals 
a 
lawyer 
who 
lacked 
a 
proper 
understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are 
imposed upon members of the bar.  Certainly, he did not act in 
conformity with those standards for any appreciable period of 
time.  He extensively used client trust accounts to conceal 
personal 
income 
and 
recklessly 
filed 
tax 
returns 
that 
misrepresented his income.  His own record demonstrates that, 
prior to his suspension, he was not a person who could be safely 
recommended as a person fit to represent clients and to aid in 
the administration of justice in this state.  Consequently, he 
must do more now than simply clean up the mess he created 
before.  We must be persuaded by evidence that is clear and 
convincing that he meets these standards now.   
¶29 Attorney Mandelman has taken some commendable steps to 
address past wrongs.  The list of potential concerns identified 
by the OLR was not trivial.  The referee and the OLR were 
apparently satisfied that Attorney Mandelman has amended tax 
returns 
and 
determined 
whether 
he 
needed 
to 
repay 
the 
federal/state government for amounts that may be owing for 
calendar years 2005/2006.  Attorney Mandelman represented, at 
the hearing, that he has settled all delinquent tax obligations 
with 
the 
State 
of 
Wisconsin 
and 
provided 
supporting 
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
14 
 
documentation.  The referee and the OLR were apparently 
satisfied with Attorney Mandelman's explanation of business 
relationships with Weston Properties, Heartland, and Liberty 
Holding Company, LLC, which was finally dissolved February 12, 
2014.  The OLR and the referee were apparently satisfied with 
Attorney Mandelman's responses to questions about the fact that 
he was a party to a number of civil actions filed within 
Milwaukee County and Ozaukee County.  At the hearing, Attorney 
Mandelman testified that he had resolved all outstanding 
disputes.  
¶30 The referee downplayed the significance of these 
concerns, so she did not make detailed findings of fact about 
them.  Accordingly, we are not usurping the role of the referee 
as the fact-finder.  However, we consider the scope of the 
matters of concern important to our assessment of Attorney 
Mandelman's proper understanding of and attitude toward the 
standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and his 
ability to act in conformity with those standards as well as 
whether he can be safely recommended as a person fit to 
represent clients and to aid in the administration of justice in 
this state.   
¶31 The referee was persuaded that Attorney Mandelman "has 
managed to satisfy his tax obligations, pay for graduate school, 
disengage from the debt of his office building, maintain the 
mortgage of his home and addressed any known civil judgments."  
This is commendable, although we note that Attorney Mandelman 
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
15 
 
retains 
significant 
indebtedness, 
and 
in 
fact 
incurred 
substantial additional debt to pay for graduate school, loans 
that will become due when he completes his graduate degree.  
¶32 Debt, 
alone, 
will 
not 
preclude 
a 
lawyer's 
reinstatement.  Here, however, it presents a legitimate cause 
for concern.  In 1995, we reinstated Attorney Mandelman's law 
license 
despite 
our 
expressed 
misgivings 
about 
Attorney 
Mandelman's 
"substantial 
debts" 
and 
his 
debt 
management, 
including questionable decisions to invest substantial funds in 
business ventures rather than to begin paying his lawful 
obligations.  Still, swayed by the "thoroughness and timeliness" 
of his response to documentation requests and the "completeness 
and candor of his testimony and in his overall demeanor as a 
witness," 
we 
reinstated 
his 
law 
license, 
with 
certain 
conditions.  In re Reinstatement of Mandelman, 197 Wis. 2d 435, 
541 N.W.2d 480 (1995).  Our confidence in his reform proved 
misplaced. 
¶33 Less than four years later, in 1999, we were obliged 
to 
privately 
reprimand 
Attorney 
Mandelman. 
 
Multiple 
disciplinary proceedings ensued until his 2009 suspension and 
subsequent revocation, including numerous and varied misconduct 
adversely affecting many clients.  In our view, not enough has 
changed.  The excuses and promises to do better offered at his 
prior reinstatement hearings are eerily familiar.   
¶34 This record reveals a flurry of recent activity as 
Attorney Mandelman sought to fulfill his many and various 
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
16 
 
reinstatement requirements.  Debts to former clients were left 
unpaid for years until he decided to seek reinstatement.  
Indeed, the referee noted that "restitution should have been 
made five years ago at least."  Similarly, supreme court orders 
imposing costs were left unresolved for years until he decided 
to seek reinstatement.   
¶35 The 
court 
also 
directed 
Attorney 
Mandelman 
to 
cooperate with his former business partner, Attorney Jeffrey 
Reitz, to determine if restitution was owed in connection with 
their partnership.  Attorney Mandelman did produce documents 
reflecting efforts to close out the trust account.  However, 
Attorney Mandelman provided the OLR with this information "just 
two days" before the OLR's response to his reinstatement 
petition was due. 
¶36 Ultimately 
the 
referee 
recommended 
reinstatement, 
subject to onerous conditions that Attorney Mandelman does not 
oppose:   
1. If Mandelman chooses to practice law, prior to 
practicing law, he must notify OLR to establish 
oversight of his practice of law.  
2. Under OLR's oversight, Mandelman agrees to:  
a. Be supervised for two years by an attorney 
acceptable to OLR who would have the responsibilities 
under SCR 20:5.1(b).  
b. Arrange for the supervising attorney to file 
quarterly reports with OLR for two years.  
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
17 
 
