Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael D. Mandelman

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

2015 WI 105 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2003AP3348-D, 2004AP2633-D, 2007AP2653-D and 2011AP584-D 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: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: December 8, 2015 SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: A.W. Bradley, J., concurs. (Opinion Filed). R.G. Bradley, J., did not participate. 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: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant-Respondent, DEC 8, 2015 v. Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Supreme Court Michael D. Mandelman, Respondent-Appellant. ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. ¶1 PER CURIAM. Reinstatement denied. 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. therefore review the referee's report and We recommendation Nos. pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.33(3). 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D 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 Wisconsin in 1980. was licensed suspended since July 1, 2006. Attorney misconduct. in Mandelman's On August 1, 2014, this court law license for 22 counts of In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, followed retroactive law His license has been 2014 WI 100, 358 Wis. 2d 179, 851 N.W.2d 401. which practice He practiced in Milwaukee, primarily in the area of personal injury and criminal law. revoked to to a lengthy May 29, disciplinary 2009, thereby The revocation, history, enabling was him imposed 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 2 authorization; failing to Nos. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D communicate with clients; making a misrepresentation to the former Responsibility Board (BAPR), of Attorneys predecessor Professional to the OLR, attempting to limit potential malpractice liability; and trust account Proceedings violations. Against Mandelman, In 158 re Disciplinary Wis. 2d 1, suspension for 460 N.W.2d 749 (1990). In 1994, misconduct he received that an 18-month 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. Proceedings Against Mandelman, In re Disciplinary 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. Against In Mandelman, re 2006 Disciplinary WI 45, 290 Proceedings Wis. 2d 158, 714 N.W.2d 512.1 In 2009, he misconduct received a including one-year collecting suspension a fee for 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. Against Mandelman, In re Disciplinary Proceedings 2009 WI 40, 317 Wis. 2d 215, 765 N.W.2d 788. In 2014, license this for court 22 revoked counts 1 of Attorney misconduct Mandelman's including 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. ¶4 Mandelman, 358 Wis. 2d 179. On August 5, 2014, Attorney Mandelman filed a petition seeking reinstatement of his license to practice law. filed a response dated January 15, 2015. The OLR 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. deposed Attorney previously At the hearing, the OLR stated that it had Mandelman identified. and resolved The OLR Mandelman and many declined to of the take a issues formal position on reinstatement. ¶6 appeared Attorney at the reinstatement four hearing: additional Attorney witnesses 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 Thus, the required must contain petitioning representations pursuant attorney in the to must SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m). demonstrate reinstatement that the 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. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jennings, 2011 WI In re 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. ¶10 SCR 22.29(4)(a). 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 great that following "a rigorous deal of conventional Mandelman's and time was experimental spent 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 $16,943.16 in costs proceeding. ordered with Attorney the recent the Mandelman OLR payments. Mandelman to relating Attorney arrangement monthly also on entered August 21, Attorney Mandelman concluded that a to has pay revocation into 2014, to payment make made $100 timely installment payments. ¶12 The referee Attorney maintained competence and learning in the law. Mandelman has 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 conduct The referee since reproach. the SCR revocation five Mandelman's license several Attorney relating people years was to who Mandelman's dissertation committee been not revoked. on unlike elapsed The behalf UW-Milwaukee since the typical Attorney testimony her of Mandelman. chair testified above based Attorney and and a referee on of mentor Mandelman's exemplary requirement academic at Attorney Admittedly, had this spoke that has 22.29(4)(e). revocation, conclusion concluded of his 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 personal facilities. friend Attorney spoke highly Mandelman's of attorney Mandelman Attorney and and respectfully about his writings and presentations, specifying motorcycle notes rights that, believed litigation. "[w]hile Mandelman the to However, witness be the referee's credibly trustworthy and stated report that reliable, he 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. ¶15 The referee concluded that SCR 22.29(4)(e). Attorney Mandelman satisfied SCR 22.29(4)(j), which requires a description of the petitioner's proposed use of the license if reinstated. hearing, future Attorney plans, structured if Mandelman spoke reinstated. environment, at These although he some length include did not At the about practice rule out his in a the prospect of returning to solo practice in the future. ¶16 satisfied The SCR reinstatement referee concluded 22.29(4)(k), to provide a that which full Attorney requires a description Mandelman lawyer of all seeking of the petitioner's business activities during the period of suspension or revocation. The reinstatement 9 petition contains a full Nos. description of Attorney Mandelman's activities 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D between suspension in 2006 and the 2015 reinstatement hearing. his 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 retail Since sales 2009, at Attorney Office Mandelman Depot, Weston has also worked Properties, and in at UW-Milwaukee in a variety of assistant jobs, including in his academic department supervising and students, in and a print handling shop money producing pursuant product, 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. 