2018 WI 56

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2003AP3348-D, 2004AP2633-D, 2007AP2653-D, 

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.

ON THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF MANDELMAN

OPINION FILED: May 24, 2018

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED: ABRAHAMSON, J., dissents (opinion filed).

NOT PARTICIPATING: A.W. BRADLEY, J., did not participate. 

ATTORNEYS:
2018 WI 56

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 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

MAY 24, 2018

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement denied.

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review, pursuant to Supreme Court 

Rule (SCR) 22.33(3),1 a report filed by Referee James W. Mohr, 

Jr., recommending the court reinstate the license of Attorney 

 

1 SCR 22.33(3) provides: "If no appeal is timely filed, the 

supreme court shall review the referee's report, order 

reinstatement, with or without conditions, deny reinstatement, 

or order the parties to file briefs in the matter."
No. 2003AP3348-D

2004AP2633-D

2007AP2653-D

2011AP584-D 

2

Michael D. Mandelman to practice law in Wisconsin, with 

conditions. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) did not 

appeal the referee's recommendation. 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. We also 

determine that Attorney Mandelman should be required to pay the 

costs of this reinstatement proceeding, which were $7,674.57 as 

of October 10, 2017.

¶2 The standards that apply to all petitions for 

reinstatement after a disciplinary suspension or revocation are 

set forth in SCR 22.31(1).2 In particular, the petitioning 

 

2 SCR 22.31(1) provides:

(1) The petitioner has the burden of 

demonstrating, by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 

evidence, all of the following: 

(a) That he or she has the moral character to 

practice law in Wisconsin. 

(b) 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. 

(c) That his or her representations in the 

petition, including the representations required by 

SCR 22.29(4)(a) to (m) and 22.29(5), are 

substantiated.

(d) That he or she has complied fully with the 

terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 

with the requirements of SCR 22.26.
No. 2003AP3348-D

2004AP2633-D

2007AP2653-D

2011AP584-D 

3

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. 

¶3 In addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c) incorporates the 

statements that a petition for reinstatement must contain 

pursuant to SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(k) and (4m).3 Thus, the petitioning 

 

3 SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(k) and (4m) provides that a petition 

for reinstatement shall show all of the following:

(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 of suspension or revocation 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 by attendance at identified 

educational activities. 

(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. 

(continued)
No. 2003AP3348-D

2004AP2633-D

2007AP2653-D

2011AP584-D 

4

attorney shall demonstrate that the required representations in 

the reinstatement petition are substantiated.

¶4 When reviewing referee reports in reinstatement 

proceedings, we utilize standards of review similar to those we 

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 

 

(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 set forth in SCR 22.26. 

(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license 

if reinstated. 

(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 

business activities during the period of suspension or 

revocation. 

(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 

settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 

petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to 

the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection for 

all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the 

petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability 

to do so.
No. 2003AP3348-D

2004AP2633-D

2007AP2653-D

2011AP584-D 

5

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.

¶5 Attorney Mandelman was licensed to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1980. He has been the subject of seven 

disciplinary proceedings. His license has been suspended or 

revoked since 2006.

¶6 In 1990, Attorney Mandelman was suspended for one year 

for 27 counts of misconduct that affected more than a dozen 

clients. The complaint included misconduct from 1985 and 

involved multiple counts of failing 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 communicate 

with clients, and making a misrepresentation to the former Board 

of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR), In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 158 Wis. 2d 1, 460 

N.W.2d 749 (1990). In this, Attorney Mandelman's first 

disciplinary proceeding, the referee expressed concern about the 

"pattern of a large number and repeated offenses over a period 

of several years." This court commented that the misconduct 

"establish[ed] a definite pattern of Attorney Mandelman's 

disregard of very basic ethical obligations of lawyers." Id.

¶7 When that suspension ended, Attorney Mandelman 

petitioned for reinstatement of his license. The court denied 

his reinstatement petition on two grounds: additional 

professional misconduct was discovered, including his post-
No. 2003AP3348-D

2004AP2633-D

2007AP2653-D

2011AP584-D 

6

suspension violation of the rules governing the handling of his 

client trust account and, during the reinstatement proceeding 

itself, he gave incomplete and evasive responses to the district 

committee and to the BAPR.

¶8 In response to the additional professional misconduct, 

the court suspended Attorney Mandelman's license for 18 months, 

imposed consecutive to the termination of the earlier 

suspension. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 

182 Wis. 2d 583, 514 N.W.2d 11 (1994). That misconduct 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. Id.

¶9 In 1995, we reinstated Attorney Mandelman's license 

with certain conditions that were intended to ensure that 

Attorney Mandelman remained compliant with our rules. 

