2015 WI 105
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2003AP3348-D, 2004AP2633-D, 2007AP2653-D and 2011AP584-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Michael D. Mandelman, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant-Respondent, v. Michael D. Mandelman, Respondent-Appellant.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MANDELMAN
OPINION FILED: December 8, 2015 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE:
JUSTICES: CONCURRED: A.W. Bradley, J., concurs. (Opinion Filed). DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: R.G. Bradley, J., did not participate.
ATTORNEYS: 2015 WI 105 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Michael D. Mandelman, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED Complainant-Respondent, DEC 8, 2015 v. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court Michael D. Mandelman,
Respondent-Appellant.
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement denied.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report and recommendation
of Referee Hannah C. Dugan, recommending reinstatement of the
law license of Attorney Michael D. Mandelman, with conditions,
and recommending that the court impose the full costs of this
proceeding on Attorney Mandelman. The Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) took no position on reinstatement before the
referee and did not appeal the referee's recommendation. We therefore review the referee's report and recommendation Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.33(3). After fully
reviewing this matter, we conclude that Attorney Mandelman has
not satisfied the criteria required to resume the practice of
law in this state, and we deny his petition for reinstatement.
Attorney Mandelman is directed to pay the costs of this
reinstatement proceeding, which total $8,074.65 as of June 1,
2015.
¶2 Attorney Mandelman was licensed to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1980. He practiced in Milwaukee, primarily in the
area of personal injury and criminal law. His license has been
suspended since July 1, 2006. On August 1, 2014, this court
revoked Attorney Mandelman's law license for 22 counts of
misconduct. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman,
2014 WI 100, 358 Wis. 2d 179, 851 N.W.2d 401. The revocation,
which followed a lengthy disciplinary history, was imposed
retroactive to May 29, 2009, thereby enabling him to seek
reinstatement now rather than waiting the usual requisite five
years.
¶3 Attorney Mandelman's disciplinary history culminating
in his revocation includes seven prior disciplinary cases:
In 1990, he received a one-year suspension for 27
counts of misconduct relating to multiple counts of
failure to act with diligence; failing to promptly
return files to clients; simultaneously representing
multiple clients with adverse interests; settling a client's claim without authorization; failing to
2 Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
communicate with clients; making a misrepresentation
to the former Board of Attorneys Professional
Responsibility (BAPR), predecessor to the OLR,
attempting to limit potential malpractice liability;
and trust account violations. In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Mandelman, 158 Wis. 2d 1,
460 N.W.2d 749 (1990).
In 1994, he received an 18-month suspension for
misconduct that included failing to act with
diligence, failing to respond to clients' requests for
information, failing to refund a client's retainer,
violating the rules regarding trust accounts following
his 1990 suspension, and failing to provide complete
and accurate responses to BAPR. In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Mandelman, 182 Wis. 2d 583,
514 N.W.2d 11 (1994).
In 1999, he received a consensual private reprimand
for making a false statement of fact to a tribunal.
Private Reprimand No. 99-18.
In 2006, he received a consensual private reprimand
for drawing a check from his business account to make
a mortgage payment for a personal injury client.
Private Reprimand No. 06-21.
Also in 2006, he received a nine-month suspension for
multiple instances of misconduct including failing to act with reasonable diligence, failing to utilize a
3 Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
written fee agreement in a medical malpractice case,
and persuading a client to sign a release of claims
against him without the client obtaining independent
representation. In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Mandelman, 2006 WI 45, 290 Wis. 2d 158,
714 N.W.2d 512.1
In 2009, he received a one-year suspension for
misconduct including collecting a fee without
performing any work for a client, failing to provide a
client with a written settlement statement, retaining
a client's funds for more than four years, making
misrepresentations to a client, failing to obtain a
client's signature on a settlement check, failing to
deposit the settlement funds into a client trust
account, and failing to provide a client's file and
funds to the client. In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Mandelman, 2009 WI 40, 317 Wis. 2d 215,
765 N.W.2d 788.
In 2014, this court revoked Attorney Mandelman's
license for 22 counts of misconduct including
1 Notably, this decision also denied Attorney Mandelman's first petition for reinstatement because, while his suspension was pending, additional professional misconduct was discovered, including post-suspension trust account violations and, during reinstatement proceedings, he gave incomplete and evasive information to BAPR.
