Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ricardo Perez

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2019AP000577-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2019-11-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
2019 WI 99 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP577-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ricardo Perez, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Ricardo Perez, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PEREZ 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 19, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
2019 WI 99
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2019AP577-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ricardo Perez, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Ricardo Perez, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
NOV 19, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review Referee Kim M. Peterson's 
report and recommendation that the court declare Attorney 
Ricardo Perez in default and suspend his license to practice law 
in Wisconsin for a period of nine months for professional 
misconduct in connection with his representation of four 
clients.  The referee also recommended that Attorney Perez pay 
the full costs of this proceeding, which are $1,957.12 as of 
August 21, 2019. 
No. 
2019AP577-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Since no appeal has been filed, we review the 
referee's report pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).  
After reviewing the matter, we agree with the referee that, 
based on Attorney Perez's failure to answer the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation's (OLR) complaint, the OLR is entitled to a default 
judgment.  We also agree with the referee that a nine-month 
suspension of Attorney Perez's law license is an appropriate 
sanction for his professional misconduct.  Finally, we agree 
that Attorney Perez should be required to pay the full costs of 
this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Perez was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2000 and practiced in Kenosha.  On February 14, 
2018, Attorney Perez's Wisconsin law license was suspended 
pursuant to SCR 22.03(4) due to his willful failure to cooperate 
in an OLR investigation.  In October 2018, his law license was 
suspended for failure to pay state bar dues and failure to file 
a trust account certification.  Attorney Perez's license was 
also administratively suspended on June 5, 2019, for failure to 
comply with continuing legal education reporting requirements.  
His license remains suspended. 
¶4 
The OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Perez on 
March 25, 2019.  The first client matter detailed in the 
complaint involved Attorney Perez's representation of R.J., who 
hired Attorney Perez to represent her in a personal injury case 
stemming from her January 2015 fall at a drug store.  The 
initial 
attorney-client 
meeting 
occurred 
at 
R.J.'s 
home.  
Attorney Perez gave R.J. a document with his contact information 
No. 
2019AP577-D   
 
3 
 
and information pertaining to the drug store.  Attorney Perez 
told R.J. to contact him when she had finished her medical 
treatment. 
¶5 
R.J. left three or four messages for Attorney Perez 
around December 2016 and January 2017, but received no response.  
In February 2017, R.J. sent Attorney Perez a letter asking about 
the status of her case and asking why he had not responded to 
her calls.  Attorney Perez failed to respond.  The February 2017 
letter was the last contact R.J. had with Attorney Perez. 
¶6 
R.J. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney 
Perez.  On September 19, 2017, the OLR sent a letter to Attorney 
Perez by first class mail requesting his written response to 
R.J.'s grievance by October 12, 2017.  The letter was sent to 
Attorney Perez's last known place of business as listed with the 
State Bar of Wisconsin.  Attorney Perez did not respond. 
¶7 
The OLR sent a second letter to Attorney Perez, by 
first class and certified mail, on October 27, 2017 asking for a 
response to R.J.'s grievance by November 8, 2017.  The certified 
letter was returned marked "return to sender, unclaimed, unable 
to forward."  The first class letter was not returned.  Attorney 
Perez failed to respond. 
¶8 
On December 1, 2017, the OLR sent Attorney Perez a 
third letter, which was personally served on Attorney Perez on 
December 11, 2017.  The letter required Attorney Perez to file a 
response to R.J.'s grievance no later than seven days from the 
date of service.  Attorney Perez failed to respond. 
No. 
2019AP577-D   
 
