Submitted on Briefs: oral argument: September 12, 2017
OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL Reported at 372 Wis.2d
458, 888 N.W.2d 247 (2016 - Unpublished)
of Appeal: Circuit county (L.C. No. 2011CV4993)Milwaukee
Court Dennis P. Moroney JUDGE.
the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs filed
by Robert A. Levine, Jonathan J. Cattey, and Law Offices of
Robert A. Levine, Milwaukee. There was an oral argument by
Robert A. Levine.
the defendant-respondent, there was a brief filed by Mitchell
Barrock and Barrock & Barrock, Brookfield. There was an
oral argument by Mitchell Barrock.
Mark Halbman petitioned for review of the decision of the
court of appeals, Halbman v. Barrock, No.
2015AP1904, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 12,
2016), affirming the circuit court's order dismissing
Halbman's legal malpractice cause of action against
Attorney Mitchell J. Barrock for failure to satisfy his prima
facie burden of proof as to damages. After reviewing the
record and the briefs of both parties, and after hearing oral
arguments, we conclude that this matter should be dismissed
as improvidently granted.
By the Court.- The review of the decision of the
court of appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted.
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (concurring). I agree that
review was improvidently granted and should be dismissed.
I do not join the per curiam opinion. I write separately
because I believe the court should explain its dismissal to
the litigants and to the public.
The parties have, at this court's request, expended
significant time, effort, and money in submitting briefs and
participating in oral argument in this court on the
assumption that the case would be heard and decided on the
merits. The parties and the public, in my opinion, are owed
an explanation of the court's dismissal at this stage of
the appellate proceedings without a decision on the merits.
In recent years this court has often offered an explanation
of a dismissal of a matter as improvidently granted; this
practice has not been entirely consistent. The United States
Supreme Court also has not been consistent in explaining its
reasons for dismissing a writ of certiorari as improvidently
I shall explain the background of the case and my reasons for
concurring in the dismissal as improvidently granted.
Mark Halbman's petition for review (which at least three
members of the court voted to grant) relates to Halbman's
claim of legal malpractice against his former attorney,
Mitchell J. Barrock, and ...