2021 WI 47

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2010AP1939-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Christopher A. Mutschler, Attorney at 

Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant-Respondent,

 v.

Christopher A. Mutschler,

 Respondent-Appellant.

ATTORNEY MUTSCHLER REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDINGS

Reported at 388 Wis. 2d 486,933 N.W.2d 99

PDC No:2019 WI 92 - Published

OPINION FILED: May 25, 2021 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: 

COUNTY: 

JUDGE: 

JUSTICES:

Per Curiam.

NOT PARTICIPATING:

KAROFSKY, J., did not participate. 

ATTORNEYS:
2021 WI 47

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2010AP1939-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Christopher A. Mutschler, 

Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant-Respondent,

 v.

Christopher A. Mutschler,

 Respondent-Appellant.

FILED

MAY 25, 2021

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed by Referee Robert 

E. Kinney recommending that the court reinstate the license of 

Christopher A. Mutschler to practice law in Wisconsin. Since no 

appeal has been filed from the referee's report and recommendation, 

our review proceeds pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.33(3).1 

 

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. 2010AP1939-D 

2

After careful review of the matter, we adopt the referee's findings 

of fact and conclusions of law and agree that Attorney Mutschler's 

petition for reinstatement should be granted. As is our normal 

practice, we also direct that the costs of this reinstatement 

proceeding, which are $9,028.76 as of March 29, 2021, be paid by 

Attorney Mutschler.

¶2 Attorney Mutschler was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1991 and practiced predominately in the area of 

criminal traffic defense.

¶3 In 2011, this court accepted Attorney Mutschler's 

petition for the consensual revocation of his Wisconsin law license 

and ordered him to pay restitution totaling $246,723 within 180 

days. At the time of his revocation, there were 59 grievances 

pending against Attorney Mutschler. In virtually all of the cases, 

Attorney Mutschler would obtain payment of an advanced fee to 

represent a client in a traffic, operating while intoxicated, or 

a criminal case. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mutschler,

2011 WI 74, 336 Wis. 2d 241, 804 N.W.2d 680. Attorney Mutschler 

would frequently advise the client to enter a no contest plea and 

promised that he would win the case on appeal. In some cases, 

Attorney Mutschler never notified the client of the scheduled 

hearing on the pending charge or citation, so the client would 

fail to appear. Sometimes Attorney Mutschler himself would fail 

to appear at scheduled hearings, with the result being that a 

default judgment was entered against the client. In other cases, 

the client would enter a guilty or no contest plea, and Attorney 

Mutschler would either fail to file an appeal or would fail to 
No. 2010AP1939-D 

3

prosecute the appeal properly, which would lead to the appeal being 

dismissed. Attorney Mutschler frequently failed to communicate 

adequately with his clients, with the result being that many had 

to either hire new counsel or proceed on their own without counsel.

¶4 In addition, in 2008, Attorney Mutschler pled no contest 

to a charge of uttering a forgery, a felony, and to a charge of 

possession of an illegally obtained prescription medication, a 

misdemeanor. The forgery count was subject to a deferred 

prosecution agreement and was later dismissed on the prosecutor's 

motion. These charges arose from Attorney Mutschler being caught 

in the act of forging prescription forms and using the forms to 

obtain pain medication.

¶5 Attorney Mutschler filed his first petition for 

reinstatement in 2017. The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 

opposed the petition. After an evidentiary hearing, Referee 

Jonathan V. Goodman stated that in his 11 years of handling OLR 

cases, Attorney Mutschler's case posed the most difficult one the 

referee had seen. Referee Goodman ultimately recommended that 

this court deny Attorney Mutschler's petition for reinstatement 

because of Attorney Mutschler's failure to have paid restitution 

or to have established a plan to do so. Attorney Mutschler 

appealed. This court concluded that the facts of record supported 

the referee's determination that, "there is nothing in this record 

that gives the referee confidence that Mr. Mutschler would engage 

in a program to repay his restitution once he became employed if 

his license was reinstated." In re Reinstatement of Mutschler, 

2019 WI 92, 388 Wis. 2d 486, 933 N.W.2d 99.
No. 2010AP1939-D 

4

¶6 Attorney Mutschler filed his second petition for 

reinstatement on July 17, 2020. A hearing was held, via Zoom, 

before the referee on January 28, 2021. The witnesses at the 

hearing were Attorney Mutschler and K.D., a former client, who 

retained Attorney Mutschler to represent him in a traffic offense 

case in 2008 or 2009. At the hearing, Attorney Mutschler 

apologized to K.D. K.D. testified that he paid Attorney Mutschler 

$5,500, later found out that Attorney Mutschler had missed 

deadlines in the case, which prompted K.D. to file a grievance 

against Attorney Mutschler and required him to hire a new attorney 

and pay him another $5,500. In spite of this unpleasant 

experience, K.D. harbors no animosity toward Attorney Mutschler. 

