Title: Mark Halbman v. Mitchell J. Barrock
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2015AP001904
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 12, 2017

2017 WI 91 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2015AP1904 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Mark Halbman, 
          Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, 
     v. 
Mitchell J. Barrock D/B/A Barrock & Barrock, 
          Defendant-Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at 372 Wis. 2d 458, 888 N.W.2d 247 
(2016 – Unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 12, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
September 12, 2017 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Milwaukee 
 
JUDGE: 
Dennis P. Moroney 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, J. concurs, joined by A.W. BRADLEY, 
J. 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs 
filed by Robert A. Levine, Jonathan J. Cattey, and Law Offices 
of Robert A. Levine, Milwaukee.  There was an oral argument by 
Robert A. Levine. 
 
For the defendant-respondent, there was a brief filed by 
Mitchell Barrock and Barrock & Barrock, Brookfield. There was an 
oral argument by Mitchell Barrock.  
 
 
2017 WI 91
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No. 2015AP1904  
(L.C. No. 
2011CV4993) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Mark Halbman, 
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Mitchell J. Barrock D/B/A Barrock & Barrock, 
 
          Defendant-Respondent. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 12, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Dismissed as 
improvidently granted.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.  Mark Halbman petitioned for review of the 
decision 
of 
the 
court 
of 
appeals, 
Halbman 
v. 
Barrock, 
No. 2015AP1904, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 
2016), affirming the circuit court's order dismissing Halbman's 
legal malpractice cause of action against Attorney Mitchell J. 
Barrock for failure to satisfy his prima facie burden of proof 
as to damages.  After reviewing the record and the briefs of 
both parties, and after hearing oral arguments, we conclude that 
this matter should be dismissed as improvidently granted. 
No.  2015AP1904    
 
2 
 
¶2 
By the Court.—The review of the decision of the court 
of appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted. 
No.  2015AP1904.ssa 
 
1 
 
 
¶3 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   (concurring).  I agree 
that review was improvidently granted and should be dismissed.   
¶4 
I do not join the per curiam opinion.  I write 
separately because I believe the court should explain its 
dismissal to the litigants and to the public.     
¶5 
The parties have, at this court's request, expended 
significant time, effort, and money in submitting briefs and 
participating in oral argument in this court on the assumption 
that the case would be heard and decided on the merits.  The 
parties and the public, in my opinion, are owed an explanation 
of the court's dismissal at this stage of the appellate 
proceedings without a decision on the merits.   
¶6 
In recent years this court has often offered an 
explanation of a dismissal of a matter as improvidently granted; 
this practice has not been entirely consistent.1  The United 
States Supreme Court also has not been consistent in explaining 
its reasons for dismissing a writ of certiorari as improvidently 
granted.2 
                                                 
1 For a published explanation by this court of its dismissal 
of a matter as improvidently granted, see, for example, Nedvidek 
v. Kuipers, 2009 WI 44, 317 Wis. 2d 340, 766 N.W.2d 205; State 
v. Welda, 2009 WI 35, 317 Wis. 2d 87, 765 N.W.2d 555; State v. 
Gajewski, 2009 WI 22, 316 Wis. 2d 1, 762 N.W.2d 104; State v. 
Townsend, 2007 WI 31, 299 Wis. 2d 672, 728 N.W.2d 342. 
2 For an explanation of the practice of the United States 
Supreme Court in dismissal of a writ of certiorari as 
improvidently granted, including a list of reasons given in 
various cases for dismissing previously granted petitions, see 
Stephan M. Shapiro et al., Supreme Court Practice § 5.15 at 358-
363, 368, 511 (10th ed. 2013).   
(continued) 
No.  2015AP1904.ssa 
 
2 
 
¶7 
I shall explain the background of the case and my 
reasons for concurring in the dismissal as improvidently 
granted. 
¶8 
Mark Halbman's petition for review (which at least 
three members of the court voted to grant) relates to Halbman's 
claim of legal malpractice against his former attorney, Mitchell 
J. Barrock, and presented the following two issues for this 
court's review: 
1. Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the 
circuit court's grant of the defendant's Motion to 
Dismiss on the basis that the plaintiff had failed 
to establish a prima facie case as to damages. 
2. Whether the circuit court erred in ruling that the 
value 
of 
the 
plaintiff's 
underlying 
case 
was 
conclusively established at the second trial and 
therefore, precluding the plaintiff from introducing 
evidence of the first jury verdict of $182,250.00.  
¶9 
Attorney Barrock responded to the petition for review 
by letter as follows: 
[T]he only issues of malpractice are those caused by 
attorney 
Levine 
[representing 
Halbman] 
in 
his 
negligently failing to subpoena necessary witnesses to 
prove his case in chief . . . . [T]he Court of Appeals 
properly denied [Halbman's] appeal and Motion for 
Reconsideration and there are no new issues for the 
Supreme Court to review.  
¶10 After reviewing the record and briefs of both parties, 
having 
heard 
oral 
argument, 
and 
having 
participated 
in 
                                                                                                                                                             
For an explanation by the United States Supreme Court in 
dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, see, 
for example, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 534 U.S. 103 
(2001); Izumi v. U.S. Phillips Corp., 510 U.S. 27 (1993); New 
York v. Uplinger, 467 U.S. 246 (1984). 
No.  2015AP1904.ssa 
 
3 
 
discussion with members of the court, I conclude that this 
matter should be dismissed as improvidently granted.   
¶11 The basic issue for this court is whether Halbman 
failed to present the requisite evidence to support a damage 
award in his favor.  The court of appeals examined the record 
and concluded that Halbman, the plaintiff, failed to carry his 
burden of proving damages and that the circuit court did not err 
in dismissing the case at the close of Halbman's case-in-chief. 
¶12 The review should be dismissed as improvidently 
granted because the issues for which we took the case do not 
present any real or significant questions of federal or state 
law or lead to developing, clarifying, or harmonizing the law.  
Cf. Wis. Stat. § 809.62(1r) (Criteria for granting review).  
Further review by this court and publication of an opinion by 
this court would not serve any purpose. 
¶13 For 
the 
reasons 
set 
forth 
I 
write 
separately, 
concurring in the dismissal.        
¶14 I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY joins this opinion. 
No.  2015AP1904.ssa 
 
 
 
1