¶2 The standards that apply to all petitions for reinstatement after a disciplinary suspension or revocation are set forth in SCR 22.31(1). In particular, 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.

¶5 Attorney Mandelman was licensed to practice law in Wisconsin in 1980. He has been the subject of seven disciplinary proceedings. His license has been suspended or revoked since 2006.

¶6 In 1990, Attorney Mandelman was suspended for one year for 27 counts of misconduct that affected more than a dozen clients. The complaint included misconduct from 1985 and involved multiple counts of failing 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 communicate with clients, and making a misrepresentation to the former Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR), In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 158 Wis. 2d 1, 460 N.W.2d 749 (1990). In this, Attorney Mandelman's first disciplinary proceeding, the referee expressed concern about the "pattern of a large number and repeated offenses over a period of several years." This court commented that the misconduct "establish[ed] a definite pattern of Attorney Mandelman's disregard of very basic ethical obligations of lawyers." Id.

¶7 When that suspension ended, Attorney Mandelman petitioned for reinstatement of his license. The court denied his reinstatement petition on two grounds: additional professional misconduct was discovered, including his post-suspension violation of the rules governing the handling of his client trust account and, during the reinstatement proceeding itself, he gave incomplete and evasive responses to the district committee and to the BAPR.

¶8 In response to the additional professional misconduct, the court suspended Attorney Mandelman's license for 18 months, imposed consecutive to the termination of the earlier suspension. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 182 Wis. 2d 583, 514 N.W.2d 11 (1994). That misconduct 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. Id.

¶9 In 1995, we reinstated Attorney Mandelman's license with certain conditions that were intended to ensure that Attorney Mandelman remained compliant with our rules. Unfortunately, those conditions did not accomplish the desired result.

¶10 In 1999, Attorney Mandelman received a consensual private reprimand for making a false statement of fact to a tribunal. Private Reprimand No. 1999-18 (electronic copy available at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/ 002085.html).

¶11 On December 12, 2003, the OLR filed a complaint alleging 13 counts of misconduct. The parties litigated the case vigorously, and, in 2006, we suspended Attorney Mandelman for nine months for multiple instances of misconduct, including failing to act with reasonable diligence, failing to utilize a 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.

¶12 In 2006, Attorney Mandelman also received a separate consensual private reprimand for drawing a check from his business account to make a mortgage payment of a personal injury client. Private Reprimand No. 2006-21 (electronic copy available at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/ 001927.html).

¶13 In 2009, Attorney Mandelman, who had not been reinstated, was suspended for one year for additional misconduct that included collecting a fee without performing any work for the client, failing to provide the 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 and failing to deposit the settlement funds into the 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.

¶14 On August 1, 2014, in the wake of the discovery of still more misconduct, this court revoked Attorney Mandelman's license to practice law, pursuant to a stipulation between Attorney Mandelman and the OLR. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 2014 WI 100, 358 Wis. 2d 179, 851 N.W.2d 401. The misconduct in the revocation proceeding involved 22 counts of misconduct for Attorney Mandelman's handling of trust accounts and funds, including commingling personal and business funds with client trust funds, converting client trust funds 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's misconduct also included lack of diligence in a matter, failing to notify a client of his suspension in another, and providing a false affidavit to the OLR. Id.

¶15 The revocation was made retroactive to May 29, 2009, the effective date of a prior one-year suspension from which Attorney Mandelman had not been reinstated. Accordingly, he was immediately eligible to file a reinstatement petition, and he did so on August 5, 2014.

¶16 We denied that petition. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mandelman, 2015 WI 105, 365 Wis. 2d 457, 871 N.W.2d 682. We observed:

¶17 On March 21, 2017, Attorney Mandelman filed a second petition for the reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin. The OLR filed a response on July 31, 2017, stating that it did not oppose Attorney Mandelman's reinstatement but recommended that if reinstated, his practice be subject to certain conditions.

¶19 Many of the criteria we consider in reinstatement proceedings focus on what the lawyer has done since suspension or revocation. The referee found, and we agree, that Attorney Mandelman has satisfied these criteria. The referee found that Attorney Mandelman had proven by clear and convincing evidence that he sincerely desires to have his license reinstated, SCR 22.29(4)(a); that he has not practiced law during the periods of his suspension and revocation, SCR 22.29(4)(b); that he has complied with the terms of the suspension and revocation orders, SCR 22.29(4)(c); that he has maintained competence and learning in the law, SCR 22.29(4)(d); that his conduct since the revocation has been exemplary and above reproach, SCR 22.29(4)(e); and that he has complied with the SCR 22.26(1)(e) affidavit, SCR 22.29(4)(h). In addition, Attorney Mandelman outlined his activities during his suspension and revocation as required by SCR 22.29(4)(k), and stated that if reinstated, he wants to engage in the practice of civil litigation and work for a law firm or organization and to specialize in construction law, as required by SCR 22.29(4)(j). The referee found, further, that Attorney Mandelman has made restitution to or satisfied all claims of persons injured or harmed by his misconduct, as required by SCR 22.29(4)(4m).

¶21 As the referee discerned, our concern in this reinstatement proceeding relates to whether Attorney Mandelman has the moral character to practice law in this state, SCR 22.31(1)(a); whether the resumption of his practice would be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest, SCR 22.31(1)(b); whether 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, SCR 22.29(4)(f); and whether he can be safely recommended as a person fit to represent clients and to aid in the administration of justice in this state, SCR 22.29(4)(g).

¶22 The referee acknowledged the difficulty inherent in these assessments. He observed:

¶24 We benefit from the referee's findings and conclusions, particularly when, as here, the referee has provided us with such a thoughtful and well-structured report. The ultimate determination of who may practice law in Wisconsin however, remains with this court. We disagree with these specific findings and we reach a different conclusion of law with respect to SCRs 22.29(4)(f)-(g) and 22.31(1)(a)-(b).

¶25 These criteria require us to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the lawyer and this includes consideration of the nature of the lawyer's underlying misconduct. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hersh, 108 Wis. 2d 450, 321 N.W.2d 927 (1982). In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Penn, 2002 WI 5, ¶8, 249 Wis. 2d 667, 638 N.W.2d 287, this court held:

¶27 As a result of his pervasive, serious, and very troubling pattern of misconduct, Attorney Mandelman has created a heavy burden for himself. We conclude that Attorney Mandelman has failed to meet his burden to prove to this court that he possesses the requisite moral character to practice law in this state, 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. See SCR 22.29(4)(f) and (g).

¶30 This assessment is not intended to be punitive. Attorney Mandelman deserves much credit for his impressive accomplishments and we have every confidence that he has the capacity to flourish and succeed in other professional and personal endeavors. Rather, the primary justification for the moral character requirement embodied in our reinstatement rules is to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession. Any doubt concerning a lawyer's moral character should be resolved in favor of protecting the public by denying the petition for reinstatement.

¶31 With respect to the costs of this reinstatement proceeding, it is this court's general practice to assess the full costs of a proceeding against a respondent. See SCR 22.24(1m). We find no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a reduction in the costs imposed and we find it appropriate to assess the full costs of the reinstatement proceeding against Attorney Mandelman.

¶32 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement is denied.

¶33 IT IS FURTHER OREDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Michael D. Mandelman shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $7,674.57 as of October 10, 2017.