4 Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
mishandling of trust accounts and funds, commingling
personal and business funds with client trust funds,
converting client trust finds by engaging in trust
account transactions that left negative balances in
his own subsidiary accounts, failing to deliver trust
funds to a client over a period of years, failing to
keep complete and accurate trust account records, and
on multiple occasions filing income tax returns that
were false. Attorney Mandelman also showed lack of
diligence in another matter, failed to notify a client
of his suspension in another, and also gave a false
affidavit to the OLR. Mandelman, 358 Wis. 2d 179.
¶4 On August 5, 2014, Attorney Mandelman filed a petition
seeking reinstatement of his license to practice law. The OLR
filed a response dated January 15, 2015. The OLR expressed
several concerns in its initial response, noting that, because
of time constraints imposed by the referee, it had insufficient
time to investigate the reinstatement petition.
¶5 The referee conducted a public reinstatement hearing
on February 4, 2015. At the hearing, the OLR stated that it had
deposed Attorney Mandelman and resolved many of the issues
previously identified. The OLR declined to take a formal
position on reinstatement.
¶6 Attorney Mandelman and four additional witnesses
appeared at the reinstatement hearing: Attorney Mandelman's doctor, his faculty advisor, his employer for his student work
5 Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
at the computer center at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
and a friend/out-of-town lawyer. Post-hearing, the referee
permitted and received additional documentation in support of
the petition, including a Board of Bar Examiner (BBE)
certification of continuing legal education (CLE) compliance, a
restitution payment to S.M., and documentation of efforts to
make a restitution payment to B.S. The referee filed her report
and recommendation on May 12, 2015, recommending reinstatement
with substantial conditions.
¶7 The standards applicable to all petitions for
reinstatement after a disciplinary suspension or revocation are
set forth in SCR 22.31(1). The petitioning attorney must
demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that
he or she has the moral character necessary to practice law in
this state, that his or her resumption of the practice of law
will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or
subversive of the public interest, and that the attorney has
complied fully with the terms of the suspension or revocation
order and the requirements of SCR 22.26. In addition,
SCR 22.31(1)(c) incorporates the statements that a petition for
reinstatement must contain pursuant to SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m).
Thus, the petitioning attorney must demonstrate that the
required representations in the reinstatement petition are
substantiated.
¶8 When reviewing referee reports in reinstatement proceedings, we utilize standards of review similar to those we
6 Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
use for reviewing referee reports in disciplinary proceedings.
We do not overturn a referee's findings of fact unless they are
clearly erroneous. On the other hand, we review a referee's
legal conclusions, including whether the attorney has satisfied
the criteria for reinstatement, on a de novo basis. In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jennings, 2011 WI 45, ¶39,
334 Wis. 2d 335, 801 N.W.2d 304; In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Gral, 2010 WI 14, ¶22, 323 Wis. 2d 280, 779 N.W.2d 168.
¶9 Here, the referee concluded that Attorney Mandelman
has demonstrated that he sincerely desires to have his license
reinstated. SCR 22.29(4)(a).
¶10 The referee concluded that Attorney Mandelman has not
practiced law during the period of his revocation.
SCR 22.29(4)(b). The referee accepted the evidence from the
hearing that "a great deal of Mandelman's time was spent
following rigorous conventional and experimental medical
treatment protocols, and attending graduate school in a field
unrelated to law."
¶11 The referee concluded that Attorney Mandelman has
complied with the terms of his suspension and revocation orders.
