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