Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mark S. Tishberg
Citation: 2014 WI 118
Docket Number: 2013AP002230-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 28, 2014

2014 WI 118 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP2230-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Mark S. Tishberg, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Mark S. Tishberg, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TISHBERG 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 28, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 118
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP2230-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Mark S. Tishberg, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Mark S. Tishberg, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 28, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that Attorney Mark S. Tishberg be publicly reprimanded 
for professional misconduct.  That misconduct consists of 
failing to abide by a client's decisions concerning the 
objectives of representation; failing to explain a matter to a 
client to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding the representation; failing 
to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing 
No. 
2013AP2230-D   
 
2 
 
a client; failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter; failing to promptly comply with reasonable 
requests by a client for information; failing to reduce a 
contingent fee agreement to writing; and engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. 
¶2 
In addition to a public reprimand, the referee 
recommended that Attorney Tishberg pay the costs of this 
proceeding.  As of July 7, 2014, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) reported costs of $2,555.89.   
¶3 
No appeal has been filed, so we review this matter 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).1  We adopt the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree that 
a public reprimand is the appropriate discipline for Attorney 
Tishberg's misconduct in this matter.  We further conclude that 
Attorney Tishberg should pay the costs of this disciplinary 
proceeding. 
¶4 
Attorney Tishberg was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1990.  He has no disciplinary history.   
¶5 
On October 7, 2013, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Tishberg alleging five counts of misconduct with 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states:   
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. 
2013AP2230-D   
 
3 
 
respect to a personal injury matter he handled for a former 
client.  Richard C. Ninneman was appointed referee.   
¶6 
By stipulation filed November 7, 2013, Attorney 
Tishberg admitted the allegations of misconduct contained in the 
complaint.  Only the appropriate level of discipline for the 
violations remained in dispute.    
¶7 
Attorney Tishberg filed a written statement in which 
he conceded his misconduct but argued that a reprimand was the 
appropriate sanction.  A colleague of Attorney Tishberg filed a 
letter attesting to Attorney Tishberg's good character and also 
requesting the issuance of a reprimand.  The OLR filed a brief 
urging the imposition of a 90-day license suspension.   
¶8 
On June 2, 2014, the referee conducted an evidentiary 
hearing.   
¶9 
On June 17, 2014, the referee filed his report.  Based 
on the parties' stipulation and filings, the referee found the 
following facts.   
¶10 Attorney Tishberg is a sole practitioner in Milwaukee, 
who shares office space with several other attorneys. His 
practice is generally concentrated on criminal and family law, 
with an occasional personal injury matter.  In such personal 
injury cases, Attorney Tishberg customarily enters into a 
written fee agreement with the client in order to set forth his 
contingent fee arrangement. He frequently is involved in pro 
bono representation of clients in the sense that he will take on 
matters without a retainer and knowing that the likelihood of 
No. 
2013AP2230-D   
 
4 
 
being compensated at a normal hourly rate or otherwise is fairly 
unlikely.  
¶11 The OLR's complaint arises out of Attorney Tishberg's 
representation of two individuals, J.D. and his spouse, L.D., in 
a personal injury matter.  J.D. and L.D. were long-time personal 
friends of Attorney Tishberg's wife's family.  In January 2001, 
J.D. was injured while a passenger on a commercial airline 
flight.  J.D. hired Attorney Tishberg to file a lawsuit 
regarding the injury.  Although Attorney Tishberg customarily 
took on personal injury cases on a contingency basis, there is 
no evidence of a written fee agreement regarding Attorney 
Tishberg's representation of J.D.   
¶12 In January 2004, Attorney Tishberg filed a complaint 
in circuit court against the airline and its underwriters, 
seeking damages on behalf of J.D. and L.D.  However, Attorney 
Tishberg failed to effect timely service on the defendants as 
required by statute, and the circuit court dismissed the action 
with prejudice in October 2004.   
¶13 Attorney Tishberg did not advise J.D. or L.D. that 
their lawsuit had been dismissed.  According to the stipulation 
between Attorney Tishberg and the OLR, between October 2004 and 
March 2010, Attorney Tishberg represented to J.D. that he was 
negotiating a settlement of the lawsuit.  In late 2009 and early 
2010, Attorney Tishberg repeatedly represented to J.D. that the 
case could settle for $12,000.  Attorney Tishberg planned to use 
fees he anticipating receiving from another client matter to 
No. 
2013AP2230-D   
 
5 
 
fund the $12,000 payment to J.D. and to thereby prevent J.D. and 
L.D. from finding out that their lawsuit had been dismissed.   
¶14 In June 2010, J.D., having not received any funds from 
Attorney Tishberg, filed a grievance with the OLR.  It was not 
until after J.D. filed this grievance that Attorney Tishberg 
advised J.D. and L.D. that their personal injury lawsuit had 
been dismissed. 
¶15 J.D. and L.D. engaged another lawyer to pursue a claim 
against Attorney Tishberg.  Attorney Tishberg settled the claim 
by executing a promissory note to J.D. and L.D. for a stated 
amount plus interest.  In December 2010, using monies from his 
personal retirement account, Attorney Tishberg paid J.D. and 
L.D. $13,270.85, which included the fees of J.D.'s and L.D.'s 
successor counsel.   
¶16 Attorney Tishberg did not charge or collect any fees 
from J.D. and L.D., nor did he recover any of his disbursements 
with respect to their previous personal injury action.   
¶17 Attorney Tishberg and the OLR stipulated, and the 
referee agreed, that Attorney Tishberg's actions described above 
constituted the following professional misconduct: 
 COUNT ONE:  By failing to advise J.D. and L.D. that he 
had failed to timely serve the personal injury lawsuit 
in question, and by failing to advise J.D. and L.D. 
that the defendants had moved for, and the circuit 
court had granted, a dismissal of their lawsuit with 
prejudice, 
Attorney 
Tishberg 
violated 
former 
SCR 20:1.2(a) 
(failing 
to 
abide 
by 
a 
client's 
No. 
2013AP2230-D   
 
