Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Carlos A. Gamino

Citation: 2008 WI 107

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2008-07-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
2008 WI 107 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP2430-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carlos A. Gamino, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Carlos A. Gamino, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINIARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GAMINO 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 30, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 107
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP2430-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carlos A. Gamiño, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Carlos A. Gamiño, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 30, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee, Dennis J. Flynn, that the license of Attorney Carlos A. 
Gamiño to practice law in this state be suspended for a period 
of 18 months due to his professional misconduct and that he 
should also be required to complete 24 continuing legal 
education (CLE) credits approved for ethics and pay the costs of 
this disciplinary proceeding. 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Neither party appealed the recommendation so this 
matter is submitted to the court for review pursuant to SCR 
22.17(2).  We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  We further 
determine that the seriousness of Attorney Gamiño's misconduct 
warrants the suspension of his license to practice law for 18 
months, the requirement of completing 24 credits of CLE courses 
approved for ethics, and the imposition of the costs of the 
proceeding, which are $16,281.02 as of April 16, 2008. 
¶3 
Attorney Gamiño was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1997.  His law license was suspended for six months 
effective January 24, 2006, because he was found to have engaged 
in a sexual relationship with a client in one matter and a 
sexual relationship with a juvenile client's mother in another 
matter.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gamiño, 2005 
WI 168, 286 Wis. 2d 558, 707 N.W.2d 132. He also made false 
representations about his conduct to a court and to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) investigators in that matter.  
Attorney Gamiño was publicly reprimanded on April 28, 2006, for 
failure to act with reasonable diligence, failure to immediately 
refund unearned fees, contacting a client after receiving notice 
that successor counsel had been retained in one matter, and for 
a trust account violation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gamiño, 2006 WI 32, 290 Wis. 2d 1, 712 N.W.2d 873.  
Attorney Gamiño's petition for reinstatement was granted by this 
court on September 5, 2007.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gamiño, 2007 WI 115, 305 Wis. 2d 1, 737 N.W.2d 662. 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
The misconduct at issue in this proceeding occurred in 
2004, about the same time as the incidents giving rise to his 
prior discipline for professional misconduct.   
¶5 
On or about April 20, 2004, Attorney Gamiño met with 
N.B. and E.B. to discuss helping them finalize their divorce 
action that had then been pending for about seven months.  The 
couple had been married since February 1979.    
¶6 
When they met with Attorney Gamiño, both N.B. and E.B. 
had separate attorneys.  The husband, E.B., suggested they find 
one attorney to represent them both in order to save money.  
Attorney Gamiño agreed to represent both N.B. and E.B.  He sent 
separate stipulations and orders for substitution of counsel to 
the attorneys of record for both N.B. and E.B.  However, he did 
not 
obtain 
either 
party's 
written 
consent 
to 
the 
dual 
representation and he failed to file the stipulations with the 
court.   
¶7 
At 
the 
time 
Attorney 
Gamiño 
undertook 
the 
representation, a court trial in the divorce proceeding was 
scheduled for June 22, 2004.  On June 21, 2004, Attorney 
Gamiño's office contacted the court requesting an adjournment of 
the court trial.  The court denied the request because Attorney 
Gamiño was not counsel of record because he had failed to file 
the substitution of counsel documents with the court.  On June 
22, 2004, the case was placed on the dismissal calendar because 
neither party appeared.  A notice of dismissal was sent to the 
parties advising them that the action was set for the July 6, 
2004, dismissal calendar.  Attorney Gamiño claims that he did 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
4 
 
