Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Carlos Gamino

Citation: 2006 WI 32

Docket Number: 2004AP002975-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2006-04-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
2006 WI 32 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP2975-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carlos Gamino, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Carlos Gamino, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GAMINO 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 28, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
CONCUR/DISSENT: 
BUTLER, JR., J., concurs in part, dissents in 
part (opinion filed). 
ROGGENSACK, J., joins the concurrence/dissent. 
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2006 WI 32
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP2975-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carlos Gamino, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Carlos Gamino, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 28, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee 
that 
Attorney 
Carlos 
Gamino 
be 
reprimanded 
for 
professional misconduct.  That misconduct consists of failure to 
act with reasonable diligence, failure to immediately refund 
unearned fees, contacting a client after receiving notice 
successor counsel had been retained, and a trust account 
violation.  In addition to a public reprimand, the referee 
recommended 
that 
Attorney 
Gamino 
pay 
the 
costs 
of 
this 
No. 
2004AP2975-D   
 
2 
 
proceeding.  As of November 3, 2005, the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) reported costs of $7773.38. 
¶2 
No appeal has been filed.  We adopt the referee's 
findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree that a public 
reprimand 
is 
appropriate 
discipline 
for Attorney Gamino's 
misconduct in this matter.  We further conclude that Attorney 
Gamino should pay the costs of this disciplinary proceeding.   
¶3 
Attorney Gamino was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin 1997.  He has been previously disciplined.1 
¶4 
The OLR filed an amended complaint against Attorney 
Gamino alleging 16 counts of misconduct with respect to matters 
he handled for four former clients.  Kathleen Callan Brady was 
appointed referee and on June 23, 2005, she conducted an 
evidentiary hearing.  The referee issued her report on October 
14, 2005.  The referee determined that the OLR had proven 
misconduct in six of the 16 counts charged.  The OLR voluntarily 
dismissed one of the counts and the referee found that the OLR 
failed to prove by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence 
misconduct charged in nine counts.  No appeal has been filed.   
¶5 
The referee found that on August 14, 2002, client D.J. 
retained Attorney Gamino to represent him in a lawsuit to 
recover property damage due to an automobile accident.  D.J. 
paid Attorney Gamino $1200 in seven installments.  Attorney 
Gamino 
failed 
to 
file 
an 
answer 
on 
D.J.'s 
behalf 
and 
                                                 
1 See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gamino, 2005 WI 
168, 286 Wis. 2d 558, 707 N.W.2d 132.   
No. 
2004AP2975-D   
 
3 
 
subsequently, opposing counsel moved for default judgment.  The 
court granted the motion and judgment was entered on October 1, 
2002.   
¶6 
On November 6, 2002, D.J. represented himself at a 
Department of Transportation (DOT) hearing and was successful in 
establishing that he was not at fault in the accident.  The 
hearing examiner terminated D.J.'s license suspension concluding 
"no reasonable possibility exists of a judgment being rendered 
against [D.J.] for damage to property."   
¶7 
The referee found that on December 11, 2002, Attorney 
Gamino's secretary signed his name to a form letter requesting 
the next payment in accordance with the retainer agreement, 
which client D.J. subsequently paid.  Thereafter, D.J. and the 
DOT were informed of the default judgment and D.J.'s license and 
registration were suspended.  D.J. retained successor counsel, 
who remedied the problems.  After Attorney Gamino was notified 
regarding the successor counsel, he contacted D.J. to apologize 
for his conduct.  Following the OLR's demand, Attorney Gamino 
refunded 
the 
entire fee 
paid to 
D.J.  
Attorney 
Gamino 
subsequently paid $5000 in settlement of all claims arising from 
his misconduct in this matter.   
¶8 
The referee determined that Attorney Gamino's failure 
to appear to defend a civil lawsuit against D.J. and failing to 
take steps to seek relief supported two counts alleging failure 
to act with reasonable diligence contrary to SCR 20:1.3.2  Also, 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2004AP2975-D   
 
