Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jeffrey M. Blessinger
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2017AP002036-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 21, 2017

2017 WI 107 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2017AP2036-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffrey M. Blessinger, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Jeffrey M. Blessinger, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BLESSINGER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 21, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
A.W. Bradley, J., concurs (opinion filed). 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2017 WI 107
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP2036-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffrey M. Blessinger, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Jeffrey M. Blessinger, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 21, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Jeffrey M. Blessinger has filed 
a petition for the consensual revocation of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 
22.19.1  Attorney Blessinger's petition states that he cannot 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.19 provides:  
(1) An attorney who is the subject of an 
investigation 
for 
possible 
misconduct 
or 
the 
respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP2036-D   
 
2 
 
successfully defend against the allegations of professional 
misconduct arising out of seven separate Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) investigations concerning his conduct.  An OLR 
summary of those investigations and of the potential allegations 
of professional misconduct is attached to Attorney Blessinger's 
petition as Appendix A. 
                                                                                                                                                             
court a petition for the revocation by consent or his 
or her license to practice law.  
(2) The petition shall state that the petitioner 
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of 
misconduct.  
(3) If a complaint has not been filed, the 
petition shall be filed in the supreme court and shall 
include the director's summary of the misconduct 
allegations being investigated. Within 20 days after 
the date of filing of the petition, the director shall 
file in the supreme court a recommendation on the 
petition. Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme 
court may extend the time for filing a recommendation.  
(4) If a complaint has been filed, the petition 
shall be filed in the supreme court and served on the 
director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has 
been assigned. Within 20 days after the filing of the 
petition, the director shall file in the supreme court 
a response in support of or in opposition to the 
petition and serve a copy on the referee. Upon a 
showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend 
the time for filing a response. The referee shall file 
a report and recommendation on the petition in the 
supreme court within 30 days after receipt of the 
director's response.  
(5) The supreme court shall grant the petition 
and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or 
deny the petition and remand the matter to the 
director or to the referee for further proceedings. 
No. 
2017AP2036-D   
 
3 
 
¶2 
Attorney Blessinger was admitted to the practice of 
law in Wisconsin in 1996.  He practices family law in Baraboo, 
Wisconsin.  Attorney Blessinger has not previously been the 
subject of professional discipline.  However, his law license is 
currently administratively suspended for failure to pay state 
bar dues, failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal 
education requirements, and failure to comply with trust account 
certification requirements.  In addition, on June 12, 2017, this 
court temporarily suspended Attorney Blessinger for failure to 
cooperate with an OLR disciplinary investigation into this 
misconduct.  His law license remains suspended. 
¶3 
The OLR summary attached to Attorney Blessinger's 
petition for consensual revocation describes investigations into 
potential ethical violations involving seven different client 
matters from 2013 to 2017. 
Matter of D.H. 
¶4 
On March 17, 2017, D.H. retained Attorney Blessinger 
and paid him $2,000 in cash to represent D.H. in a family law 
matter.  Attorney Blessinger failed to enter an appearance in 
D.H.'s case.  D.H. has not heard from or been able to reach 
Attorney Blessinger since March 17, 2017, and there is no 
evidence that Attorney Blessinger performed any legal services 
for D.H.  Attorney Blessinger has not refunded any of the 
advanced fee paid by D.H. 
No. 
2017AP2036-D   
 
4 
 
¶5 
The OLR's summary indicates that Attorney Blessinger's 
handling of D.H.'s matter involves potential violations of 
SCR 20:1.3,2 SCR 20:1.4(a),3 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2),4 and 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides a lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client. 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides a lawyer shall: 
(1) Promptly inform the client of any decision or 
circumstance with respect to which the client's 
informed consent, as defined in SCR 20:1.0(f), is 
required by these rules;  
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the 
means by which the client's objectives are to be 
accomplished;  
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter;  
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information; and  
(5) consult with the client about any relevant 
limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer 
knows that the client expects assistance not permitted 
by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.  
4 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2) provides:  
(1) 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 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.  
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP2036-D   
 
