Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas E. Bielinski
Citation: 2012 WI 123
Docket Number: 2012AP001654-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 18, 2012

2012 WI 123 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP1654-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas E. Bielinski, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Thomas E. Bielinski, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BIELINSKI     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 18, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 123
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.    2012AP1654-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas E. Bielinski, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Thomas E. Bielinski, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 18, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Thomas E. 
Bielinski pursuant to SCR 22.12.1  The parties stipulate that 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides: 
(1) 
The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to 
the 
facts, 
conclusions 
of 
law 
regarding 
misconduct, and discipline to be imposed. The 
No. 
 2012AP1654-D   
 
2 
 
Attorney Bielinski admits to the facts and misconduct alleged in 
the OLR's complaint and agrees that the appropriate level of 
discipline is the revocation of his license to practice law. 
¶2 
We approve the stipulation and adopt the stipulated 
facts and conclusions of law.  We agree that the seriousness of 
Attorney Bielinski's misconduct warrants the revocation of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶3 
Attorney Bielinski was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in May of 1985 and practiced in Brookfield.  He has 
not previously been the subject of professional discipline.  On 
June 12, 2012, Attorney Bielinski's license to practice law was 
suspended for failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal 
educational (CLE) reporting requirements.  His license remains 
suspended. 
¶4 
On August 23, 2011, Attorney Bielinski was charged 
with felony theft by false representation of greater than 
                                                                                                                                                             
supreme court may consider the complaint and 
stipulation without the appointment of a referee. 
(2) 
If the supreme court approves a stipulation, it 
shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions 
of law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
(3) 
If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, a 
referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed 
as 
a 
complaint 
filed 
without 
a 
stipulation. 
(4) 
A stipulation rejected by the supreme court has 
no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
No. 
 2012AP1654-D   
 
3 
 
$10,000 in violation of Wis. Stat. § 943.20(1)(d).  See State v. 
Bielinski, Milwaukee County Case No. 2011CF3705. 
¶5 
The criminal complaint alleged that Attorney Bielinski 
stole $542,261.61 held in trust by the Milwaukee County Clerk of 
Circuit Court and Milwaukee County Treasurer by falsely claiming 
to represent people entitled to such money.  The criminal 
complaint further alleged that Attorney Bielinski unsuccessfully 
tried to steal an additional $84,784.64. 
¶6 
The criminal complaint alleged that between 2007 and 
2011, Attorney Bielinski fraudulently purported to represent 
persons involved in mortgage foreclosure cases in which surplus 
funds remained after sheriff's sales and he claimed the funds on 
their behalf.  The criminal complaint alleged that Attorney 
Bielinski filed 47 fraudulent claims with the Milwaukee County 
circuit court, 43 of which were approved and paid and 4 of which 
were denied.  Attorney Bielinski's financial records showed he 
had no legitimate law practice at the time and his fraud scheme 
was his primary source of income.  In order to commit these 
thefts, Attorney Bielinski engaged in a series of identity 
thefts, false notarizations, forgeries, and thefts of court 
records.  He filed forged documents with the Milwaukee County 
circuit court and thereby tricked judges into signing orders to 
pay him surplus funds.  After receiving payment, Attorney 
Bielinski often sanitized the records by removing his fraudulent 
pleadings and forgeries from the official court record. 
¶7 
On April 4, 2012, Attorney Bielinski entered a guilty 
plea and was convicted of one count of felony theft by false 
No. 
 2012AP1654-D   
 
4 
 
representation greater than $10,000.  He was sentenced to five 
years of initial confinement in prison with five years of 
extended supervision.  The circuit court ordered restitution in 
the stipulated amount of $542,231.61 to be paid to Milwaukee 
County by May 2, 2022.  The circuit court imposed a five percent 
surcharge and ordered if Attorney Bielinski fails to pay the 
restitution before the end of his sentence a civil judgment 
shall be entered. 
¶8 
Attorney Bielinski failed to provide the OLR or the 
clerk of this court written notice of his conviction. 
¶9 
The OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Bielinski 
on July 26, 2012.  The complaint alleged two counts of 
misconduct: 
 
[Count 1:]  By engaging in conduct leading to a 
criminal conviction for one count of felony theft by 
false representation greater than $10,000, in State of 
Wisconsin vs. Thomas E. Bielinski, Milwaukee County 
Case No. 11-CF-3705, Thomas E. Bielinski violated 
SCR 20:8.4(b).2 
[Count 2:]  By failing to report to OLR and the 
Clerk of the Supreme Court in writing within 5 days 
his criminal conviction for one count of felony theft 
by false representation greater than $10,000, in State 
of Wisconsin vs. Thomas E. Bielinski, Milwaukee County 
Case No. 11-CF-3705, Thomas E. Bielinski violated 
SCR 21.15(5),3 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).4 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(b) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects; . . . ." 
3 SCR 21.15(5) provides:  
An attorney found guilty or convicted of any 
crime on or after July 1, 2002, shall notify in 
No. 
 2012AP1654-D   
 
5 
 
¶10 On October 5, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation in 
which they stipulated that Attorney Bielinski engaged in 
professional misconduct as alleged in the OLR's complaint.  
Attorney Bielinski agreed it would be appropriate for this court 
to impose the level of discipline sought by the OLR director——
revocation of Attorney Bielinski's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  The stipulation states that it did not result from 
plea bargaining.  Attorney Bielinski agrees that the facts 
alleged in the OLR's complaint form a basis for the discipline 
requested.  Attorney Bielinski represents and verifies that he 
fully 
understands 
the 
misconduct 
allegations; 
he 
fully 
understands 
the 
ramifications 
should 
this 
court 
impose 
revocation; he fully understands his right to contest the 
matter; he fully understands his right to consult with counsel; 
his 
entry 
into 
the 
stipulation 
is 
made 
knowingly 
and 
voluntarily; and his entry into the stipulation represents his 
admission of the misconduct alleged by the OLR and his assent to 
the level of discipline sought by the OLR director. 
                                                                                                                                                             
writing the office of lawyer regulation and the clerk 
of the [s]upreme [c]ourt within 5 days after the 
finding or conviction, whichever first occurs.  The 
notice shall include the identity of the attorney, the 
date of the finding or conviction, the offenses, and 
the jurisdiction.  An attorney's failure to notify the 
office of lawyer regulation and clerk of the supreme 
court of being found guilty or his or her conviction 
is misconduct. 
4 SCR 20:8.4(f) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court 
order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers; . . . ." 
No. 
 2012AP1654-D   
 
6 
 
¶11 Supreme Court Rule 22.12 provides that if this court 
approves a stipulation it shall adopt the stipulated facts and 
conclusions of law and impose the stipulated discipline.  We 
adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law to which the 
parties 
have 
stipulated 
regarding 
Attorney 
Bielinski's 
professional misconduct.  We further determine that revocation 
of Attorney Bielinski's license to practice law is warranted.  
Attorney Bielinski has admitted to engaging in serious criminal 
conduct which consisted of an ongoing scheme to defraud the 
court 
and 
innocent 
parties 
solely 
to 
benefit 
himself 
financially.  His misconduct lasted for approximately four years 
and involved at least 47 separate fraudulent transactions.  
Attorney Bielinski's conduct caused serious harm to numerous 
persons, none of whom were his clients, as well as to the 
integrity of the court system.  Revocation is the appropriate 
sanction.  We accede to the recommendation that no costs be 
assessed against Bielinski. 
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Thomas E. Bielinski 
to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of 
this opinion. 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Attorney Bielinski comply with the provisions 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.