SCR 22.29(4)(c); see also SCR 22.29(4)(h) (requiring that the
petitioner has fully complied with the requirements set forth in
SCR 22.26); SCR 22.31(1)(d). For many years, Attorney Mandelman
owed $12,793.24 in costs from his 2004 disciplinary matter and
$6,397.54 in costs from his 2007 disciplinary matter. In August of 2014, Attorney Mandelman paid those cost judgments by sending
7 Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
cashier's checks in the appropriate respective amounts to the
OLR. The court also ordered Attorney Mandelman to pay
$16,943.16 in costs relating to the recent revocation
proceeding. Attorney Mandelman entered into a payment
arrangement with the OLR on August 21, 2014, to make $100
monthly payments. Attorney Mandelman has made timely
installment payments.
¶12 The referee concluded that Attorney Mandelman has
maintained competence and learning in the law. SCR 22.29(4)(d).
Although this evidence was not produced at the reinstatement
hearing, the referee permitted Attorney Mandelman to obtain and
to provide proof of certification of CLE compliance from the BBE
post-hearing. The BBE filed a certification with the court on
February 9, 2015, stating that Attorney Mandelman was "currently
in compliance with the court's CLE and EPR requirements for
reinstatement."
¶13 The referee concluded that Attorney Mandelman's
conduct since the revocation has been exemplary and above
reproach. SCR 22.29(4)(e). Admittedly, unlike a typical
revocation, five years had not elapsed since Attorney
Mandelman's license was revoked. The referee based her
conclusion relating to this requirement on the testimony of
several people who spoke on behalf of Attorney Mandelman.
Attorney Mandelman's academic mentor and chair of his
dissertation committee at UW-Milwaukee testified respectfully about Attorney Mandelman's dissertation topic and work, which
8 Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
involves the benefits to the elderly related to construction of
co-housing facilities. Attorney Mandelman's attorney and
personal friend spoke highly of Attorney Mandelman and
respectfully about his writings and presentations, specifying
motorcycle rights litigation. However, the referee's report
notes that, "[w]hile the witness credibly stated that he
believed Mandelman to be trustworthy and reliable, he also
testified that he did not know about the specifics of [his]
disciplinary history." Attorney Mandelman's UW-Milwaukee
employment supervisor testified credibly and convincingly about
Attorney Mandelman's work ethic, his helpfulness, and his
camaraderie with other students and faculty.
¶14 The referee concluded that Attorney Mandelman has the
moral character to practice law in this state. SCR 22.29(4)(e).
¶15 The referee concluded that Attorney Mandelman
satisfied SCR 22.29(4)(j), which requires a description of the
petitioner's proposed use of the license if reinstated. At the
hearing, Attorney Mandelman spoke at some length about his
future plans, if reinstated. These include practice in a
structured environment, although he did not rule out the
prospect of returning to solo practice in the future.
¶16 The referee concluded that Attorney Mandelman
satisfied SCR 22.29(4)(k), which requires a lawyer seeking
reinstatement to provide a full description of all of the
petitioner's business activities during the period of suspension or revocation. The reinstatement petition contains a full
9 Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
description of Attorney Mandelman's activities between his
suspension in 2006 and the 2015 reinstatement hearing. Attorney
Mandelman completed a Master's Degree in Architecture and was
admitted to the Ph.D. program in Architecture at UW-Milwaukee,
where he completed and passed qualifying exams.
¶17 Since 2009, Attorney Mandelman has also worked in
retail sales at Office Depot, Weston Properties, and at
UW-Milwaukee in a variety of assistant jobs, including in his
academic department and in a print shop producing product,
supervising students, and handling money pursuant to sales.
Evidence from the hearing also indicates that he has engaged in
some property management work.
¶18 In addition, SCR 22.29(4m) requires and the referee
concluded that Attorney Mandelman has made restitution to or
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by petitioner's
misconduct, including reimbursement to the Wisconsin Lawyers'
Fund for Client Protection for all payments made from that fund,
or, if not, the petitioner's explanation of the failure or
inability to do so.
¶19 In our May 29, 2009 suspension order, we ordered
Attorney Mandelman to pay $1,250 in restitution to S.M. and
$2,200 in restitution to B.S. within 60 days. On June 10, 2009,
the OLR reminded Attorney Mandelman that those payments were to
be made by July 28, 2009.