not receive a copy of the notice of hearing of the dismissal 
matter.  No one appeared in court on July 6, 2004, and the case 
was dismissed for failure to prosecute.  Attorney Gamiño did not 
inform N.B. that the divorce action had been dismissed.   
¶8 
On September 28, 2004, Attorney Gamiño filed a motion 
to reopen the divorce case.  A hearing on the motion was 
scheduled for January 3, 2005.  Attorney Gamiño appeared at the 
hearing on behalf of E.B.  N.B. did not appear at this hearing; 
she alleged that Attorney Gamiño failed to tell her about it.  
The court granted the motion to reopen the matter and the 
divorce hearing was scheduled for February 3, 2005.  
¶9 
At the February 3, 2005, final divorce hearing, 
Attorney Gamiño told the court that N.B. was appearing pro se 
and that he was representing E.B.  N.B. later testified that 
until 
that 
date, 
she 
believed 
that 
Attorney 
Gamiño 
was 
representing her as well as E.B.  Attorney Gamiño disputes this 
claim, stating that he informed N.B. he would not represent her 
during a December 2004 telephone conversation.  However, he 
could 
produce 
no 
written 
documentation 
to 
support 
this 
assertion. 
¶10 Attorney 
Gamiño 
prepared 
the 
joint 
financial 
disclosure statement using information he received from the 
parties.  His office also prepared the marital settlement 
agreement.  Subsequently, a number of problems were identified 
with these documents that were disadvantageous to N.B.  For 
example, the value of E.B.'s retirement accounts was never 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
5 
 
listed and certain monies the parties had agreed would go to 
N.B. were not mentioned in the marital settlement agreement.   
¶11 The joint financial disclosure statement was signed on 
April 24, 2004.  The court commissioner granted the divorce 
judgment and directed the marital settlement agreement be part 
of that judgment.   
¶12 After the divorce, Attorney Gamiño received a letter 
from N.B.'s post-divorce attorney requesting a copy of her file.  
He did not comply with that request.  He later explained that he 
opted not to comply because E.B. had not authorized him to 
release the file documents.   
¶13 The OLR complaint in this matter was filed on October 
6, 2006, and alleged seven counts of professional misconduct 
committed in connection with the divorce proceeding.  The 
referee ultimately concluded that Attorney Gamiño committed five 
of the seven counts and exonerated him on the remaining two 
counts. 
¶14 At 
the 
evidentiary 
hearing, 
the 
referee 
heard 
extensive expert testimony regarding Attorney Gamiño's handling 
of the divorce matter.  Attorney Cheryl Gemignani provided 
expert testimony and opined that: 
1. 
The marital settlement agreement was signed 
on April 22, 2004.  It could not have been signed 
before 
the 
preparation 
of 
the 
joint 
financial 
disclosure statement dated April 24, 2004.  The 
documents, she believes, were falsified. 
2. 
Attorney Gamiño had a duty to ascertain a 
fair market value of all of E.B.'s retirement accounts 
and other assets in order to comply with the law in 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
6 
 
Wisconsin regarding a presumptive equal division of 
the marital estate.  This was not done. 
3. 
It is misconduct for an attorney to present 
for the first time the complete joint financial 
disclosure statement to the clients at the time of the 
final divorce hearing as stated by N.B. 
4. 
Attorney Gamiño stated he did not know the 
difference between a defined benefit and a defined 
contribution plan.  He had a duty to consult with 
other professionals to get this information.  He did 
not do so. 
¶15 Attorney Margaret Wrenn Hickey also provided expert 
testimony and opined that Attorney Gamiño's legal representation 
was deficient in the following respects: 
1. 
Attorney Gamiño represented both parties 
when their interests were adverse.  This conflict 
situation was not waivable.  Even if the condition was 
waivable, Attorney Gamiño did not obtain a written 
waiver. 
2. 
The parties were not on an equal footing.  
N.B. was the victim of domestic violence, in poor 
health, and her education and experience in financial 
and business matters was not equal to E.B.'s. 
3. 
Attorney 
Gamiño 
did 
not 
reasonably 
communicate with his clients regarding the divorce 
dismissal, 
the 
motion 
to 
reopen, 
the 
marital 
settlement agreement, the joint financial disclosure 
agreement, and the notice regarding the final divorce 
hearing.   
4. 
Securing only three years of maintenance for 
this long-term marriage is not reasonable.  It does 
not reasonably consider the medical disabilities of 
N.B., and the final maintenance award was indefinite.   
5. 
A patently unfair settlement (maintenance 
and property division) can only occur through a 
knowing waiver.  That waiver did not occur in this 
case.  Attorney Gamiño has a duty of loyalty to his 
client and it was not honored. 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
7 
 