Unfortunately, those conditions did not accomplish the desired 

result.

¶10 In 1999, Attorney Mandelman received a consensual 

private reprimand for making a false statement of fact to a 

tribunal. Private Reprimand No. 1999-18 (electronic copy 

available at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/

002085.html). 

¶11 On December 12, 2003, the OLR filed a complaint 

alleging 13 counts of misconduct. The parties litigated the 
No. 2003AP3348-D

2004AP2633-D

2007AP2653-D

2011AP584-D 

7

case vigorously, and, in 2006, we suspended Attorney Mandelman 

for nine months for multiple instances of misconduct, including 

failing to act with reasonable diligence, failing to utilize a 

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.

¶12 In 2006, Attorney Mandelman also received a separate

consensual private reprimand for drawing a check from his 

business account to make a mortgage payment of a personal injury 

client. Private Reprimand No. 2006-21 (electronic copy 

available at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/

001927.html). 

¶13 In 2009, Attorney Mandelman, who had not been 

reinstated, was suspended for one year for additional misconduct 

that included collecting a fee without performing any work for 

the client, failing to provide the 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 and failing to 

deposit the settlement funds into the 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.
No. 2003AP3348-D

2004AP2633-D

2007AP2653-D

2011AP584-D 

8

¶14 On August 1, 2014, in the wake of the discovery of 

still more misconduct, this court revoked Attorney Mandelman's 

license to practice law, pursuant to a stipulation between 

Attorney Mandelman and the OLR. In re Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Mandelman, 2014 WI 100, 358 Wis. 2d 179, 851 N.W.2d 401. 

The misconduct in the revocation proceeding involved 22 counts 

of misconduct for Attorney Mandelman's handling of trust 

accounts and funds, including commingling personal and business 

funds with client trust funds, converting client trust funds 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's misconduct also included lack of diligence in a 

matter, failing to notify a client of his suspension in another,

and providing a false affidavit to the OLR. Id.

¶15 The revocation was made retroactive to May 29, 2009, 

the effective date of a prior one-year suspension from which 

Attorney Mandelman had not been reinstated. Accordingly, he was 

immediately eligible to file a reinstatement petition, and he 

did so on August 5, 2014. 

¶16 We denied that petition. In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Mandelman, 2015 WI 105, 365 Wis. 2d 457, 871 

N.W.2d 682. We observed: 
No. 2003AP3348-D

2004AP2633-D

2007AP2653-D

2011AP584-D 

9

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. 

. . .

Attorney Mandelman has accepted responsibility for his 

misconduct, but the mitigating effect of his 

acceptance of 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.

¶17 On March 21, 2017, Attorney Mandelman filed a second 

petition for the reinstatement of his license to practice law in 

Wisconsin. The OLR filed a response on July 31, 2017, stating 

that it did not oppose Attorney Mandelman's reinstatement but 

recommended that if reinstated, his practice be subject to 

certain conditions.

¶18 The referee conducted a public hearing on August 31, 

2017. Attorney Mandelman testified on his own behalf and called 

seven additional witnesses, including four attorneys, an 

architect, an employer, his faculty advisor, and a friend who 

credits Attorney Mandelman with offering her emotional support

and encouraging her to obtain treatment.4 The referee noted that 

 

4 Several additional letters supporting Attorney Mandelman's 

petition were also received into evidence.
No. 2003AP3348-D

2004AP2633-D

2007AP2653-D

2011AP584-D 

10

many of these witnesses were not aware of Attorney Mandelman's 

prior disciplinary problems, but all spoke to his current 

demeanor and felt that he was intelligent, hard-working, 

responsible, and trustworthy. The referee described their 

testimony in support of Attorney Mandelman's reinstatement as 

"honest and sincere." The referee filed his report on 

September 20, 2017, recommending conditional reinstatement. 

¶19 Many of the criteria we consider in reinstatement 

proceedings focus on what the lawyer has done since suspension 

or revocation. The referee found, and we agree, that Attorney 

Mandelman has satisfied these criteria. The referee found that 

Attorney Mandelman had proven by clear and convincing evidence 

that he sincerely desires to have his license reinstated, 

SCR 22.29(4)(a); that he has not practiced law during the 

periods of his suspension and revocation, SCR 22.29(4)(b); that 

he has complied with the terms of the suspension and revocation 

orders, SCR 22.29(4)(c);

5 that he has maintained competence and 

learning in the law, SCR 22.29(4)(d);6 that his conduct since the 

 

5 The referee noted that Attorney Mandelman has not yet paid 

the entire amount of costs owed to the OLR, but he has executed 

an installment agreement and is making payments as his resources 

permit. As the referee noted, Attorney Mandelman's level of 

debt is a concern but that, alone, would not preclude his 

reinstatement.