4 
 
his failure to refund immediately the unearned fee after D.J. 
retained 
successor 
counsel 
violated SCR 20:1.16(d).3 
 In 
addition, Attorney Gamino admitted he had contacted D.J. after 
receiving notice that successor counsel had been retained, 
violating SCR 20:4.2.4  The referee determined that sending a 
form letter was negligent but did not support purposeful 
misrepresentation to a client as alleged in the OLR's complaint.   
¶9 
The second client matter involved Attorney Gamino's 
representation of B.E. in a divorce action.  B.E. executed a 
retainer agreement and paid a $1500 retainer fee and a $191 
filing fee.  Attorney Gamino placed the $191 filing fee in his 
general account instead of a separate trust account.  Attorney 
Gamino filed a summons and complaint in May 2002.  In December 
2002 default judgment was granted.  B.E. requested a copy of the 
final judgment several times, but Attorney Gamino did not 
                                                 
3 SCR 
20:1.16(d) 
provides: 
 
Declining 
or 
terminating 
representation. 
 
(d) Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee that has not been earned.  
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
4 SCR 20:4.2 provides that "[i]n representing a client, a 
lawyer 
shall 
not 
communicate 
about 
the 
subject 
of 
the 
representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented 
by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the 
consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so." 
No. 
2004AP2975-D   
 
5 
 
provide one.  Attorney Gamino eventually filed the final 
findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment with the court 
in 2003.   
¶10 Attorney Gamino admitted that he failed to act with 
reasonable diligence in filing the documents constituting a 
violation of SCR 20:1.3.  He also admitted that he placed the 
$191 filing fee in his business account, constituting a trust 
account violation contrary to SCR 20:1.15.5   
¶11 The third client matter involved Attorney Gamino's 
representation of H.S. and his wife, R.S., in connection with 
H.S.'s arrest in an alleged battery to a police officer.  The 
clients paid Attorney Gamino $500 to represent H.S. at a 
charging conference, but they did not sign a written agreement 
regarding 
representation. 
 
The 
clients 
also 
discussed 
a 
potential civil action against the police department. 
¶12 At the charging 
conference, 
Attorney 
Gamino was 
advised that no charges would be filed against H.S.  Attorney 
Gamino advised R.S. that no charges would be filed and spoke 
with her several times.  Attorney Gamino testified in the 
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.15 provides in relevant part: 
 
(b) Segregation of trust property. 
(1) Separate account.  A lawyer shall hold in 
trust, separate from the lawyer's own property, that 
property of clients and 3rd parties that is in the 
lawyer's 
possession 
in 
connection 
with 
a 
representation.  All funds of clients and 3rd parties 
paid to a lawyer or law firm in connection with a 
representation shall be deposited in one or more 
identifiable trust accounts. 
No. 
2004AP2975-D   
 
6 
 
disciplinary proceedings that he also requested a $2000 retainer 
fee to represent them if they chose to commence a civil action.  
R.S. testified, however, that Attorney Gamino had informed her 
that he believed felony charges would likely be filed, and that 
he would get everything dropped if the clients paid him $2000.  
No retainer was received, and R.S. demanded the $500 fee be 
returned, but it was not refunded. 
¶13 The referee determined that there were a number of 
factual disputes and conflicting testimony with respect to this 
matter.  The referee concluded that H.S. and R.S.'s testimony 
was inconsistent, making it unreliable and therefore, did not 
support the OLR allegations.  The referee further believed 
Attorney Gamino's testimony that he discussed a civil suit and 
the $2000 retainer was discussed in this respect.  Therefore, 
the referee determined the OLR failed to prove by clear, 
convincing, and satisfactory evidence the alleged misconduct 
with respect to this representation. 
¶14 The fourth client matter involved representing J.J. on 
a possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance 
charge.  J.J.'s wife, J.G., contacted Attorney Gamino who 
informed her that he required a nonrefundable retainer fee of 
$5000.  J.G. paid $2500 when she signed the fee agreement and 
paid the balance at a later date.  Attorney Gamino met with J.J. 
several times and made court appearances between March 1 and 
April 10, 2003.  Thereafter, J.J. discharged Attorney Gamino as 
his attorney and Attorney Gamino subsequently returned J.J.'s 
No. 
2004AP2975-D   
 