4 
 
¶9 
The OLR filed a motion asking this court to order 
Attorney Perez to show cause why his law license should not be 
temporarily suspended due to his failure to cooperate in the 
OLR's investigation.  Attorney Perez failed to respond to the 
order to show cause, and on February 14, 2018, this court 
temporarily suspended Attorney Perez's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin.  
¶10 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Perez's representation of 
R.J.: 
Count One:  By failing to take prompt and diligent 
action on R.J.'s personal injury claim, Attorney Perez 
violated SCR 20:1.3.1 
Count Two:  By failing to respond to R.J.'s inquiries 
or otherwise keep her informed as to case status, 
Attorney 
Perez 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.4(a)(3)2 
and 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).3 
Count Three:  By willfully failing to respond to the 
OLR's 
attempt 
to 
investigate 
R.J.'s 
grievance, 
Attorney 
Perez 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2)4 
and 
SCR 22.03(6),5 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).6 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides:  "A lawyer shall promptly 
comply with reasonable requests by the client for information." 
4 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the respondent of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
(continued) 
No. 
2019AP577-D   
 
5 
 
¶11 The second client matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Perez's representation of L.H., who 
signed a fee agreement with Attorney Perez for representation in 
a personal injury case.  L.H. informed Attorney Perez, via voice 
mail, that she had completed her medical treatment on December 
15, 2017.  Attorney Perez returned the phone call and said it 
would be 60-90 days before L.H. would receive a response to her 
claim.  In December 2017, at Attorney Perez's request, L.H. 
provided him with a signed release for medical records. 
¶12 L.H. called Attorney Perez on multiple occasions, but 
he failed to respond.  Attorney Perez failed to notify L.H. that 
his law license had been suspended on February 14, 2018, and he 
                                                                                                                                                             
investigation of the matter requires otherwise.  The 
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 
request for a written response.  The director may 
allow additional time to respond.  Following receipt 
of the response, the director may conduct further 
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation.   
5 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
6 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 
or SCR 22.04(1)." 
No. 
2019AP577-D   
 
6 
 
failed to advise her to seek legal advice elsewhere.  Attorney 
Perez 
never 
provided 
L.H. 
with 
her 
case 
file 
following 
termination of representation due to the suspension of his law 
license. 
¶13 L.H. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney 
Perez.  On August 28, 2018, the OLR sent Attorney Perez a letter 
via first class mail to his last known address requesting a 
written response to the grievance by September 20, 2018.  
Attorney Perez failed to respond.  The OLR sent Attorney Perez a 
second letter on October 10, 2018 requesting a written response 
within seven days of service.  Attorney Perez was personally 
served with the letter on October 22, 2018, but failed to 
respond to it. 
¶14 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Perez's representation of 
L.H.: 
Count Four:  By failing to take prompt and diligent 
action on L.H.'s personal injury claim, Attorney Perez 
violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count Five:  By failing to keep L.H. informed about 
the status of her case and respond to her requests for 
information, Attorney Perez violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) 
and (4). 
Count Six:  By failing to provide L.H. notice of his 
law license suspension, and to advise L.H. to seek 
legal advice of her choice elsewhere, Attorney Perez 
violated SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b),7 enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(f).8 
                                                 
7 SCR 22.26(1) provides: 
(continued) 
No. 
2019AP577-D   
 
7 
 
Count Seven:  By failing to provide L.H. with her case 
file 
materials 
after 
the 
termination 
of 
his 
representation, 
Attorney 
Perez 
violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d).9 
Count Eight:  By willfully failing to provide the OLR 
with a response to L.H.'s grievance, Attorney Perez 
violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable 
via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶15 The 
third 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint arose out of Attorney Perez's representation of C.H.  
In October 2016, C.H. entered into a contingent fee agreement 
                                                                                                                                                             
On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
(a) 
Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
(b) 
Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere. 
8 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
9 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:  
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 or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred.  The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
No. 
2019AP577-D   
 