6 
 
decisions concerning the objectives of representation) 
and SCR 20:1.4(b) (failing to explain a matter to the 
client to the extent reasonably necessary to permit 
the client to make  informed decisions regarding the 
representation). 
 COUNT TWO:  By failing to take the steps necessary to 
timely serve the personal injury lawsuit in question, 
Attorney Tishberg violated SCR 20:1.3 (failing to act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
promptness 
in 
representing a client). 
 COUNT THREE:  By failing between 2004 and September 
2010 to promptly respond to J.D.'s reasonable requests 
for information and to provide accurate information to 
J.D. about the status of his case, Attorney Tishberg 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) (failing to keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the 
matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests 
by the client for information). 
 COUNT FOUR:  By failing to enter into a written fee 
agreement with J.D. and L.D., Attorney Tishberg 
violated SCR 20:1.5(c) (failing to reduce a contingent 
fee agreement to writing). 
 COUNT FIVE:  By engaging in a course of conduct to 
hide from J.D. that his personal injury lawsuit had 
been dismissed in October 2004, and to deceive J.D. 
into believing that J.D. might obtain or had obtained 
a 
settlement 
of 
the 
lawsuit, 
Attorney 
Tishberg 
No. 
2013AP2230-D   
 
7 
 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 
¶18 Regarding the question of the appropriate discipline, 
the referee noted a variety of mitigating factors:  (1) Attorney 
Tishberg has practiced for 24 years without any disciplinary 
problems; (2) Attorney Tishberg admits and is truly remorseful 
for his mistakes; (3) Attorney Tishberg possesses many positive 
character 
traits 
and 
performs 
extensive 
pro 
bono 
work; 
(4) Attorney 
Tishberg 
withdrew 
money 
from 
his 
personal 
retirement account to settle the claim brought by J.D. and L.D., 
who at the time were represented by separate counsel; and 
(5) Attorney Tishberg did not charge or collect any fees from 
J.D. and L.D., nor did he recover any of his disbursements with 
respect to their personal injury action.   
¶19 The referee wrote that in light of such evidence, a 
90-day suspension would be "disproportionately harsh."  The 
referee instead recommended the issuance of a public reprimand.  
¶20 The matter is now before this court to review the 
referee's report and recommendation.  No appeal has been filed. 
¶21 This court concludes that the record supports the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  They are 
unchallenged and this court adopts them.   
¶22 With respect to the discipline to be imposed, we 
determine 
the 
appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline 
given 
the 
particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's 
recommendation, but benefiting from it.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 
No. 
2013AP2230-D   
 
8 
 
660 N.W.2d 686.  We agree with the referee that Attorney 
Tishberg's misconduct warrants a public reprimand.  Attorney 
Tishberg's attempts to cover up the effects of his failure to 
timely serve J.D.'s and L.D.'s personal injury lawsuit were 
undeniably foolish.  However, there is no evidence that Attorney 
Tishberg attempted or expected to obtain any personal gain as a 
result of his conduct.  In addition, because Attorney Tishberg 
used his own retirement funds to pay J.D. and L.D. the apparent 
value of their personal injury claim plus their subsequent 
attorney fees, there was no monetary loss to the client.  
Attorney Tishberg cooperated completely in the investigation of 
this matter, has expressed genuine remorse for his misconduct, 
and has no previous history of misconduct.  Under these 
circumstances, we are satisfied that a public reprimand of 
Attorney Tishberg is sufficient to impress upon him the 
seriousness of his professional misconduct and to protect the 
public from similar misconduct in the future.  
¶23 The referee further recommended that Attorney Tishberg 
be required to pay all costs of the disciplinary proceeding, 
which total $2,555.89 as of July 7, 2014.  Attorney Tishberg has 
not objected to or appealed from the referee's report and 
recommendation.  Under SCR 22.24(1), this court has discretion 
to assess all or a portion of the costs of the disciplinary 
proceeding in which misconduct has been found against the 
respondent.  There is no claim in the instant case that the 
costs requested by the OLR are excessive or unreasonable.  
No. 
2013AP2230-D   
 
9 
 
Accordingly, we order Attorney Tishberg to pay the costs of this 
proceeding, as recommended by the referee. 
¶24 No restitution was sought and none is ordered in this 
proceeding. 
¶25 IT IS ORDERED that Mark S. Tishberg is publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Mark S. Tishberg shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 
been full compliance with all conditions of this decision. 
 
 
No. 
2013AP2230-D   
 
 
 
1