10 However, Nos. Attorney Mandelman has since done so. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D 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 explained that he had been unable to locate B.S. Mandelman After the hearing, Attorney Mandelman provided proof that he deposited a check for $2,200 in to/redeemable by B.S. the Unclaimed Property Fund payable 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. ¶24 SCR 22.29(4)(f)-(g). With persuaded by respect Attorney to SCR 22.29(4)(f), Mandelman and his the referee witnesses' was testimony that he has accepted responsibility for his misconduct and has "new insights" into his period of suspension. referee concluded behaviors and conditions With respect to SCR that, "based on the during his 22.29(4)(g), 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 chronic many illness Attorney years, with Mandelman Attorney symptoms cited his Mandelman including health suffered chronic issues disciplinary and reinstatement proceedings. in from a fatigue. previous 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 condition However, as Attorney Mandelman concedes, his medical neither misconduct. caused nor excuses his prior professional 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. effects of his illness. 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D 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 prior The scope misconduct understanding of and seriousness reveals and a of lawyer attitude toward imposed upon members of the bar. Attorney who the Mandelman's lacked a standards proper that are 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 misrepresented his income. filed tax returns that 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 mess do more before. now than simply clean up the he created 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. apparently returns satisfied and that determined federal/state The referee and the OLR Attorney whether government for calendar years 2005/2006. Mandelman he amounts has needed that may to be were amended tax repay the owing for Attorney Mandelman represented, at the hearing, that he has settled all delinquent tax obligations with the State of Wisconsin 13 and provided supporting Nos. documentation. satisfied The with relationships referee Attorney with and the Mandelman's Weston OLR were explanation Properties, 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D apparently of Heartland, business 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 Milwaukee County and Ozaukee County. Mandelman testified that he had actions filed within At the hearing, Attorney resolved all outstanding disputes. ¶30 The referee downplayed the significance of these concerns, so she did not make detailed findings of fact about them. as Accordingly, we are not usurping the role of the referee the matters fact-finder. of Mandelman's standards concern proper that are However, important we to consider our scope assessment understanding of imposed members upon the and attitude of the of of Attorney toward bar the and the 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. retains significant indebtedness, and in 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D fact incurred substantial additional debt to pay for graduate school, loans that will become due when he completes his graduate degree. ¶32 Debt, alone, reinstatement. for concern. license not preclude a lawyer's Here, however, it presents a legitimate cause In 1995, we reinstated Attorney Mandelman's law despite Mandelman's will our expressed "substantial misgivings debts" and his about debt Attorney management, including questionable decisions to invest substantial funds in business ventures obligations. rather than to begin paying his lawful 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 conditions. reinstated his law license, with certain In re Reinstatement of Mandelman, 197 Wis. 2d 435, 541 N.W.2d 480 (1995). Our confidence in his reform proved misplaced. ¶33 to Less than four years later, in 1999, we were obliged privately reprimand Attorney Mandelman. Multiple disciplinary proceedings ensued until his 2009 suspension and subsequent revocation, including numerous and varied misconduct adversely affecting many clients. changed. In our view, not enough has The excuses and promises to do better offered at his prior reinstatement hearings are eerily familiar. ¶34 Attorney This record reveals a flurry of recent activity as Mandelman sought to fulfill 15 his many and various Nos. reinstatement requirements. unpaid for years until 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D Debts to former clients were left 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 cooperate with court his also former directed business Attorney partner, Mandelman Attorney to 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 misgivings referee's reinstatement, observing about that Attorney Mandelman's "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 17 effect of his acceptance of Nos. responsibility must be viewed in relation to 2003AP3348-D 2004AP2633-D 2007AP2653-D 2011AP584-D 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. course. He has cleaned up his act; now he must stay the This record lacks sufficient evidence that things will be different if he is reinstated to the practice of law again. ¶40 to This court is not averse to providing a second chance hold a law license to individuals who clearly accept responsibility for their wrongdoing and demonstrate that they have a different society's general attorneys who are attitude laws and licensed toward complying the ethical rules to practice law with that in both our apply this to 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 recommended as those a standards, person fit to and be that he consulted can by be safely others, to represent them, and to otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence. ¶43 SCR 22.29(4)(f) and (g). 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. ¶46 2003AP3348-D, 2004AP2633-D, 2007AP2653-D, 2011AP584-D.awb 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 since The referee found that Attorney Mandelman's conduct 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 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.