2022 WI 33

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2021AP1106-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against 

Melinda R. Alfredson, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Melinda R. Alfredson,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALFREDSON 

OPINION FILED: May 25, 2022 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: 

COUNTY: 

JUDGE: 

JUSTICES:

Per Curiam. 

NOT PARTICIPATING:

 

ATTORNEYS:
2022 WI 33

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2021AP1106-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings

Against Melinda R. Alfredson,

Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

Complainant, 

v.

Melinda R. Alfredson, 

Respondent. 

FILED

MAY 25, 2022

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

suspended. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report of the referee, the 

Honorable Sue E. Bischel, recommending that the court suspend 

the Wisconsin law license of Attorney Melinda R. Alfredson for 

one year, order her to pay restitution to a former client, and 

order her to pay the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 

Neither party has appealed from the referee's report and 
No. 2021AP1106-D 

2

recommendation, and thus our review proceeds under Supreme Court 

Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1 

¶2 We agree that Attorney Alfredson's professional 

misconduct warrants a one-year suspension and an order directing 

her to pay restitution to her former client. We further agree 

that Attorney Alfredson should pay the full costs of this 

proceeding, which total $2,552.11 as of March 14, 2022. 

¶3 Attorney Alfredson was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 2009. She has been the subject of two prior 

attorney disciplinary proceedings. In 2017, Attorney 

Alfredson's law license was suspended for 60 days after she was 

found to have committed 16 counts of professional misconduct 

arising out of her representation of two clients, various trust 

account violations, and her failure to cooperate with the Office 

of Lawyer Regulation's (OLR) investigation. In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Alfredson, 2017 WI 6, 373 Wis. 2d 79, 890 

N.W.2d 13. In 2019, Attorney Alfredson's law license was 

suspended for 90 days, for having committed six counts of 

misconduct arising out of her representation of two clients, 

trust account violations, and her failure to cooperate with the 

 

1 SCR 22.17(2) provides:

If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 

shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 

modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 

remand the matter to the referee for additional 

findings; and determine and impose appropriate 

discipline. The court, on its own motion, may order 

the parties to file briefs in the matter.
No. 2021AP1106-D 

3

OLR's investigation. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Alfredson, 2019 WI 17, 385 Wis. 2d 565, 923 N.W.2d 869. 

¶4 On June 29, 2021, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 

seven counts of professional misconduct in connection with her

representation of L.P. L.P. retained Attorney Alfredson in 

April of 2018 to prepare the documentation to permit L.P. to 

serve as power of attorney for her son, J.P., and to reclaim 

funds alleged to be owed to J.P. by his employer. Attorney 

Alfredson was also retained to answer L.P.'s questions related 

to a criminal case involving J.P. J.P. was represented by 

another attorney in the criminal case. L.P. paid Attorney 

Alfredson a $1,500 advanced fee. There was no written fee 

agreement and Attorney Alfredson did not deposit the $1,500 

advanced fee into a trust account. 

¶5 On May 22, 2018, Attorney Alfredson's law license was 

suspended for noncompliance with mandatory continuing legal 

education (CLE) requirements. Her law license was not 

reinstated until November 28, 2018. During the period her law 

license was suspended, Attorney Alfredson provided legal 

services to L.P, as evidenced by billing invoices dated July 8, 

2018. Attorney Alfredson also failed to provide L.P. with an 

itemized billing, despite L.P.'s request.

¶6 On September 1, 2018, L.P. asked Attorney Alfredson to 

commence legal proceedings against J.P.'s employer. The 

following month, L.P requested a status update and Attorney 

Alfredson informed L.P. the case had been filed in small claims 

court and later claimed that a hearing was scheduled on December 
No. 2021AP1106-D 

4

19, 2018. Attorney Alfredson's representations to L.P were 

false. Attorney Alfredson never filed the small claims case or 

scheduled the hearing. She also falsely mislead L.P into 

believing that Attorney Alfredson was busy "in court" at various 

times.

¶7 On February 26, 2019, in a proceeding unrelated to 

L.P., this court suspended Attorney Alfredson's law license for 

90 days, effective April 9, 2019. In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Alfredson, 385 Wis. 2d 565. The day after 

our opinion issued, Attorney Alfredson was entered as counsel of 

record for J.P. in a family law case. Attorney Alfredson never 

informed L.P that her law license had been suspended, and did 

not provide written notification to the court, or to opposing 

counsel of her inability to act as an attorney for J.P. due to 

her April suspension. On June 16, 2020, Attorney Alfredson's 

law license was again suspended for noncompliance with 2018-2019 

mandatory CLE requirements. It remains suspended.