6. 
Attorney Gamiño did not inform himself on 
the 
actual 
situation 
of 
his 
client 
(asset 
verification, health condition of N.B., discussion of 
law relative to 50-50 division of marital estate and 
maintenance) and as a result, the clients were not 
able 
to 
make 
informed decisions regarding their 
rights.  One meeting with clients is not enough.  
Separate 
meetings 
are 
needed 
with 
each 
client.  
Meetings to review marital settlement agreement are 
needed with each client.   
7. 
The marital settlement agreement did not 
include all of the assets listed in the joint 
financial disclosure and the list of assets prepared 
by E.B.  This focuses on the $98,000 N.B. was to get 
regarding the pension.   
8. 
Attorney Gamiño failed to reasonably notify 
his clients that at trial he would only represent E.B. 
and not N.B.  There was no written consent or waiver 
by clients.  No waiver was possible in this case as 
Attorney Gamiño had critical knowledge as to N.B. and 
thus the conflict he had could never be ameliorated. 
9. 
The matter regarding the embryos was never 
resolved between the parties in the marital settlement 
agreement.  Attorney Gamiño has a duty to resolve all 
matters in conflict to the extent possible. 
10. Attorney Gamiño failed to obtain the files 
of the two prior attorneys who represented the parties 
in this divorce.  Critical information regarding the 
marital estate would perhaps be disclosed.   
¶16 The 
referee 
considered 
the 
testimony 
of 
other 
witnesses as well, including Attorney Gamiño's family members.  
Ultimately, the referee found that Attorney Gamiño failed to 
obtain information essential to ensuring an equitable division 
of property in this divorce proceeding.  More specifically, 
Attorney Gamiño failed to: 
(1) Obtain financial documents and information 
needed to establish N.B.'s interests in an equitable 
division of marital property and maintenance;  
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
8 
 
(2) Inquire about N.B.'s domestic situation, 
which included medical complications and a history of 
domestic abuse by E.B.;  
(3) Inform N.B. and E.B. of the presumption in 
Wisconsin that their property, including retirement 
assets, would be divided equally between them;  
(4) Inquire about the dissipation of assets;  
(5) Address the division of E.B.'s pension, 
savings plan and other retirement savings in the 
marital settlement agreement;  
(6) Address the subject of retirement plans 
and/or qualified domestic orders;  
(7) Remove N.B. from a mortgage note for property 
awarded to E.B.;  
(8) 
Advise 
N.B. 
regarding 
her 
rights 
to 
maintenance, particularly in light of her disability 
and receipt of public aid;  
(9) Obtain N.B.'s written consent for continued 
representation of E.B. only in the divorce action;  
(10) Return N.B.'s case file after she requested 
it through her new attorney;  
(11) Notify N.B. of his withdrawal as her counsel 
and give her ample time to secure a new attorney; and  
(12) Give proper information to the court and 
district committee regarding the marital settlement 
agreement, when it was signed, and knowledge of E.B.'s 
retirement accounts.   
¶17 The referee was not persuaded by Attorney Gamiño's 
assertion that it was not his responsibility to ensure an 
equitable division of property in this divorce proceeding.  
Attorney Gamiño argued that N.B. and E.B. had separate attorneys 
and he thought that they had resolved all divorce matters before 
coming to see him.  He explained that N.B. and E.B. simply 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
9 
 
wanted him to secure their divorce by stipulation under 
agreements that had been reached by their prior attorneys.  
Attorney Gamiño said he informed the parties that if a dispute 
arose he would only represent one party and the parties agreed 
that would be E.B.   
¶18 Attorney Gamiño testified further that he did try to 
explain the law regarding maintenance and property division to 
the parties but they were not interested in that information.  
He admitted that he did not have the parties sign any consent to 
allow him to represent both the wife and husband in this divorce 
matter.  He acknowledged that he did not recognize the 
disparities between N.B.'s and E.B.'s income, education, and 
work background.  Attorney Gamiño testified that he trusted his 
clients regarding the retirement information and did not check 
into it himself. 
¶19 Turning to the allegations in the OLR complaint, the 
referee concluded that Attorney Gamiño violated former SCR 
20:1.7(a),1 by representing both N.B. and E.B. in their divorce 
                                                 
