Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Melinda R. Alfredson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2021AP001106-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 25, 2022

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