6 The referee noted that Attorney Mandelman is compliant 

with his CLE requirements, has completed a number of CLE 

courses, and has taken and successfully passed the Multistate 

Professional Responsibility Examination.
No. 2003AP3348-D

2004AP2633-D

2007AP2653-D

2011AP584-D 

11

revocation has been exemplary and above reproach, 

SCR 22.29(4)(e);7 and that he has complied with the

SCR 22.26(1)(e) affidavit, SCR 22.29(4)(h). In addition, 

Attorney Mandelman outlined his activities during his suspension 

and revocation as required by SCR 22.29(4)(k),8 and stated that 

if reinstated, he wants to engage in the practice of civil 

litigation and work for a law firm or organization and to 

specialize in construction law, as required by SCR 22.29(4)(j).

The referee found, further, that Attorney Mandelman has made 

restitution to or satisfied all claims of persons injured or 

harmed by his misconduct, as required by SCR 22.29(4)(4m). 

¶20 We accept the referee's findings and conclusions on 

these requirements for reinstatement. 

¶21 As the referee discerned, our concern in this 

reinstatement proceeding relates to whether Attorney Mandelman 

 

7 The referee noted that Attorney Mandelman's conduct has 

been exemplary both in avoiding any inappropriate behavior, and 

in affirmatively seeking employment, while at the same time 

helping others. 

8 Attorney Mandelman obtained a master's degree and as of 

the date of the reinstatement hearing had nearly completed a PhD 

in architecture at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He 

has cared for an ailing mother, worked in a computer lab for the 

architecture department, assisting students by troubleshooting 

problems with computer equipment, and worked closely with 

department faculty and staff members. He has been a property 

manager, taught classes to high school students, has been 

employed as a staff architect, worked at other part time jobs, 

and has assisted others in a counseling role.
No. 2003AP3348-D

2004AP2633-D

2007AP2653-D

2011AP584-D 

12

has the moral character to practice law in this state, 

SCR 22.31(1)(a); whether the resumption of his practice would be 

detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of 

the public interest, SCR 22.31(1)(b); whether 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, SCR 22.29(4)(f); and whether he can be safely recommended 

as a person fit to represent clients and to aid in the 

administration of justice in this state, SCR 22.29(4)(g). 

¶22 The referee acknowledged the difficulty inherent in 

these assessments. He observed:

No one can predict the future - certainly not this 

Referee. The judgment that is asked to be made is an 

intuitive one, based upon observation of witnesses, 

common sense and experience.

I believe everyone lives with the hope that people can 

change themselves, and if they do, they are perhaps 

entitled to a second chance.

After giving this matter a great deal of thought, and 

for the following reasons, I believe that time has 

arrived for Mr. Mandelman. I believe he has earned 

the right to resume practicing law, subject to a 

number of recommended restrictions, set forth below.

¶23 The referee concluded that Attorney Mandelman had met 

his burden of proof on these factors such that reinstatement, 

albeit conditional reinstatement, was appropriate. See

Referee's Report at 14-15, Findings of Fact (FF) 18, FF 20-21 

and Conclusions of Law (CL) 9-11.
No. 2003AP3348-D

2004AP2633-D

2007AP2653-D

2011AP584-D 

13

¶24 We benefit from the referee's findings and 

conclusions, particularly when, as here, the referee has 

provided us with such a thoughtful and well-structured report. 

The ultimate determination of who may practice law in Wisconsin 

however, remains with this court. We disagree with these 

specific findings and we reach a different conclusion of law 

with respect to SCRs 22.29(4)(f)-(g) and 22.31(1)(a)-(b).9 

¶25 These criteria require us to undertake a comprehensive 

assessment of the lawyer and this includes consideration of the 

nature of the lawyer's underlying misconduct. See In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hersh, 108 Wis. 2d 450, 321 

N.W.2d 927 (1982). In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against

 

9 Specifically, we reject FF 18 (finding that "Mandelman now 

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 in the future"); FF 20 (finding 

that "Mandelman 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 court"); and FF 21 (finding "Mandelman presently 

has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin and that 

his resumption of the practice of law, under the conditions set 

forth below, will not be detrimental to the administration of 

justice or subversive of the public interest"). 