¶20 Attorney Mandelman had not made restitution to these clients when he filed this reinstatement petition. However,
10 Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
Attorney Mandelman has since done so. On January 14, 2015, the
OLR received emailed correspondence from Attorney Mandelman that
included a copy of a $1,250 cashier's check payable to S.M. The
record indicates that Attorney Mandelman sent the check to S.M.
and that S.M. accepted the payment.
¶21 At the reinstatement hearing, Attorney Mandelman
explained that he had been unable to locate B.S. After the
hearing, Attorney Mandelman provided proof that he deposited a
check for $2,200 in the Unclaimed Property Fund payable
to/redeemable by B.S. The referee thus found that Attorney
Mandelman "provided documentation within 20 days of the hearing
date that he has complied fully with the terms of the order of
revocation with respect to the payment of restitution."2
¶22 We accept the referee's findings and conclusions on
each of the foregoing requirements for reinstatement.
¶23 The issues in this reinstatement proceeding, however,
relate to the remaining requirements for reinstatement. The
rules also impose on the petitioner the burden of demonstrating
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he has a
proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that
are imposed upon members of the bar and will act in conformity
with them, and that he can be safely recommended as a person fit
2 The referee's report, on pages 6 and 9, mistakenly states that B.S. was the one who accepted payment and that S.M.'s check was deposited into the Unclaimed Property Fund. This is incorrect.
11 Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
to represent clients and to aid in the administration of justice
in this state. SCR 22.29(4)(f)-(g).
¶24 With respect to SCR 22.29(4)(f), the referee was
persuaded by Attorney Mandelman and his witnesses' testimony
that he has accepted responsibility for his misconduct and has
"new insights" into his behaviors and conditions during his
period of suspension. With respect to SCR 22.29(4)(g), the
referee concluded that, "based on the petition and the
testimony," this element is satisfied, subject to recommended
conditions.
¶25 We are not persuaded that Attorney Mandelman has
provided clear and convincing evidence that he has satisfied
SCR 22.29(4)(f) and (g); as such, we disagree with the referee's
conclusions of law on these issues.
¶26 For many years, Attorney Mandelman suffered from a
chronic illness with symptoms including chronic fatigue.
Attorney Mandelman cited his health issues in previous
disciplinary and reinstatement proceedings. The reinstatement
record here indicates that, after many years, his illness was
finally effectively treated and his doctor reports that his
current medical prognosis good.
¶27 However, as Attorney Mandelman concedes, his medical
condition neither caused nor excuses his prior professional
misconduct. Attorney Mandelman's disciplinary history reflects
persistent patterns not only of neglect, but of fraud. His extensive misconduct history cannot all be attributed to side
12 Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
effects of his illness. In short, his recovery bodes well for
Attorney Mandelman, but is not sufficient to persuade us that he
should be permitted to practice law again.
¶28 The scope and seriousness of Attorney Mandelman's
prior misconduct reveals a lawyer who lacked a proper
understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are
imposed upon members of the bar. Certainly, he did not act in
conformity with those standards for any appreciable period of
time. He extensively used client trust accounts to conceal
personal income and recklessly filed tax returns that
misrepresented his income. His own record demonstrates that,
prior to his suspension, he was not a person who could be safely
recommended as a person fit to represent clients and to aid in
the administration of justice in this state. Consequently, he
must do more now than simply clean up the mess he created
before. We must be persuaded by evidence that is clear and
convincing that he meets these standards now.
¶29 Attorney Mandelman has taken some commendable steps to
address past wrongs. The list of potential concerns identified
by the OLR was not trivial. The referee and the OLR were
apparently satisfied that Attorney Mandelman has amended tax
returns and determined whether he needed to repay the
federal/state government for amounts that may be owing for
calendar years 2005/2006. Attorney Mandelman represented, at
the hearing, that he has settled all delinquent tax obligations with the State of Wisconsin and provided supporting
13 Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
documentation. The referee and the OLR were apparently
satisfied with Attorney Mandelman's explanation of business
relationships with Weston Properties, Heartland, and Liberty
Holding Company, LLC, which was finally dissolved February 12,
2014. The OLR and the referee were apparently satisfied with
Attorney Mandelman's responses to questions about the fact that
he was a party to a number of civil actions filed within
Milwaukee County and Ozaukee County. At the hearing, Attorney
Mandelman testified that he had resolved all outstanding
disputes.