5 
 
SCR 20:1.16(d).5  Further, Attorney Blessinger has not cooperated 
in the OLR's investigation, implicating SCR 22.03(2),6 SCR 
22.03(6),7 and SCR 20:8.4(h).8  
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) 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.  
5 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:  
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
6 SCR 22.03(2) provides:  
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the respondent of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The 
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 
request for a written response. The director may allow 
additional time to respond. Following receipt of the 
response, 
the 
director 
may 
conduct 
further 
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation.  
7 SCR 22.03(6) provides:  
In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, 
the 
respondent's 
wilful 
failure 
to 
provide 
relevant 
information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP2036-D   
 
6 
 
¶6 
With respect to restitution, Attorney Blessinger has 
not refunded any of the advanced fee paid by D.H., and the OLR 
recommends and Attorney Blessinger agrees that the court should 
order Attorney Blessinger to pay $2,000 in restitution to D.H. 
Matter of R.K. 
¶7 
In November 2016, R.K. retained Attorney Blessinger to 
represent her in a family law matter.  A third party, A.M., paid 
Attorney 
Blessinger 
$2,000 
to 
represent 
R.K. 
 
Attorney 
Blessinger promptly cashed the check, but failed to enter an 
appearance in R.K.'s case.  A.M. has not heard from or been able 
to reach Attorney Blessinger since November 2, 2016.  R.K. has 
not heard from or been able to reach Attorney Blessinger since 
March 15, 2017.  There is no evidence that Attorney Blessinger 
performed any legal work for R.K.  Attorney Blessinger has not 
refunded any of the advanced fee paid on behalf of R.K. 
¶8 
The OLR's summary indicates that Attorney Blessinger's 
handling of R.K.'s matter involves potential violations of 
SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a), SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2), and 
SCR 20:1.16(d).  Further, Attorney Blessinger has not cooperated 
                                                                                                                                                             
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 
the matters asserted in the grievance.  
8 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 
or SCR 22.04(1). 
 
No. 
2017AP2036-D   
 
7 
 
in the investigation, implicating SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6) and 
SCR 20:8.4(h).  
¶9 
With respect to restitution, Attorney Blessinger has 
not refunded any of the advanced fee paid on behalf of R.K. and 
the OLR recommends and Attorney Blessinger agrees that this 
court should order Attorney Blessinger to pay $2,000 in 
restitution to A.M. 
Matter of T.L. 
¶10 A.M. who paid Attorney Blessinger an advanced fee to 
represent R.K., also paid him $3,000 on September 16, 2016 to 
represent T.L. in a Sauk County matter.  Attorney Blessinger 
cashed the check but there is no evidence that he performed any 
legal services for T.L.  A.M. has not heard from or been able to 
reach Attorney Blessinger since November 2, 2016. Attorney 
Blessinger has not refunded any of the advanced fee paid by A.M. 
for representation of T.L. 
¶11 The OLR's summary indicates that Attorney Blessinger's 
handling of A.M.'s matter involves potential violations of 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1)9 and SCR 20:1.15(e)(1).10  Further, Attorney 
                                                 
9 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. 
10 SCR 20:1.15(e)(1) provides:  
 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP2036-D   
 
8 
 
Blessinger has not cooperated in the investigation, implicating 
SC 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6) and SCR 20:8.4(h).  
¶12 With respect to restitution, Attorney Blessinger has 
not refunded any of the advanced fee paid by A.M. and the OLR 
recommends and Attorney Blessinger agrees that this court should 
order him to pay $3,000 in restitution to A.M.  
Matter of A.N. 
¶13 In May 2013, A.N. retained Attorney Blessinger to 
represent her in a divorce.  Attorney Blessinger entered an 
appearance in May 2013 and A.N.'s judgment of divorce was 
entered in February 2015. 
¶14 After the divorce order issued, motions were filed 
pertaining to a quit claim deed on the marital property in favor 
of A.N.  Attorney Blessinger was supposed to facilitate the 
signing and filing of the quit claim deed.  He faxed A.N a copy 
of the quit claim deed, but did not file it.  A.N. has been 
unable to reach Attorney Blessinger by phone or email since July 
of 2016 and ultimately handled this filing herself.   
                                                                                                                                                             