1 Effective July 1, 2007, substantial changes were made to 
the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys, SCR Chapter 20.  See S. Ct. Order 04-07, 2007 WI 4, 
293 Wis. 2d xv, 726 N.W.2d Ct.R-45 (eff. July 1, 2007); and 
S. Ct. 
Order 
06-04, 
2007 
WI 
48, 
297 
Wis. 2d xv, 
730 
N.W.2d Ct.R.-29 (eff. July 1, 2007).  Because the conduct 
underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2007, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme court rules 
will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2007. 
Former SCR 20:1.7(a) states:  Conflict of interest: general 
rule. 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
10 
 
proceeding when Attorney Gamiño could not have reasonably 
believed that N.B.'s interests would not be adversely affected 
by failing to obtain written consent to the dual representation.  
In reaching this conclusion, the referee observed that the 
record is clear that Attorney Gamiño knowingly represented both 
parties in an adverse divorce proceeding and never sought to 
obtain any consent or waiver from the clients regarding this 
situation.   
¶20 The referee also concluded that Attorney Gamiño failed 
to keep N.B. reasonably informed about the status of her divorce 
case in violation of SCR 20:1.4.2  The referee explained: 
N.B. first learned of the fact that Attorney Gamiño 
was only going to represent E.B. just before going 
into court for the default divorce on February 3, 
2005.  E.B.'s testimony corroborates this.  Attorney 
Gamiño's contentions to the effect that he advised 
E.B. and N.B. orally about the dismissal of the 
divorce due to non-prosecution, that he advised N.B. 
orally about the motion to reopen and the date for 
that hearing, and that he orally told N.B. in December 
2004 that he was going to represent E.B. only in the 
divorce and that she should get her own attorney are 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the 
representation of that client will be directly adverse 
to another client, unless: 
 
(1) 
the 
lawyer 
reasonably 
believes 
the 
representation 
will 
not 
adversely 
affect 
the 
relationship with the other client; and 
 
(2) 
each 
client 
consents 
in 
writing 
after 
consultation. 
2 Former SCR 20:1.4 states "[a] lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
11 
 
rejected . . . .  N.B.'s testimony on these issues is 
more credible than that of Attorney Gamiño. 
¶21 The 
referee also concluded that Attorney Gamiño 
violated SCR 20:1.13 which provides that a lawyer shall provide 
competent representation to a client because Attorney Gamiño did 
not make an adequate inquiry into E.B.'s retirement assets, 
N.B.'s health condition, her disability status, or the domestic 
violence that she had experienced in the past from E.B.  The 
referee noted that, "The fact that N.B. was receiving Social 
Security disability income should have alerted him to make some 
further inquiry into her medical and work history insofar as 
maintenance was concerned."  He found that "the credible 
evidence establishes that Attorney Gamiño did nothing to advise 
N.B. of her rights in this area.  . . .  [H]e did not discuss 
with N.B. her rights to fair maintenance in this long-term 
marriage." 
¶22 As 
such, 
the 
referee 
concluded 
that 
"OLR 
has 
established by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that 
Attorney Gamiño failed to provide competent legal representation 
to his clients in this divorce matter" in violation of SCR 
20:1.1. 
¶23 Similarly, 
the referee found that the "credible 
evidence establishes that Attorney Gamiño did not advise N.B. 
before the final hearing that he would not be representing her 
                                                 
3 Former SCR 20:1.1 provides that "[a] lawyer shall provide 
competent representation to a client.  Competent representation 
requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
12 
 
in the divorce action." Attorney Gamiño thus violated SCR 
20:1.9(a),4 which provides that a lawyer who has formerly 
represented a client in a matter shall not represent another 
person in the same or a substantially similar matter in which 
the person's interests are materially adverse to the interests 
of the former client unless the former client consents in 
writing after consultation.  The referee observed: 
N.B. had no real information regarding her husband's 
pension accounts.  She was disabled under Social 
Security and likely could not work.  She had been a 
past victim of domestic abuse by E.B..  The marital 
settlement agreement did not give her the $98,000 that 
she was to get from her husband's known pension 
accounts.  Under the guise of maintenance, she was to 
get $500 per month toward her share (the $98,000) of 
the property division.  However, those payments were 
not guaranteed in the event of E.B.'s death.  This 
approach meant that the alleged maintenance was a tax 
deductible 
expense 
for 
E.B. 
and 
N.B. 
would 
be 
obligated to pay taxes on what in fact were payments 
to her over time of her share of the marital estate.  
Attorney Gamiño knew or should have known all of this 
information.  It was as expert witness Hickey said.  
The conflict was not waivable by Attorney Gamiño 
regarding the adverse position of these parties.  
Under Attorney Gamiño's duty of loyalty to N.B., he 
was obligated to disabuse N.B. as to the patently 
unfair divorce agreement that was being offered to the 
court.  N.B. could potentially waive the conflict had 
she been informed of her rights, but there was no such 
advice given to N.B. by Attorney Gamiño and no written 
waiver ever was prepared or signed. Attorney Gamiño 
had critical knowledge as to N.B. that created an 
                                                 
