Count 3: By depositing $47,244.20 in personal and law firm funds into his trust account in April 2012, to replace the bulk of the funds that he had converted from the B.T. Estate, Attorney Meisel violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(3).

Count 14: By converting to his own purposes as much as $31,201.48 in the fiduciary account for the Estate of J.D., Attorney Meisel violated SCR 20:8.4(c).

Count 15: By failing to maintain a transaction register and client ledgers with running balances, and by failing to perform monthly reconciliations of his trust account, thereby failing to maintain complete records of a trust account, Attorney Meisel violated SCR 20:1.15(f) (l)a., (f)(l)b., and f(i)g.

I did it. It was wrong. The whole world was in a fog. I know I did it – it was wrong. I was bonded at all times. I'm not making a justification for it, but I didn't think it would come to a problem. . . . I knew I did it. I have never denied that. Why? It's hard to say. I was juggling so many things that I just did it without really thinking, you know. I just figured that money would be coming in or – I don't know. It was dumb.

I am aware, from conversations with Mr. Meisel's attorneys, of some of the circumstances surrounding the fiscal decisions Mr. Meisel made which have resulted in the disciplinary proceedings brought against him. I am aware that he missed time from work which would have left him with less time and more stress to complete the work which he had taken on. I am aware that he turned away clients because he could not keep up with the case load to which he had been accustomed before he became ill. I am aware that his practice declined, adding financial burden and stress. I am aware that certain real-estate investments were devalued, and that he fell out with his partner, adding further stress. I am aware that he did not share these concerns at work with his wife, and he certainly didn't with me. I am aware that he was not willing to seek professional help to manage distress. Under these circumstances anybody would have been overwhelmed, and certainly Mr. Meisel was especially susceptible to making errors in judgment as a maladaptive strategy to deal with the multiple stressors, given his medical history, the medications he was on, and the permanent damage to his brain from the tumor and treatment thereof. It was a 'perfect storm'. . . .

All of us are subject to stress, and much of this stress is external and beyond our control. Mr. Meisel is no different. However, his brain tumor and the treatment thereof created brain damage that predisposed him to inappropriate, non- constructive cognitive responses to stress. I cared for Mr. Meisel for almost seven years, and therefore I believe I know him quite well. I believe the behavior that led to the inappropriate fiscal decisions that he made was an aberration and not likely to repeat itself. That said, it is my recommendation that he undergo a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation, . . .. I recommend that he receive formal psychotherapy to help him manage stress in a constructive way, . . .. Finally, I recommend that Mr. Meisel continue to be followed on a scheduled basis by a neuro- oncologist with MRI scans of the brain to monitor his brain tumor status, . . ..

Well, I would sum it up by saying that we have a situation here where, beyond the usual stressors in anyone's life, Mr. Meisel was affected by a potentially fatal brain tumor, which necessitated surgery to remove the tumor and part of the surrounding brain, radiation therapy, which affected the brain volume and function, chemotherapy, and other medications to control symptoms of the brain tumor, like seizures, and the stressors, like anxiety and depression, are associated with this diagnosis and treatment, all of which conspired to create a perfect storm such that his injured brain, under extreme stress, has reacted to a situation, his judgment was affected, and he made a financial decision which I'm sure he regrets.

Q: Can you state to a reasonable degree of medical probability that Mr. Meisel's medical conditions relating to the brain tumor caused him to repeatedly convert trust funds, and reconvert trust funds, over a three-year period?

A: Yes

Q: And what's the basis for that conclusion?

A: The basis is that the damage we are looking at on the MRI scan of 2011 is permanent damage. It's never going to change. It will always look at least that bad. It's a static problem, not one that evolved overnight nor one that is ever going to get better. So it stands to reason that this impaired brain will be susceptible, or predisposed, as I wrote, to making the same error in judgment, or memory, or executive function over and over again.

Q: But being predisposed to doing something is different than causing it to happen, right? They're not necessarily the same thing, you testified to?

A: Correct.