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client has an interest, or in which a lawyer has 
received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or 
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client 
or 3rd party in writing. Except as stated in this rule 
or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the 
client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to the 
client or 3rd party any funds or other property that 
the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive. 
No. 
2017AP2036-D   
 
9 
 
¶15 In September 2016, opposing counsel filed a series of 
motions.  Attorney Blessinger was still A.N.'s attorney of 
record and A.N. sent him numerous emails and made numerous phone 
calls with no response.  Attorney Blessinger never responded to 
the motions and again, A.N. was forced to represent herself.  At 
some point in September 2016, Attorney Blessinger contacted A.N. 
claiming a family emergency meant that he would not be able to 
continue to represent her; he told her to hire other counsel, 
however, he did not timely file a motion to withdraw as counsel.  
¶16 On October 28, 2016, after the OLR contacted him 
regarding this grievance, Attorney Blessinger told the OLR that 
A.N. had agreed to withdraw her grievance.  This was not true.  
Attorney Blessinger finally sent A.N. a stipulation and order 
for withdrawal, and the court permitted him to withdraw on 
December 1, 2016.  
¶17 On December 29, 2016, A.N. asked Attorney Blessinger 
for a copy of her file for a January 30, 2017 hearing.  He did 
not respond.  A.N. eventually obtained her file from the 
attorney representing Attorney Blessinger in the grievance 
investigation. 
¶18 The OLR's summary indicates that Attorney Blessinger's 
handling of A.N.'s matter involves potential violations of  
SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a), SCR 20:1.16(d), and SCR 20:8.4(c).11 
                                                 
11 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation. 
No. 
2017AP2036-D   
 
10 
 
Further, 
Attorney 
Blessinger 
has 
not 
cooperated 
in 
the 
investigation, implicating SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6) and 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶19 With respect to possible restitution, the OLR has 
indicated that the only billing statement it has in this matter 
appears to be for legal services that Attorney Blessinger 
rendered to A.N. from early June through July 11, 2016.  It 
shows a total of $7,560 billed.  
¶20 A.N. stated that she met with Attorney Blessinger 
sometime after October 28, 2016 and paid her bill in full, 
paying a total of $14,479.56.  She says that Attorney Blessinger 
stated that any future work would be pro bono.  
¶21 The OLR's policy is to seek restitution only under the 
following circumstances: (1) there is a reasonably ascertainable 
amount; (2) the funds to be restored were in the lawyer's direct 
control; (3) the funds to be restored do not constitute 
incidental or consequential damages; and (4) the grievant's or 
respondent's rights in a collateral proceeding will not likely 
be prejudiced.  In this matter the OLR was unable to determine 
the full extent of Attorney Blessinger's work on A.N.'s behalf 
and thus does not recommend restitution to A.N. in this matter. 
Matter of T.S. 
¶22 On December 6, 2016, T.S. retained Attorney Blessinger 
to represent her in a family law matter.  T.S. paid Attorney 
Blessinger $3,000 by check and Attorney Blessinger promptly 
cashed the check.  However, Attorney Blessinger did not enter an 
appearance in T.S.'s case; T.S. has not heard from or been able 
No. 
2017AP2036-D   
 