He testified at the hearing: 

Everybody makes mistakes in life. Chris Mutschler was 

a very nice guy when I met him. He went through some 

hard times, I understand. . . . I'm not here to cut his 

throat. I am here to say I would like reparations for 

the money that was basically, kind of, stolen from me. 

But after this many years if he wants to go back and 

practice being a lawyer using his abilities that God 

gave him, I'm not going to stand in the way. . . . I do 

want to reiterate that everybody deserves a second 

chance, and I don't think there's one of you guys sitting 

on the panel that haven't made a mistake that you regret. 

I accept Chris's apology and I hope you give him a second 

chance. 

¶7 By the time of the hearing, Attorney Mutschler had paid 

$3,200 of restitution to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 

Protection (the Fund). He testified that it would be very 

difficult for him to locate many of his former clients, and he 

knew if he paid the Fund there would be an unassailable track 

record of his payments. Attorney Mutschler testified that the 
No. 2010AP1939-D 

5

employment he has been able to obtain since his revocation has 

paid de minimus wages and "there's just no way on $17,000 a year 

I can pay everybody back that I need to pay as quickly as I need 

to pay them." He said if his license is reinstated he has a job 

waiting that will pay $65,000 a year to start, and that income 

will allow him to significantly increase his payments, both in 

terms of restitution and in terms of paying off his other debts.

¶8 The referee issued his report and recommendation on 

March 9, 2021. The referee concluded that Attorney Mutschler has 

satisfied the requirements for reinstatement of his license to 

practice law in Wisconsin and recommends that his petition for 

reinstatement be granted.

¶9 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1) provides the standards to be 

met for reinstatement.2 Specifically, the petitioner must show by 

clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or she has 

the moral character to practice law, that his or her resumption of 

the practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration 

of justice or subversive to the public interest, and that he or 

she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of the order of 

suspension. In addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c) incorporates the 

statements that a petition for reinstatement must contain pursuant 

 

2 Effective January 1, 2021, substantial changes were made to 

the rules pertaining to lawyer disciplinary procedures, including 

the reinstatement rules, SCR 22.29 through 22.33. See S. Ct. Order 

19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12, 2020 WI 

62 (issued June 30, 2020, eff. Jan. 1, 2021). Because this 

reinstatement proceeding commenced prior to January 1, 2021, 

unless otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme court 

rules will be to those in effect prior to January 1, 2021.
No. 2010AP1939-D 

6

to SCR 22:29(4)(a)-(m). Thus, the petitioning attorney must 

demonstrate that the required representations in the reinstatement 

petition are substantiated. 

¶10 When reviewing referee reports in reinstatement 

proceedings, we utilize standards of review similar to those used 

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 in fact 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.

¶11 The OLR did not dispute that Attorney Mutschler desires 

to have his license reinstated; he has not practiced law during 

the period of his revocation; he has maintained competence and 

learning in the law by attendance at identified educational 

activities; his proposed use of his license if reinstated was 

appropriate; and he provided a full description of all business 

activities during the period of revocation. The referee readily 

agreed that Attorney Mutschler satisfied all of those 

requirements.

¶12 Throughout the course of this reinstatement proceeding, 

the OLR expressed concern about several of the reinstatement 

criteria, and the referee discussed those issues at length in his 

report. We will, likewise, discuss them in some detail. First, 

the OLR contended that Attorney Mutschler made an inaccurate 
No. 2010AP1939-D 

7

statement in his second reinstatement petition when he said, 

"ultimately, the referee [in the first reinstatement proceeding] 

concluded that the petitioner met the conditions except for [his 

payment of and plans to pay restitution]." The OLR argued that by 

making this statement, Attorney Mutschler engaged in conduct since 

the revocation which has not been exemplary and above reproach. 

Referee Kinney termed the OLR's position "a bridge too far." The 

referee noted that Attorney Mutschler made the same argument in 

his appeal from Referee Goodman's recommendation that his first 

petition for reinstatement be denied, and this court referenced it 

in its opinion by saying: "[i]n the absence of adverse findings, 

Attorney Mutschler reasons that 'as Referee Goodman has found, Mr. 

Mutschler has satisfied all of the necessary criteria for 

reinstatement, other than repaying the Fund.'" Mutschler, 2019 WI 

92, ¶11. The referee said not only did this court not criticize 

Attorney Mutschler's reasoning in this regard, it did not expressly 

say it disagreed with it. To the contrary, the referee said 

Attorney Mutschler's statement appeared to be a fair 

interpretation of Referee Goodman's report, which focused only on 

the restitution issue in ultimately recommending that Attorney 

Mutschler's bid for reinstatement be denied.