4 Former SCR 20:1.9(a) states that a lawyer who has formerly 
represented a client in a matter shall not "represent another 
person in the same or a substantially related matter in which 
that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests 
of the former client unless the former client consents in 
writing after consultation; . . . ." 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
13 
 
insurmountable conflict and made it impossible for him 
to continue to represent E.B., an adverse party to 
N.B., his former client, in the divorce. 
¶24 Thus, the referee concluded that the OLR established 
by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that Attorney 
Gamiño violated SCR 20:1.9(a). 
¶25 The 
referee also concluded that Attorney Gamiño 
violated SCR 20:1.16(d)5 by failing to provide N.B.'s file to her 
new attorney when a request was made on June 6, 2005, after his 
representation of N.B. had terminated.  Indeed, Attorney Gamiño 
never even responded to the file request.  Thus, the referee 
found that the OLR established by clear, satisfactory and 
convincing evidence that Attorney Gamiño violated 20:1.16(d). 
¶26 The referee also concluded that the OLR failed to meet 
its burden of proof with respect to the claim that Attorney 
Gamiño failed to timely file documents and make necessary court 
appearances.  The referee stated, "The credible evidence does 
not 
establish, 
to 
the 
level 
of 
clear, 
satisfactory 
and 
convincing, that Attorney Gamiño failed to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing N.B. and/or E.B. 
regarding their divorce."  Finally, the referee found that OLR 
                                                 
5 Former SCR 20:1.16(d) provides as follows: 
 
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. 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
14 
 
had not established that Attorney Gamiño knowingly gave false 
information during the course of the investigation into this 
matter.  Rather, the referee was of the opinion that Attorney 
Gamiño's oversights were based on ignorance.  The referee found 
further that there was inadequate information in the record to 
ascertain exactly when the agreements in question were signed.  
¶27 We accept the referee's findings of fact, and we agree 
with his conclusions of law.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Phillips, 290 Wis. 2d 87, 713 N.W.2d 629, 639 (2006).  
Accordingly, we turn to the question of the appropriate 
discipline for Attorney Gamiño's misconduct.   
¶28 The OLR requested a two-year suspension of Attorney 
Gamiño's license to practice law.  Attorney Gamiño requested a 
public reprimand.  The referee ultimately recommended an 18-
month suspension and recommended further that Attorney Gamiño 
complete 
24 
credits 
of 
CLE 
courses 
approved 
for 
ethics 
education, and pay the costs of this proceeding.  The referee 
concluded restitution was not appropriate in this matter. 
¶29 Attorney 
Gamiño's 
prior 
disciplinary 
history 
is 
troubling, but we note that the conduct at issue here occurred 
around the same time as the incidents giving rise to his prior 
discipline.  On balance, we agree that the recommended sanction 
is 
not 
inconsistent 
with 
other 
cases 
involving 
similar 
misconduct.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Whitnall, 2000 WI 131, 239 Wis. 2d 721, 619 N.W.2d 926.  We 
therefore accept the recommended discipline.  Attorney Gamiño's 
license to practice law will be suspended for 18 months.  We 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
15 
 
direct Attorney Gamiño to complete 24 credits of approved 
coursework in the area of legal ethics and professional 
responsibility and to pay the costs of this proceeding. 
¶30 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Carlos A. Gamiño to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 18 
months, effective September 2, 2008. 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Carlos A. Gamiño comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Carlos A. Gamiño shall 
complete 24 credits of CLE approved coursework in the area of 
legal ethics and professional responsibility. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Carlos A. Gamiño 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 those costs within 
that time, the license of Attorney Carlos A. Gamiño to practice 
law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of 
the court. 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
 
 
1