11 
 
to reach Attorney Blessinger since December 21, 2016, and there 
is no evidence that Attorney Blessinger performed any legal 
services for T.S.  The Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection eventually reimbursed T.S. for the $3,000 in legal 
fees she paid Attorney Blessinger. 
¶23 The OLR's summary indicates that Attorney Blessinger's 
handling of T.S.'s matter involves potential violations of 
SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a), SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2), and 
SCR 20:1.16(d).  Further, Attorney Blessinger has not cooperated 
in the investigation, implicating SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6) and 
SCR 20:8.4(h).  
¶24 With respect to restitution, Attorney Blessinger has 
not refunded any of the advanced fee that T.S. paid and the OLR 
recommends and Attorney Blessinger agrees that we should order 
Attorney Blessinger to pay $3,000 in restitution to the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, relating to the 
matter of T.S.  
Matter of L.W. 
¶25 In July 2016, L.W. retained Attorney Blessinger to 
represent her in a divorce.  L.W. made advanced fee payments to 
Attorney Blessinger in the amount of $2,000 on August 18, 2016 
and $3,000 on January 6, 2017.  Attorney Blessinger entered an 
appearance on August 24, 2016.  He appeared by telephone at a 
December 15, 2016 status conference, but failed to file his 
client's financial disclosure statement and did not otherwise 
act to meaningfully advance his client's interests in the 
divorce. 
No. 
2017AP2036-D   
 
12 
 
¶26 L.W. had trouble reaching Attorney Blessinger until 
February 22, 2017, when Attorney Blessinger informed her that a 
scheduling conference was to occur in her case the next day.  On 
February 22, 2017, Attorney Blessinger and L.W. signed a 
stipulation allowing Attorney Blessinger's withdrawal from the 
matter.  The court granted the motion to withdraw on February 
23, 2017.  L.W. was thereafter unable to reach Attorney 
Blessinger, despite numerous attempts, and was forced to retain 
successor counsel to conclude the divorce. 
¶27 The OLR's summary indicates that Attorney Blessinger's 
handling of L.W.'s matter involves potential violations of 
SCR 20:1.3, 
20:1.4(a)(3) 
and 
(4), 
SCR 
20:1.5(a), 
and 
SCR 20:1.16(d). 
¶28 With 
respect 
to 
restitution, 
Attorney 
Blessinger 
billed L.W. at a rate of $175 per hour, and, as of January 12, 
2017, he had billed her a total of $2,248.75.  There is no 
evidence that Attorney Blessinger did any work or billed any 
additional time after January 12, 2017.  Accordingly, the OLR 
recommends and Attorney Blessinger agrees that this court should 
order Attorney Blessinger to pay L.W. restitution in the amount 
of $2,751.25. 
Matter of J.W. 
¶29 In June 2015, J.W. retained Attorney Blessinger to 
represent her in a post judgment family law matter and paid 
Attorney Blessinger $3,000.  Attorney Blessinger entered an 
appearance on June 30, 2015 and attended mediation with J.W. 
that did not resolve the matter.  J.W. states that Attorney 
No. 
2017AP2036-D   
 
13 
 
Blessinger left his firm in August 2015 and that she chose to 
retain Attorney Blessinger as her attorney.  J.W. has not heard 
from or been able to reach Attorney Blessinger since at least 
March 2017.  Attorney Blessinger withdrew from J.W.'s case on 
June 21, 2017. 
¶30 The OLR's summary indicates that Attorney Blessinger's 
handling of J.W.'s matter involves potential violations of 
SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a), and SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2). 
Further, 
Attorney 
Blessinger 
has 
not 
cooperated 
in 
the 
investigation, implicating SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6) and 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶31 With 
respect 
to 
restitution, 
Attorney 
Blessinger 
performed some legal services in this matter and the OLR states 
that 
its 
investigation 
has 
not 
revealed 
any 
reasonably 
ascertainable 
restitution 
amount 
so 
it 
does 
not 
seek 
a 
restitution order in this matter. 
¶32 Attorney 
Blessinger's 
petition 
for 
consensual 
revocation asserts that he is seeking the consensual revocation 
of his license freely, voluntarily, and knowingly.  He states 
that 
he 
cannot 
successfully 
defend 
himself 
against 
the 
allegations of misconduct summarized above and more fully 
described in the OLR's summary.  He understands that he is 
giving up his right to contest each misconduct allegation 
referenced in Appendix A.  Attorney Blessinger also acknowledges 
that he understands that he has a right to counsel, and indeed, 
he is represented by counsel.  The petition acknowledges that if 
the court grants the petition and revokes his license, Attorney 
No. 
2017AP2036-D   
 