3. If Mandelman chooses to practice law he be 
barred from having signatory authority on any trust 
account for a period of four years.  
4. If Mandelman chooses to practice law his 
practice shall be limited to a structured environment 
and he shall not engage in solo practice for no sooner 
than ten years.  
5. Mandelman shall comply with the payment plan 
FOR costs currently in place with OLR, and any other 
court-ordered cost payments, absent a showing to the 
court of his inability to do so.   
6. If Mandelman fails to comply with any of these 
conditions, OLR shall notify the Court that Mandelman 
is 
out 
of 
compliance 
with 
a 
condition 
of 
reinstatement, and OLR shall have the authority to 
request that the Court suspend the reinstated license 
of Michael Mandelman to practice law in Wisconsin 
until further order of the court.  
¶37 Attorney Mandelman recognized that his disciplinary 
history precludes reinstatement without substantial conditions, 
describing his prior efforts to maintain a solo law practice as 
a "failed model."  The extensive recommended conditions reflect 
the 
referee's 
misgivings 
about 
Attorney 
Mandelman's 
reinstatement, 
observing 
that 
"Mandelman's 
substantial 
disciplinary history with recurring rule violations is of great 
concern."  
¶38 We share those misgivings.  Conditions on practice are 
imposed to protect the public once an attorney has demonstrated 
reinstatement is warranted.  Conditions do not and should not 
lower the bar to reinstatement. 
¶39 Attorney Mandelman has accepted responsibility for his 
misconduct, but the mitigating effect of his acceptance of 
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
18 
 
responsibility must be viewed in relation to his extensive 
disciplinary history along with the number of counts and the 
nature of his misconduct.  The hard work Attorney Mandelman has 
undertaken to restructure his life and pay past due obligations 
to clients, creditors, and the court system is commendable, but 
not sufficient to demonstrate that reinstatement is appropriate 
at this time.  He has cleaned up his act; now he must stay the 
course.  This record lacks sufficient evidence that things will 
be different if he is reinstated to the practice of law again. 
¶40 This court is not averse to providing a second chance 
to hold a law license to individuals who clearly accept 
responsibility for their wrongdoing and demonstrate that they 
have a different attitude toward complying with both our 
society's general laws and the ethical rules that apply to 
attorneys who are licensed to practice law in this state.  
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Balistrieri, 2014 WI 104, 
358 Wis. 2d 262, 852 N.W.2d 1 (denying reinstatement over 
recommendation of referee). 
¶41 However, our rules require Attorney Mandelman to prove 
that he has satisfied all of the requisite standards by clear 
and convincing evidence.  Id.  While we accept the referee's 
determination that Attorney Mandelman is performing well in a 
structured 
academic 
environment, 
the 
record 
is 
lacking 
sufficient evidence that he is able to sustain the rigor and 
stress of a professional career, including managing significant 
loan obligations, such that he can be safely recommended to the 
Nos. 2003AP3348-D 
2004AP2633-D 
2007AP2653-D 
2011AP584-D   
 
19 
 
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.  
¶42 For the reasons described above, we conclude that 
Attorney Mandelman has failed to meet his burden to prove that 
he has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the 
standards imposed upon members of the bar, that he will act in 
conformity with those standards, and that he can be safely 
recommended as a person fit to be consulted by others, to 
represent them, and to otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence.  SCR 22.29(4)(f) and (g). 
¶43 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 
the license of Michael D. Mandelman to practice law in Wisconsin 
is denied.  
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 120 days of the date 
of this order, Michael D. Mandelman shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
the 
full 
costs 
of 
this 
reinstatement 
proceeding. 
¶45 REBECCA G. BRADLEY, J., did not participate. 
 
 
No.  2003AP3348-D, 2004AP2633-D, 2007AP2653-D, 2011AP584-D.awb 
 
1 
 
¶46 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   (concurring).  I agree with 
the per curiam opinion but write separately to clarify it.  I do 
not read the opinion to mean, nor should it be interpreted to 
indicate, that Attorney Mandelman will never again be admitted 
to the practice of law.  Rather, the record does not support 
readmission at this time. 
¶47 Although 
Attorney 
Mandelman 
has 
accepted 
responsibility for his misconduct, the mitigating effect of his 
acceptance of responsibility is viewed in relation to his 
extensive disciplinary history along with the number of counts 
and the nature of his misconduct. 
¶48 The referee found that Attorney Mandelman's conduct 
since 
revocation 
has 
been 
exemplary 
and 
above 
reproach.  
Specifically, he complied with the terms of his suspension and 
revocation orders, maintained competence and learning in the 
law, managed to satisfy his tax obligations, disengaged from the 
debt of his office building, maintained the mortgage of his 
home, and addressed any known civil judgments. 
¶49 Because the August 1, 2014 order revoking his license 
to practice law was made retroactive in application, there were 
a mere four days between the order and the filing of his August 
5, 2014 petition for reinstatement.  Attorney Mandelman's 
petition would be more persuasive if he could demonstrate an 
enlarged period of exemplary behavior combined with evidence of 
responsibility in employment other than as a student, together 
with responsibility in managing his debt.   
¶50 Accordingly, I respectfully concur. 
No.  2003AP3348-D, 2004AP2633-D, 2007AP2653-D, 2011AP584-D.awb 
 
 
 
1