Legal Opinion

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mulligan

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 18, 2017No. 2013AP002742-DPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

f 1.

2Per curiam

We review, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.33(3), 1 a report filed by Referee James R. Erickson, Jr., recommending the court reinstate the license of Thomas O. Mulligan to practice law in Wisconsin, with conditions. After careful review of the matter, we agree that Attorney Mulligan's license should be reinstated, with conditions. We also agree with the referee that Attorney Mulligan should be required to pay the full costs of this reinstatement proceeding, which are $2,267.95 as of March 8, 2017.

f 2. Attorney Mulligan was licensed to practice law in Wisconsin in 1985 and is a…

3Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against EisenbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas O. MulliganWisconsin Supreme Court · 2015
  3. In Re Disc. Proceedings Against MulliganWisconsin Supreme Court · 2009

4Cited by2 opinions

  1. Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael R. BauerWisconsin Supreme Court · 2020
  2. Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael R. BauerWisconsin Supreme Court · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API