8 
 
with Attorney Perez for representation in a personal injury 
matter.  C.H. signed and returned a written fee contract to 
Attorney Perez at his direction. 
¶16 On October 18, 2016, Attorney Perez emailed C.H. and 
requested a copy of the police report in her case.  C.H. 
informed him via email the same day that she would follow 
through with this request.  Starting in October 2016, C.H. began 
calling and leaving email messages for Attorney Perez asking for 
a status update on her case, but he failed to respond.   
¶17 C.H. 
terminated 
Attorney 
Perez's 
representation 
effective March 11, 2017, via an email she sent to him and also 
via a certified letter.  In her correspondence, C.H. said she 
had been trying to contact Attorney Perez for over a month and 
that she had called him at least 20 times or more without 
receiving any response.  Attorney Perez failed to respond to the 
email or the certified letter.  He never provided C.H. with her 
case file materials following termination of his representation.   
¶18 In the summer of 2017, Attorney Perez called C.H., 
apologized for the delayed response to her emails and phone 
calls, and falsely informed her that a healthcare provider had 
never released her medical records to him.  C.H. subsequently 
confirmed with the healthcare provider that the records had in 
fact been released to Attorney Perez. 
¶19 C.H. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney 
Perez.  On September 6, 2018, the OLR sent Attorney Perez a 
letter via first class mail to his last known address provided 
to the State Bar of Wisconsin asking for a written response to 
No. 
2019AP577-D   
 
9 
 
the grievance by September 28, 2018.  Attorney Perez failed to 
respond. 
¶20 On October 10, 2018, the OLR sent Attorney Perez a 
second letter by first class mail.  He was also personally 
served with the second letter on October 22, 2018.  Although the 
October 10th letter requested a written response from Attorney 
Perez within seven days of service, he failed to respond. 
¶21 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Perez's representation of 
C.H.: 
Count Nine:  By failing to take prompt and diligent 
action on C.H.'s personal injury claim, Attorney Perez 
violated SCR 20:1.3. 
Count Ten:   By failing to keep C.H. informed about the 
status of her case and promptly respond to her 
inquiries as to case status, Attorney Perez violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4). 
Count Eleven:  By failing to provide C.H. with her 
case file materials after the termination of his 
representation, 
Attorney 
Perez 
violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d). 
Count 
Twelve: 
 
By 
misrepresenting 
case 
status 
information 
to 
C.H., 
Attorney 
Perez 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c).10 
Count Thirteen:  By willfully failing to provide the 
OLR with a response to C.H.'s grievance, Attorney 
Perez 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2) 
and 
SCR 
22.03(6), 
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
                                                 
10 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2019AP577-D   
 
10 
 
¶22 The fourth client matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint arose out of Attorney Perez's representation of A.M.  
A.M. entered into a contingent fee agreement with Attorney Perez 
for representation in a personal injury matter on December 27, 
2015. 
¶23 On August 15, 2016, A.M. emailed Attorney Perez asking 
to meet in person and asking that he "get this process going," 
since she was being pursued by bill collectors for outstanding 
medical expenses related to her injuries.  Attorney Perez failed 
to respond. 
¶24 On 
March 
1, 
2017, 
A.M. 
emailed 
Attorney 
Perez 
informing him that a customer service representative for her 
treatment provider confirmed they had not received a request for 
her medical records from Attorney Perez, despite Attorney 
Perez's representation to A.M. that he had done so.  Attorney 
Perez failed to respond. 
¶25 On March 7, 2017, A.M. emailed Attorney Perez citing 
difficulty in communicating with him and questioning why, 
despite the fact that she concluded her medical treatment six 
months earlier, Attorney Perez had still not requested her 
medical records from the treatment provider.  Attorney Perez 
failed to respond. 
¶26 On March 14, 2017, A.M. emailed Attorney Perez saying, 
"After another week of no communication from you, I no longer 
wish to seek your representation.  I need you to definitely 
acknowledge receipt of this note, so that I can move forward 
with my insurance company."  Attorney Perez failed to respond. 
No. 
2019AP577-D   
 