14 
 
Blessinger will be subject to the requirements of SCR 22.26 and, 
should he ever wish to seek the reinstatement of his license, 
the reinstatement procedure set forth in SCRs 22.29-22.33. 
¶33 Having reviewed Attorney Blessinger's petition, the 
OLR's summary of possible misconduct, and the OLR's October 31, 
2017 written recommendation in support of the petition and 
restitution, we conclude that the petition for consensual 
revocation should be granted and that Attorney Blessinger should 
be required to pay restitution as set forth herein.  
¶34 The facts here portray a repeated pattern of serious 
misconduct dating from 2013 and continuing until quite recently.  
The allegations of misconduct include dishonesty and multiple 
instances of Attorney Blessinger failing to diligently represent 
clients; failing to properly communicate with clients; failing 
to abide by fee agreement and trust account rules; failing to 
return upon termination of representation fees or property to 
which clients were entitled; and, failing to cooperate with the 
OLR's attempt to investigate his conduct.  Attorney Blessinger's 
misconduct is serious and egregious.  He is either unwilling or 
unable to conform his conduct to the standards that are required 
to practice law in this state.  Anything less than a revocation 
of his law license would unduly depreciate the seriousness of 
his misconduct, fail to protect the public and the court system 
from 
further 
misconduct, 
and 
inadequately 
deter 
similar 
misbehavior by other attorneys.  Revocation is clearly deserved. 
¶35 We accede to the OLR's request to award restitution 
only in the matters identified herein.  The OLR determined that 
No. 
2017AP2036-D   
 
15 
 
it could not be established that A.N. and J.W. are entitled to 
restitution, and there may be other as yet unidentified clients 
or third parties that may be entitled to restitution.  We 
emphasize that if Attorney Blessinger were ever to seek the 
reinstatement of his license, he would be required to prove 
affirmatively that he had made full restitution to all persons 
injured or harmed by his misconduct.  See SCR 22.29(4m).  
¶36 Consistent with Attorney Blessinger's petition and the 
OLR's recommendation, we order Attorney Blessinger to pay $2,000 
to D.H.; $2,000 and $3,000 to A.M. for two different matters; 
$2,751.25 to L.W., and $3,000 to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for 
Client Protection.  
¶37 Finally, because this matter is being resolved via a 
petition for consensual revocation without the need to appoint a 
referee or hold an extensive hearing, we do not impose costs on 
Attorney Blessinger.  
¶38 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license 
revocation is granted.  
¶39 IT 
IS 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
license 
of 
Jeffrey 
M. 
Blessinger to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective 
the date of this order.  
¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jeffrey M. Blessinger pay 
restitution in the following amounts:  
 $2,000 to D.H. 
 $2,000 and $3,000 ($5,000 in total) to A.M.  
 $2,751.25 to L.W. 
No. 
2017AP2036-D   
 
16 
 
 $3,000 
to 
the 
Wisconsin 
Lawyers' 
Fund 
for 
Client 
Protection.  
¶41 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Jeffrey M. Blessinger shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
¶42 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Jeffrey M. Blessinger's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay state bar dues, failure to 
comply with mandatory continuing legal education requirements, 
and 
failure 
to 
comply 
with 
trust 
account 
certification 
requirements, will remain in effect until each reason for the 
administrative 
suspension 
has 
been 
rectified 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 22.28(1). 
 
No.  2017AP2036-D.awb 
 
1 
 
 
¶43 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   (concurring).  Although I join 
the opinion of the court, I write separately because I would 
order additional restitution to both clients A.N. and J.W.  
Accordingly, I respectfully concur. 
 
 
 
No.  2017AP2036-D.awb 
 
 
 
1