Q: Okay. So not everyone who is predisposed to alcoholism, for example, becomes an alcoholic, correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: So on one hand in your report we talked about the predisposed section, and you testified in response to Mr. Johnson's question that the – the damage is permanent, it's not going to change, but then in the last paragraph of your report, the – the fourth sentence of the last paragraph on your report you state, 'I believe the behavior that led to the inappropriate fiscal decisions that he made was aberration and not likely to repeat itself.' Did you put that statement in your report?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: So how can you on one hand tell us that he's predisposed to engaging in these activities, and has engaged in these activities, the damage is permanent, and things are not likely to improve, yet in the next paragraph you're telling us presumably what you believe to a medical – high degree of medical probability, that he's not likely to re-engage in the same conduct? How do you reconcile that?

A: The reconciliation is based upon the fact that Mr. Meisel is not under anywhere near the kind of stress that he was under when these events occurred. His tumor is in remission. It is not impossible that it won't come back, but it is unlikely. That's number one.

As his attorney has just told all of us, his financial situation is more stable, his child situation is more stable. These are important stressors which were in effect at the time but no longer operable.

And at the time, despite this predisposition, Mr. Meisel did not avail himself of the kind of support and professional help that might have prevented him, given this predisposition, from acting in the way he did.

Now, if Mr. Meisel didn't do anything about his stress, and ignored recommendations to find constructive ways to manage stress, then I would say there would be a concern that it could happen in the future.

But I think the circumstances of his life now are very different than they were then. And – and that's how I would reconcile the two paragraphs.

Q: But as I understand it, your position that it's not likely to recur, the behavior – the inappropriate behavior is not going to recur, is largely based upon the reduction of stress in Mr. Meisel's life, correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: But –

A: I don’t think we should underestimate the importance of that. I really don't.

Q: Okay. Accepting that, wouldn't the opposite then be true, that if the stress – if the high level of stress returned to his life, we should reasonably expect that he's predisposed to commit the same misconduct that he did previously?

A: We should be concerned about that risk and do what can be done to prevent that. And that is why I recommend the neuropsych evaluation, to better understand it, and to objectify it, and the psychotherapy intervention. Because the stress that comes into our lives is not always under our control. Sometimes we bring it upon ourselves, but more often than not it's an external thing. And that needs to be managed. That's the missing link in Mr. Meisel's care.

The confluence of personal and medical matters Attorney Meisel faced beginning in 2006 were substantial, life-changing. The long term cognitive effects of the brain cancer and treatments are balanced sympathetically in favor of Attorney Meisel, for misconduct that would otherwise call for a much greater sanction, especially because the actual misconduct did not occur until he returned to active practice a couple of years later.

(1) demonstration that he has his medical conditions and stress and any other emotional or psychological problems under control, by his submission of documentation of fitness pursuant to a medical examination by a health provider approved by the OLR, at his own expense;

(2) that he remain in treatment as recommended by his treating physician and obtain evaluations and neuro-oncologist monitoring pursuant to the written medical report included in the record as Exhibit 117 and via trial testimony, and that his medical treatment be monitored by the OLR via submission of quarterly reports for a period of two years following his reinstatement;

(3) that his practice of law be monitored by an attorney approved by OLR for a period of two years following reinstatement, unless he is either employed by a law firm, corporate office or practicing with another attorney aware of his disciplinary and medical history;

(4) that he obtain six Continuing Legal Education credits in trust account and/or law office management, and six Continuing Legal Education credits in business and professional conflict of interest, to be approved by OLR and monitored by OLR for compliance.

1. Did Attorney Meisel present clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence of a causal connection between Attorney Meisel’s medical condition and his misconduct?

2. Did the aggravating factors of Attorney Meisel’s conduct weigh more heavily than the mitigating factors?

3. Is a two-year suspension disproportionate for the alleged offenses?

Attorney Meisel used converted client funds for his own personal benefit, including but not limited to sustaining King Park, even though his business partner was not pressuring him to maintain payments. Further, Attorney Meisel camouflaged his conversions replacing converted funds with those converted from other client funds and by mingling personal funds and law firm funds. The timing of the conversions was deliberate and, with respect to the guardianships, often very close to accounting time frames. The actual conversions further demonstrated dishonesty when Attorney Meisel further concealed his misconduct by filing falsified annual accountings with the Milwaukee County Probate Court that intentionally omitted disclosure of the converted and replenished fund transactions.

Despite the absence of the required causal connection between Meisel's medical condition and his misconduct . . . OLR does not contest that Meisel's health issues contributed to increased stress on his everyday life.