¶13 Second, the OLR argued that Attorney Mutschler's failure 

to protect client files weighed against granting his reinstatement 

petition. The referee noted that at one point Attorney Mutschler 

was evicted from his law office and rented a storage unit into 

which he placed items of property from his law office, including 

10 to 15 client files. Attorney Mutschler did not have sufficient 
No. 2010AP1939-D 

8

resources to pay the rental arrearages and as a result, in 2015 he 

was subsequently barred from accessing the storage unit and its 

contents were removed and disposed of. 

¶14 The referee said in determining the seriousness of 

Attorney Mutschler's breach of his duty to protect client files, 

it was important to note that no client ever asked for the return 

of a file. The referee opined that was not surprising given that 

Attorney Mutschler specialized in drunk driving defense and the 

typical file was likely to have contained little more than a copy 

of a citation or a criminal complaint. The referee noted there 

was unlikely to be any work product in the files because Attorney 

Mutschler admitted in his consensual revocation proceeding that 

because of his addiction he did little or nothing of value for his 

clients during that time period. The referee also opined that the 

contents of the files could have been readily replicated by 

successor counsel obtaining copies from the court files or 

prosecutors' offices. In addition, the referee stated that the 

client files at issue dated back to 2008 to 2010, and under 

standard Wisconsin dispositional guidelines, by 2015 those cases 

would likely have been long since disposed of and the files 

useless. The referee said attempting to retrieve the files would 

have been a meaningless waste of time, and it was more prudent for 

Attorney Mutschler to have prioritized his rent, child support 

payments, and efforts to reinstate his driver's license rather 

than spending money to retrieve old case files that were obsolete.

¶15 Third, the OLR expressed concern that Attorney Mutschler 

had filed an unsigned affidavit of compliance in the first 
No. 2010AP1939-D 

9

reinstatement proceeding. The referee noted that Attorney 

Mutschler testified at the first reinstatement hearing that he had 

made an inadvertent error and sent the wrong copy of the affidavit 

along with his original reinstatement petition. He promptly 

corrected the mistake. The referee noted that in its post hearing 

brief, the OLR readily conceded this should not be a bar to 

reinstatement.

¶16 Fourth, the OLR pointed out that when Attorney Mutschler 

was asked to produce tax returns for 2015 to 2019, he failed to 

produce returns for 2015 and 2016. The referee noted that in its 

post hearing brief, the OLR acknowledged that Attorney Mutschler 

was not employed during those years and presumably had no 

reportable income. 

¶17 Fifth, the OLR pointed out that Attorney Mutschler has 

accumulated child support and maintenance arrears totaling over 

$400,000 and this should be a relevant consideration as to whether 

his conduct since his revocation has been exemplary. The referee 

noted that Attorney Mutschler testified at the second 

reinstatement hearing that at the time of his divorce, which he 

termed "the absolute worse time in my life," he stipulated to child 

support and maintenance of $3,400 or $3,500 per month, an amount 

far beyond his means even at the time he agreed to it. Attorney 

Mutschler testified, "I just stipulated because with the mind of 

the depressive addict I thought I could do that." Attorney 

Mutschler ultimately petitioned to reduce his child support and 

maintenance obligations to $350 per month, but by the time he did 

so, the amount of the arrearage was staggering. The referee notes 
No. 2010AP1939-D 

10

that Wisconsin law prohibited the circuit court from retroactively 

wiping out any arrears before Attorney Mutschler's motion for a 

reduction in his obligations was filed. See Wis. Stat. 

§ 767.59(1m). In addition, the referee points out that 

§ 767.511(6) mandates that interest of one percent per month be 

assessed on arrearage. As a result, the referee notes that each 

month Attorney Mutschler makes a payment of $400 he falls further 

behind by $3,600. The referee notes that the OLR concedes that 

since May 2015, Attorney Mutschler has made his court order support 

obligations by paying $400 per month.

¶18 Sixth, the OLR expressed concern about the amount of 

Attorney Mutschler's personal debt. The referee notes that for 

several years Attorney Mutschler has taken on no new debt and has 

been able to repay much of the loan debt he owed to friends. 

¶19 Seventh, the OLR expressed concern that for several 

years Attorney Mutschler drove on a suspended driver's license. 

The referee notes that Attorney Mutschler truthfully acknowledged 

that since he did not have the money to pay off various traffic 

tickets, his driver's license was suspended and he continued to 

drive on a suspended license. However, the referee also notes 

that Attorney Mutschler paid off all traffic fines years ago, took 

the steps necessary to reinstate his driver's license, paid the 

requisite reinstatement fee, and now drives legally. 