We reach a different conclusion of law than the referee 

with respect to CL 9 (concluding that "Mandelman has therefore 

satisfied the requirements of SCR 22.29(4)(f)"); CL 10 

(concluding that "Mandelman therefore satisfied the requirements 

of SCR 22.29(4)(g)"); CL 11 (concluding that "Mandelman has 

satisfied the requirements of SCR 22.31(1)(a) and (b)"). 
No. 2003AP3348-D

2004AP2633-D

2007AP2653-D

2011AP584-D 

14

Penn, 2002 WI 5, ¶8, 249 Wis. 2d 667, 638 N.W.2d 287, this court 

held:

[T]he referee conducting a hearing on the petition for 

reinstatement must engage in a full and unrestricted 

evaluation of the petitioner's past, present, and 

predicted future behavior, as well as any other 

relevant information going to the issue of whether the 

petitioner has the moral character to practice law in 

this state and whether his or her resumption of the 

practice of law would be detrimental to the 

administration of justice or subversive to the public 

interest.

¶26 From Attorney Mandelman's very first disciplinary 

proceeding in 1990, we observed a "definite pattern of Attorney 

Mandelman's disregard of very basic ethical obligations of 

lawyers." Since then, Attorney Mandelman has come before this 

court many times, each time having committed serious misconduct 

that affected numerous clients and encompassed not only neglect, 

but dishonesty and fraud. In 1995, we tried conditional 

reinstatement. It failed. Five disciplinary proceedings 

ensued, culminating in Attorney Mandelman's license revocation.

¶27 As a result of his pervasive, serious, and very 

troubling pattern of misconduct, Attorney Mandelman has created 

a heavy burden for himself. We conclude that Attorney Mandelman 

has failed to meet his burden to prove to this court that he 

possesses the requisite moral character to practice law in this 

state, 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 
No. 2003AP3348-D

2004AP2633-D

2007AP2653-D

2011AP584-D 

15

recommended as a person fit to be consulted by others, to 

represent them, and to otherwise act in matters of trust and 

confidence. See SCR 22.29(4)(f) and (g).

¶28 Moreover, we cannot say, with certainty, that the 

passage of time alone will be sufficient to persuade us that 

Attorney Mandelman will practice law in a manner that is honest, 

ethical, and above reproach. 

¶29 We recognize that our holding today will leave 

Attorney Mandelman asking what else he can do to persuade this 

court to reinstate his law license. We recognize that he cannot 

undo his past misconduct. This conundrum does not mean, 

however, that this court is somehow compelled to reinstate his 

license. An attorney whose license was suspended or revoked for 

misconduct has no right to reinstatement. Lathrop v. Donohue, 

10 Wis. 2d 230, 237, 102 N.W.2d 404, 408 (1960) (observing that 

the practice of law is not a right but a privilege). Nothing in 

our prior attorney disciplinary decisions implies that a 

petitioner for reinstatement enjoys a presumption of 

rehabilitation upon the expiration of a specified term of 

suspension, much less revocation. In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Hyndman, 2002 WI 6, ¶4, 249 Wis. 2d 650, 638 

N.W.2d 293.

¶30 This assessment is not intended to be punitive. 

Attorney Mandelman deserves much credit for his impressive 

accomplishments and we have every confidence that he has the 

capacity to flourish and succeed in other professional and 
No. 2003AP3348-D

2004AP2633-D

2007AP2653-D

2011AP584-D 

16

personal endeavors. Rather, the primary justification for the 

moral character requirement embodied in our reinstatement rules 

is to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession. 

Any doubt concerning a lawyer's moral character should be 

resolved in favor of protecting the public by denying the 

petition for reinstatement. 

¶31 With respect to the costs of this reinstatement 

proceeding, it is this court's general practice to assess the 

full costs of a proceeding against a respondent. See

SCR 22.24(1m). We find no extraordinary circumstances that 

would warrant a reduction in the costs imposed and we find it 

appropriate to assess the full costs of the reinstatement 

proceeding against Attorney Mandelman. 

¶32 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement is 

denied. 

¶33 IT IS FURTHER OREDERED that within 60 days of the date 

of this order, Michael D. Mandelman shall pay to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 

$7,674.57 as of October 10, 2017.

¶34 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., did not participate.
No. 2003AP3348-D.ssa

2004AP2633-D.ssa

2007AP2653-D.ssa

2011AP584-D.ssa

1

¶35 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (dissenting). I dissent 

because I conclude that the court is not consistent in its 

rulings on reinstatements. See Petition for Readmission After 

Voluntary Resignation of Keith B. Daniels, Jr., unpublished 

order (Apr. 20, 2018) (Ann Walsh Bradley, J., dissenting) 

(highlighting the court's failure to explain inconsistent 

results of two similarly situated petitioners). The court's 

failure to properly explain its inconsistent decisions raises 

due process concerns. 
No. 2003AP3348-D.ssa

2004AP2633-D.ssa

2007AP2653-D.ssa

2011AP584-D.ssa

1