7 
 
file to him.  J.G. requested the unused portion of the retainer 
be returned but no portion of the fee was returned. 
¶15 The referee noted that neither J.J. nor J.G. testified 
at the disciplinary hearing.  It was undisputed that Attorney 
Gamino had given J.J. his file as requested.  The referee found 
no rule violation. 
¶16 The parties stipulated that there had been a previous 
disciplinary proceeding involving Attorney Gamino, which was on 
appeal at the time of the disciplinary hearing in this case, as 
well as another matter before this court.  The referee stated 
that there was no record or evidence of prior discipline 
introduced at the disciplinary hearing over which she was 
presiding.  Therefore, she did not consider previous discipline 
in making her recommendation for sanctions against Attorney 
Gamino.   
¶17 In support of her recommendation for public reprimand 
for the violation of these six counts, the referee stated there 
was no evidence of actual damage to the parties.  She observed 
that a primary consideration of the disciplinary proceeding was 
whether there would be a likelihood of the attorney engaging in 
unprofessional conduct in the future.  In addition, the referee 
noted an important consideration is deterrence.  The referee 
concluded that Attorney Gamino's actions warranted a public 
reprimand to deter unprofessional conduct.   
¶18 A referee's findings of fact on a disciplinary matter 
will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 
No. 
2004AP2975-D   
 
8 
 
Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.  Conclusions of law are reviewed 
de novo.  Id.  Although this court considers the referee's 
recommendation as to appropriate discipline, we do not accord it 
any 
conclusive 
or 
great 
weight. 
 
It 
is 
this 
court's 
responsibility to determine appropriate discipline and in making 
that determination, this court may impose discipline more or 
less 
severe 
than 
recommended. 
 
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 
N.W.2d 686.   
¶19 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
as set forth in the referee's report.  We further agree that the 
seriousness of Attorney Gamino's misconduct as established in 
this proceeding warrants a public reprimand.   
¶20 The referee further recommended that Attorney Gamino 
be required to pay all costs of the disciplinary proceeding.  
Attorney Gamino has not objected to or appealed the referee's 
report and recommendation.  Under SCR 22.24(1), this court has 
discretion to assess all or a portion of the costs of the 
disciplinary proceeding in which misconduct has been found 
against the respondent.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Konnor, 2005 WI 37, ¶32, 279 Wis. 2d 284, 694 N.W.2d 
376.  There is no claim in the instant case that the costs 
requested by the OLR are excessive or unreasonable.  See id.  
Accordingly, we order Attorney Gamino to pay the costs of this 
proceeding, as recommended by the referee. 
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Carlos Gamino be publicly 
reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
No. 
2004AP2975-D   
 
9 
 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Gamino shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, provided that if the 
costs are not paid within the time specified, and absent a 
showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within 
that time, the license of Attorney Carlos Gamino to practice law 
in Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of this 
court. 
No.  2004AP2975-D.lbb 
 
1 
 
 
¶23 LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J.   (concurring in part, 
dissenting in part).  I join the court's decision and order as 
to the discipline imposed in this action.  I write separately 
because I disagree with the court that full costs should be 
imposed in this case.  For the reasons stated in my concurring 
in part, dissenting in part opinions in In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Polich, 2005 WI 36, 279 Wis. 2d 266, 694 
N.W.2d 367 and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Backes, 
2005 WI 59, 281 Wis. 2d 1, 697 N.W.2d 49, because Attorney 
Gamino was absolved of any misconduct in the matters involving 
H.S. and R.S., see per curiam op., ¶13, and J.J., see per curiam 
op., ¶15, I would not assess any costs associated with the 
counts involving those matters.  Until our new rule goes into 
effect,1 I would not assess costs against an attorney in 
unrelated, unsuccessful counts where no misconduct has been 
found concerning a particular client.  Such an assessment is 
simply not supported by the purposes underlying the factors we 
currently consider in determining the appropriate level of 
discipline where the misconduct is rooted in unrelated matters.   
¶24 I therefore respectfully dissent from that portion of 
the court's opinion that assesses full costs against Attorney 
Gamino.  I concur with the remainder of the decision. 
                                                 
1 I recognize that this court recently adopted an amendment 
to the rules that establishes the criteria to be applied in 
situations such as this when assessing costs.  That amendment 
has not yet taken effect. 
No.  2004AP2975-D.lbb 
 
2 
 
¶25 I am authorized to state that Justice PATIENCE DRAKE 
ROGGENSACK joins this concurring in part, dissenting in part 
opinion. 
 
 
 
 
No.  2004AP2975-D.lbb 
 
 
 
1