¶8 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 

misconduct:

Count 1: By failing to communicate to L.P in writing 

the scope of her representation or the basis or rate 

of her fee or expenses for which L.P would be 

responsible; and by failing to communicate to L.P. in 

writing the purpose and effect of the advanced fees 

that were paid to her, Attorney Alfredson violated 

SCR 20:1.5(b)(1)2 and SCR 20:1.5(b)(2).3

 

2 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) provides:

The scope of the representation and the basis or 

rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will 

be responsible shall be communicated to the client in 
No. 2021AP1106-D 

5

Count 2: By depositing the $1,500 advanced fee payment 

into her personal account rather than a client trust 

account, Attorney Alfredson violated 

SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).4

Count 3: By failing to file a small claims court 

action against J.P.'s employer, Attorney Alfredson 

violated SCR 20:1.3.5

Count 4: By failing to keep L.P. reasonably informed 

regarding the status of the small claims court action, 

Attorney Alfredson violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).6

 

writing, before or within a reasonable time after 

commencing the representation, except when the lawyer 

will charge a regularly represented client on the same 

basis or rate as in the past. If it is reasonably 

foreseeable that the total cost of representation to 

the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000 

or less, the communication may be oral or in writing. 

Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or 

expenses shall also be communicated in writing to the 

client. 

3 SCR 20:1.5(b)(2) provides: "If the total cost of 

representation to the client, including attorney's fees, is more 

than $1000, the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance 

fee that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 

writing."

4 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides:

A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 

lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 

3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 

connection with a representation. All funds of clients 

and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm in 

connection with a representation shall be deposited in 

one or more identifiable trust accounts.

5 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 

diligence and promptness in representing a client."

6 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides: "A lawyer shall keep the 

client reasonably informed about the status of the matter."
No. 2021AP1106-D 

6

Count 5: By misleading L.P. that she was in court 

representing other clients, when she was purportedly 

in court observing random cases, and by informing L.P. 

that she had filed a small claims court action, when 

in fact she had not done so, in each instance, 

Attorney Alfredson violated SCR 20:8.4(c).7

Count 6: By providing legal counsel to L.P. while 

subject to a CLE and a disciplinary suspension, 

Attorney Alfredson violated SCR 31.10(1)8 and 

SCR 22.26(2),9 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).10

 

7 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct 

for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 

deceit or misrepresentation."

8 SCR 31.10(1) provides:

If a lawyer fails to comply with the attendance 

requirement of SCR 31.02, fails to comply with the 

reporting requirement of SCR 31.03(1), or fails to pay 

the late fee under SCR 31.03(2), the board shall serve 

a notice of noncompliance on the lawyer. This notice 

shall advise the lawyer that the lawyer’s state bar 

membership shall be automatically suspended for 

failing to file evidence of compliance or to pay the 

late fee within 60 days after service of the notice. 

The board shall certify the names of all lawyers so 

suspended under this rule to the clerk of the supreme 

court, all supreme court justices, all court of 

appeals and circuit court judges, all circuit court 

commissioners appointed under SCR 75.02(1) in this 

state, all circuit court clerks, all juvenile court 

clerks, all registers in probate, the executive 

director of the state bar of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin 

State Public Defender’s Office, and the clerks of the 

federal district courts in Wisconsin. A lawyer shall 

not engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while 

his or her state bar membership is suspended under 

this rule.

9 SCR 22.26(2) provides:

An attorney whose license to practice law is 

suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 

practice of law may not engage in this state in the 

practice of law or in any law work activity 

customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
No. 2021AP1106-D 

7

Count 7: By failing to provide written notification to 

the court and the attorney for each party in In Re: 

the Support or Maintenance of, Brown County Case No. 

2013FA862 of her disciplinary suspension and her 

consequent inability to act as an attorney following 

the April 9, 2019, [suspension order], Attorney

Alfredson violated SCR 22.26(1)(c),11 enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(f).

¶9 Attorney Alfredson admitted service of the OLR 

complaint and initially, it appeared that the parties would 

resolve this matter by stipulation. However, Attorney Alfredson 

failed to timely sign and return the proposed stipulation. This 

court appointed Referee Bischel and the OLR asked the referee to 

enter a default judgment. The referee issued a scheduling order 

affording Attorney Alfredson an opportunity to move to extend 

her time to file an answer, but warned Attorney Alfredson that 

 

paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 

engage in law related work in this state for a 

commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 

of law

10 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides: "It is professional misconduct 

for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court order or 

supreme court decision regulating the conduct of lawyers."