11 
 
¶27 On May 12, 2017, Attorney Perez emailed A.M. saying he 
had sent her medical records to the insurer "last week," and he 
expected to hear from the insurer within four to six weeks.  In 
fact, he had not sent the medical records to the insurer. 
¶28 On July 25, 2017, Attorney Perez emailed A.M. saying 
that the following day he would send a claim notice via 
certified mail to the insurer seeking a response within 30 days.  
The claim notice was never sent. 
¶29 On August 17, 2017, A.M. emailed Attorney Perez 
seeking an update about her case.  Attorney Perez responded the 
same day, stating he had previously sent the claim notice and 
the 30-day response was due the following day.  On August 21, 
2017, Attorney Perez emailed A.M. saying he had still not 
received a response to the claim notice.  In fact, the claim 
notice had never been sent. 
¶30 On September 12, 2017, A.M. emailed Attorney Perez for 
an update on her case.  Attorney Perez failed to respond.  On 
October 1, 2017, A.M. emailed Attorney Perez and informed him to 
take no further action on her case.  She demanded that he return 
her file with 14 days.  She emailed him again on October 10, 
2017 reiterating her October 1, 2017 message, but Attorney Perez 
failed to respond.   
¶31 A.M. 
subsequently 
received 
confirmation 
from 
the 
insurer that Attorney Perez never submitted a claim notice.  On 
October 21, 2017, A.M. again emailed Attorney Perez seeking the 
return of her file within seven days and telling him to stop all 
work on her case other than to inform the insurer within 72 
No. 
2019AP577-D   
 
12 
 
hours that he no longer represented her.  Attorney Perez did not 
respond. 
¶32 A.M. filed a grievance against Attorney Perez with the 
OLR.  On May 31, 2018, the OLR sent Attorney Perez a letter 
requesting a written response to the grievance by June 25, 2018.  
Attorney Perez failed to respond. 
¶33 On July 9, 2018, the OLR sent Attorney Perez a second 
letter requesting a written response by July 19, 2018.  Attorney 
Perez failed to respond. 
¶34 The OLR attempted personal service of A.M.'s grievance 
at the address Attorney Perez had provided to the State Bar of 
Wisconsin, at which the OLR had previously been successful in 
personally serving him.  This time, despite several attempts, 
Attorney Perez could not be personally served.   
¶35 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Perez's representation of 
A.M.: 
Count Fourteen:  By failing to diligently advance 
A.M.'s personal injury claim, Attorney Perez violated 
SCR 20:1.3. 
Count Fifteen:  By failing to keep A.M. reasonably 
informed about the status of her case and promptly 
respond to reasonable requests for information about 
her case, Attorney Perez violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) 
and (4). 
Count 
Sixteen: 
 
By 
misrepresenting 
case 
status 
information 
to 
A.M., 
Attorney 
Perez 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count Seventeen:  By failing to provide A.M. with her 
file after the termination of representation or inform 
No. 
2019AP577-D   
 
13 
 
the insurer of the termination of his representation, 
Attorney Perez violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
Count Eighteen:  By failing to respond to the OLR's 
written request for a response to A.M.'s grievance, 
Attorney Perez violated SCR 22.03(2), enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶36 In addition to the four client matters detailed in the 
OLR's complaint, the complaint also alleged that Attorney Perez 
practiced 
law 
following 
his 
February 
14, 
2018 
license 
suspension. 
¶37 In late January 2018, prior to the temporary license 
suspension, Attorney Perez had entered written not guilty pleas 
for a client in four separate but related traffic cases in 
Milwaukee County Circuit Court.  The initial appearance for each 
case was scheduled for March 21, 2018.  On that date, after his 
law license had been suspended, Attorney Perez appeared in 
circuit court for the initial appearance on the four cases.  Due 
to the unavailability of the district attorney's office, the 
initial appearance for all cases was rescheduled to March 30, 
2018. 
¶38 On March 30, 2018, Attorney Perez appeared in circuit 
court with his client.  Three of the four cases were dismissed.  
A finding of guilt was entered on the remaining case, and 
penalties were imposed.  Attorney Perez failed to notify his 
client, opposing counsel, or the court that his law license had 
been suspended. 
¶39 The OLR commenced a formal investigation of Attorney 
Perez's practice of law while suspended.  On May 23, 2018, the 
OLR sent Attorney Perez a letter via first class mail requesting 
No. 
2019AP577-D   
 