¶30 The referee downplayed the significance of these
concerns, so she did not make detailed findings of fact about
them. Accordingly, we are not usurping the role of the referee
as the fact-finder. However, we consider the scope of the
matters of concern important to our assessment of Attorney
Mandelman's proper understanding of and attitude toward the
standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and his
ability to act in conformity with those standards as well as
whether he can be safely recommended as a person fit to
represent clients and to aid in the administration of justice in
this state.
¶31 The referee was persuaded that Attorney Mandelman "has
managed to satisfy his tax obligations, pay for graduate school,
disengage from the debt of his office building, maintain the
mortgage of his home and addressed any known civil judgments." This is commendable, although we note that Attorney Mandelman
14 Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
retains significant indebtedness, and in fact incurred
substantial additional debt to pay for graduate school, loans
that will become due when he completes his graduate degree.
¶32 Debt, alone, will not preclude a lawyer's
reinstatement. Here, however, it presents a legitimate cause
for concern. In 1995, we reinstated Attorney Mandelman's law
license despite our expressed misgivings about Attorney
Mandelman's "substantial debts" and his debt management,
including questionable decisions to invest substantial funds in
business ventures rather than to begin paying his lawful
obligations. Still, swayed by the "thoroughness and timeliness"
of his response to documentation requests and the "completeness
and candor of his testimony and in his overall demeanor as a
witness," we reinstated his law license, with certain
conditions. In re Reinstatement of Mandelman, 197 Wis. 2d 435,
541 N.W.2d 480 (1995). Our confidence in his reform proved
misplaced.
¶33 Less than four years later, in 1999, we were obliged
to privately reprimand Attorney Mandelman. Multiple
disciplinary proceedings ensued until his 2009 suspension and
subsequent revocation, including numerous and varied misconduct
adversely affecting many clients. In our view, not enough has
changed. The excuses and promises to do better offered at his
prior reinstatement hearings are eerily familiar.
¶34 This record reveals a flurry of recent activity as Attorney Mandelman sought to fulfill his many and various
15 Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
reinstatement requirements. Debts to former clients were left
unpaid for years until he decided to seek reinstatement.
Indeed, the referee noted that "restitution should have been
made five years ago at least." Similarly, supreme court orders
imposing costs were left unresolved for years until he decided
to seek reinstatement.
¶35 The court also directed Attorney Mandelman to
cooperate with his former business partner, Attorney Jeffrey
Reitz, to determine if restitution was owed in connection with
their partnership. Attorney Mandelman did produce documents
reflecting efforts to close out the trust account. However,
Attorney Mandelman provided the OLR with this information "just
two days" before the OLR's response to his reinstatement
petition was due.
¶36 Ultimately the referee recommended reinstatement,
subject to onerous conditions that Attorney Mandelman does not
oppose:
1. If Mandelman chooses to practice law, prior to practicing law, he must notify OLR to establish oversight of his practice of law.
2. Under OLR's oversight, Mandelman agrees to:
a. Be supervised for two years by an attorney acceptable to OLR who would have the responsibilities under SCR 20:5.1(b).
b. Arrange for the supervising attorney to file quarterly reports with OLR for two years.
16 Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
3. If Mandelman chooses to practice law he be barred from having signatory authority on any trust account for a period of four years.
4. If Mandelman chooses to practice law his practice shall be limited to a structured environment and he shall not engage in solo practice for no sooner than ten years.
5. Mandelman shall comply with the payment plan FOR costs currently in place with OLR, and any other court-ordered cost payments, absent a showing to the court of his inability to do so.