11 SCR 22.26(1)(c) provides: 

On or before the effective date of license 

suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 

suspended or revoked shall promptly provide written 

notification to the court or administrative agency and 

the attorney for each party in a matter pending before 

a court or administrative agency of the suspension or 

revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 

to act as an attorney following the effective date of 

the suspension or revocation. The notice shall 

identify the successor attorney of the attorney's 

client or, if there is none at the time notice is 

given, shall state the client's place of residence.
No. 2021AP1106-D 

8

such a motion must be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth 

facts establishing good cause for her failure to timely answer. 

On the afternoon of the deadline, Attorney Alfredson moved to 

extend the deadline, but her motion was not accompanied by an 

answer. The OLR objected to further extensions. The referee 

considered the motion and supporting affidavit and determined 

that Attorney Alfredson had failed to establish good cause for 

her failure to file an answer for more than six months. 

Accordingly, the referee denied Attorney Alfredson's motion and 

declared her in default. 

¶10 The referee then found that the allegations of the 

complaint were unrefuted and that the OLR had proven the factual 

allegations of the complaint as to all seven counts, and 

concluded that the uncontested allegations establish that 

Attorney Alfredson violated each of the Supreme Court Rules as 

alleged in the OLR complaint. 

¶11 The referee thoroughly considered the appropriate 

discipline, taking into account the seriousness, nature, and 

extent of Attorney Alfredson's misconduct, the level of 

discipline needed to protect the public, and the need to impress 

upon Attorney Alfredson the seriousness of her misconduct and to 

deter other attorneys from committing similar misconduct. The 

referee considered Attorney Alfredson's misconduct to be serious 

and extensive and reflecting "total disregard for Supreme Court 

Rules." Given her previous misconduct, the referee deemed 

increased progressive discipline "obviously necessary" to 

protect the public.
No. 2021AP1106-D 

9

¶12 The referee identified several aggravating factors, 

including but not limited to Attorney Alfredson's false 

statements, and determined that the imposition of a one-year 

suspension of Attorney Alfredson's license is appropriate and 

generally consistent with similar cases. See, e.g., In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Maynard, 2014 WI 13, 352 

Wis. 2d 629, 845 N.W.2d 648 (imposing one-year suspension on 

attorney who committed analogous misconduct who had previously 

received a 90-day suspension); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Dumke, 216 Wis. 2d 475, 574 N.W.2d 241 (1998) (imposing 

one-year suspension on attorney who committed analogous 

misconduct who had previously received a six-month suspension).

¶13 The referee thus recommended a one-year suspension of 

Attorney Alfredson's license, restitution of $250 to L.P., and 

that Attorney Alfredson be held responsible for the full costs 

of this disciplinary proceeding, which total $2,552.11 as of 

March 14, 2022. 

¶14 No appeal was filed, so we review this matter pursuant 

to SCR 22.17(2). We will affirm the referee's findings of fact 

unless they are clearly erroneous. We review conclusions of law 

de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 

2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. We may impose 

whatever sanction we see fit, regardless of the referee's 

recommendation. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.

¶15 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 

of fact are clearly erroneous, and we adopt them. We also agree 
No. 2021AP1106-D 

10

with the referee's legal conclusion that Attorney Alfredson 

violated the Supreme Court Rules noted above. We previously 

warned Attorney Alfredson "that the court may impose 

progressively severe sanctions when an attorney engages in 

repeated misconduct." In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Alfredson, 2019 WI 17, ¶29, 385 Wis. 2d 565, 923 N.W.2d 869. 

Attorney Alfredson is now back before us a third time and 

progressive discipline is clearly merited. In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Netzer, 2014 WI 7, ¶49, 352 Wis. 2d 310, 841 

N.W.2d 820 ("[t]his court has long adhered to the concept of 

progressive discipline in attorney regulatory cases.") We agree 

that a one-year suspension and restitution of $250 to L.P is 

appropriate. As is our normal practice, we find it appropriate 

to impose the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding on 

Attorney Alfredson. See SCR 22.24(1m).

¶16 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Melinda R. Alfredson 

is suspended for a period of one year, effective the date of 

this order.

¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 

of this order, Melinda R. Alfredson shall pay $250 in 

restitution to L.P. 

¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 

above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation. 

¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 

of this order, Melinda R. Alfredson shall pay to the Office of 
No. 2021AP1106-D 

11

Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 

$2,552.11 as of March 14, 2022. 

¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Melinda R. Alfredson shall 

comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 

a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 

suspended.

¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 

conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See

SCR 22.28(2).
No. 2021AP1106-D 

1