¶20 Eighth, the OLR, as in the first reinstatement 

proceeding, continued to express concern about Attorney 

Mutschler's failure to pay much in the way of restitution.
No. 2010AP1939-D 

11

¶21 The referee said the eight concerns raised by the OLR 

represent a very small part of the whole story in this case, and 

while it is appropriate to reach back into a petitioner's past, 

that must be done in a balanced way. The referee said during 

Attorney Mutschler's 18 years of practice he rose to the pinnacle 

of his profession, lectured regularly, wrote a treatise for the 

State Bar and for the Wisconsin Impaired Driving Center at the 

University of Wisconsin, authored and published dozens of 

articles, and was called upon to testify before the Wisconsin 

Legislature on four occasions regarding amendments to the traffic 

code. The referee said the lifeblood of drunk driving defense is 

motion practice, and Attorney Mutschler had an outstanding 

reputation for thinking outside the box in crafting innovative 

motions. 

¶22 The referee said, "when the petitioner fell, he fell 

hard." The referee pointed to Attorney Mutschler's testimony at 

the first reinstatement hearing about his addiction to pain 

medication, and he explained how he ultimately went about getting 

sober. The referee also noted that Attorney Mutschler testified 

at the second reinstatement hearing that the OLR summoned him to 

appear for a meeting at their offices in Madison to discuss the 59 

grievances that had been filed against him, and almost immediately 

upon his arrival in Madison, Attorney Mutschler signed a petition 

acknowledging that he could not successfully defend against the 

allegations of misconduct and he agreed to the consensual 

revocation of his law license.
No. 2010AP1939-D 

12

¶23 The referee said that during the time since his 

revocation, Attorney Mutschler has lived an extremely frugal 

existence; has maintained sobriety; has accepted very modest 

employment opportunities; has kept current on his child support 

obligation; and has acknowledged his wrongdoing and apologized to 

his former clients. The referee said, "as much as he would like 

to be able to do so, Mr. Mutschler cannot turn back the hands of 

the clock." The referee said as a result of this proceeding, 

Attorney Mutschler's life has become an open book. The referee 

noted that the record contains six separate letters of 

recommendation from Attorney Mutschler's former colleagues. The 

referee said, "I have never previously read letters of 

recommendation which were as strong and unequivocal, and in which 

the authors had obviously taken so much time to carefully describe 

the changes they had observed." 

¶24 The referee notes that if reinstated, Attorney Mutschler 

has a job waiting which will pay him a starting salary of $65,000. 

Attorney Mutschler has indicated that $500 per month will be 

automatically taken from his wages by wage assignment and paid 

toward restitution, potentially benefitting dozens of his former 

clients. The referee also notes that Attorney Mutschler will have 

no involvement with billing or fees at the law firm and he will be 

strictly handling a motion practice. 

¶25 For all of these reasons, the referee found by clear, 

satisfactory, and convincing evidence, that Attorney Mutschler has 

met all of the criteria for reinstatement of his license to 

practice law in Wisconsin. 
No. 2010AP1939-D 

13

¶26 As noted, the OLR has not appealed the referee's 

recommendation. Upon review of the record, we agree with the 

referee that Attorney Mutschler has indeed established by clear, 

satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he has satisfied all of 

the criteria necessary for reinstatement. 

¶27 As the referee noted, this court's denial of Attorney 

Mutschler's first reinstatement petition focused on his failure to 

make any restitution payments or have a repayment plan in mind. 

Since his first reinstatement petition was denied, Attorney 

Mutschler has made valiant efforts to begin paying restitution, 

and although his meager income and other financial obligations, 

including child support, have not allowed him to make much of a 

dent in the amount owed, he has made a start, and it appears he 

has done the best he could under the circumstances. As the referee 

also noted, if Attorney Mutschler's license is reinstated, his 

employer will automatically deduct $500 per month from his wages 

to go toward restitution. With the possibility of salary increases 

over time, reinstatement of Attorney Mutschler's license will give 

him the capacity to whittle down his restitution obligations in a 

way that would never be possible if he were precluded from resuming 

his profession as an attorney. Accordingly, we adopt the referee's 

findings of fact and conclusions of law, and we accept the 

referee's recommendation that Attorney Mutschler's license to 

practice law is Wisconsin should be reinstated. As is our standard 

policy, we also find it appropriate to impose the full costs of 

this proceeding on Attorney Mutschler.
No. 2010AP1939-D 

14

¶28 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Christopher A. 

Mutschler to practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated, effective 

the date of this order.

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

this order, Christopher A. Mutschler shall pay to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $9,028.76 

as of March 29, 2021.

¶30 JILL J. KAROFSKY, J., did not participate.
No. 2010AP1939-D 

1