6. If Mandelman fails to comply with any of these conditions, OLR shall notify the Court that Mandelman is out of compliance with a condition of reinstatement, and OLR shall have the authority to request that the Court suspend the reinstated license of Michael Mandelman to practice law in Wisconsin until further order of the court. ¶37 Attorney Mandelman recognized that his disciplinary
history precludes reinstatement without substantial conditions,
describing his prior efforts to maintain a solo law practice as
a "failed model." The extensive recommended conditions reflect
the referee's misgivings about Attorney Mandelman's
reinstatement, observing that "Mandelman's substantial
disciplinary history with recurring rule violations is of great
concern."
¶38 We share those misgivings. Conditions on practice are
imposed to protect the public once an attorney has demonstrated
reinstatement is warranted. Conditions do not and should not
lower the bar to reinstatement.
¶39 Attorney Mandelman has accepted responsibility for his misconduct, but the mitigating effect of his acceptance of
17 Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
responsibility must be viewed in relation to his extensive
disciplinary history along with the number of counts and the
nature of his misconduct. The hard work Attorney Mandelman has
undertaken to restructure his life and pay past due obligations
to clients, creditors, and the court system is commendable, but
not sufficient to demonstrate that reinstatement is appropriate
at this time. He has cleaned up his act; now he must stay the
course. This record lacks sufficient evidence that things will
be different if he is reinstated to the practice of law again.
¶40 This court is not averse to providing a second chance
to hold a law license to individuals who clearly accept
responsibility for their wrongdoing and demonstrate that they
have a different attitude toward complying with both our
society's general laws and the ethical rules that apply to
attorneys who are licensed to practice law in this state.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Balistrieri, 2014 WI 104,
358 Wis. 2d 262, 852 N.W.2d 1 (denying reinstatement over
recommendation of referee).
¶41 However, our rules require Attorney Mandelman to prove
that he has satisfied all of the requisite standards by clear
and convincing evidence. Id. While we accept the referee's
determination that Attorney Mandelman is performing well in a
structured academic environment, the record is lacking
sufficient evidence that he is able to sustain the rigor and
stress of a professional career, including managing significant loan obligations, such that he can be safely recommended to the
18 Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D
legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit to
be consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act
in matters of trust and confidence.
¶42 For the reasons described above, we conclude that
Attorney Mandelman has failed to meet his burden to prove that
he has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the
standards imposed upon members of the bar, that he will act in
conformity with those standards, and that he can be safely
recommended as a person fit to be consulted by others, to
represent them, and to otherwise act in matters of trust and
confidence. SCR 22.29(4)(f) and (g).
¶43 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of
the license of Michael D. Mandelman to practice law in Wisconsin
is denied.
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 120 days of the date
of this order, Michael D. Mandelman shall pay to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation the full costs of this reinstatement
proceeding.
¶45 REBECCA G. BRADLEY, J., did not participate.
19 No. 2003AP3348-D, 2004AP2633-D, 2007AP2653-D, 2011AP584-D.awb
¶46 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (concurring). I agree with
the per curiam opinion but write separately to clarify it. I do
not read the opinion to mean, nor should it be interpreted to
indicate, that Attorney Mandelman will never again be admitted
to the practice of law. Rather, the record does not support
readmission at this time.
¶47 Although Attorney Mandelman has accepted
responsibility for his misconduct, the mitigating effect of his
acceptance of responsibility is viewed in relation to his
extensive disciplinary history along with the number of counts
and the nature of his misconduct.
¶48 The referee found that Attorney Mandelman's conduct
since revocation has been exemplary and above reproach.
Specifically, he complied with the terms of his suspension and
revocation orders, maintained competence and learning in the
law, managed to satisfy his tax obligations, disengaged from the
debt of his office building, maintained the mortgage of his
home, and addressed any known civil judgments. ¶49 Because the August 1, 2014 order revoking his license
to practice law was made retroactive in application, there were
a mere four days between the order and the filing of his August
5, 2014 petition for reinstatement. Attorney Mandelman's
petition would be more persuasive if he could demonstrate an
enlarged period of exemplary behavior combined with evidence of
responsibility in employment other than as a student, together
with responsibility in managing his debt. ¶50 Accordingly, I respectfully concur.
1 No. 2003AP3348-D, 2004AP2633-D, 2007AP2653-D, 2011AP584-D.awb