14 
 
a written response by June 15, 2018.  Attorney Perez failed to 
respond. 
¶40 On July 9, 2018, the OLR sent Attorney Perez a second 
letter requesting a written response by July 19, 2018.  Attorney 
Perez failed to respond.  The OLR attempted personal service at 
the address Attorney Perez provided to the State Bar of 
Wisconsin but was unsuccessful in personally serving him.   
¶41 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Perez's practice of law 
while his license was temporarily suspended: 
Count Nineteen:  By failing to notify his client, 
opposing counsel, or the court that his law license 
had 
been 
temporarily 
suspended, 
Attorney 
Perez 
violated SCR 22.26(1)(a), (b), and (c),11 enforceable 
via SCR 20:8.4(f). 
Count Twenty:  By appearing in Milwaukee County 
Circuit Court on March 21 and 30, 2018, following his 
temporary 
suspension, 
Attorney 
Perez 
violated 
SCR 22.26(2),12 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f). 
                                                 
11 SCR 22.26(1)(c) provides:  
Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation. The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence. 
12 SCR 22.26(2) provides: 
An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
(continued) 
No. 
2019AP577-D   
 
15 
 
County Twenty One:  By failing to respond to the OLR's 
written request for a response to the allegation that 
he practiced law while suspended, Attorney Perez 
violated SCR 22.03(2), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶42 The referee was appointed on May 9, 2019.  On June 10, 
2019, the OLR filed a notice of motion and motion for default 
judgment.  An affidavit of OLR's assistant litigation counsel 
Thomas J. Laitsch averred that on April 16, 2019, the OLR had 
filed an affidavit of attempted service of the complaint on 
Attorney Perez.  The affidavit stated that the OLR served 
Attorney 
Perez 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 
22.13(1)13 
by 
sending 
authenticated copies of the complaint and order to answer by 
certified mail to the most recent address furnished by Attorney 
Perez to the State Bar of Wisconsin and that Attorney Perez 
failed to file an answer to the complaint.   
                                                                                                                                                             
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
13 SCR 22.13(1) provides:   
The complaint and the order to answer shall be 
served upon the respondent in the same manner as a 
summons under section 801.11(1) of the statutes.  If, 
with reasonable diligence, the respondent cannot be 
served under section 801.11(1)(a) or (b) of the 
statutes, service may be made by sending by certified 
mail an authenticated copy of the complaint and order 
to answer to the most recent address furnished by the 
respondent to the state bar.  
No. 
2019AP577-D   
 
16 
 
¶43 On August 2, 2019, the referee issued a report 
recommending that this court grant the OLR's motion for default 
judgment.  The referee found that service upon Attorney Perez 
had been accomplished pursuant to SCR 22.13(1).  
¶44 Based upon Attorney Perez's failure to file an answer 
or otherwise appear in the proceeding, the referee recommended 
that he be declared to be in default.  The referee found that 
the factual allegations of the OLR's complaint should be taken 
as true and proven by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 
evidence.  The referee recommended a nine-month suspension of 
Attorney Perez's Wisconsin law license and the imposition of the 
full costs of the proceeding.   
¶45 Attorney Perez did not appeal from the referee's 
report and recommendation, so we proceed with our review of the 
matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).  We review a referee's findings 
of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 
Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  We review the referee's conclusions 
of law de novo.  Id.  We determine the appropriate level of 
discipline independent of the referee's recommendation.  See In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶46 We agree with the referee that Attorney Perez should 
be declared in default.  In addition, the referee appropriately 
relied upon the allegations of the complaint, which were deemed 
admitted by Attorney Perez's failure to answer.  Thus, we agree 
with the referee that the factual allegations of the OLR's 
No. 
2019AP577-D   
 
17 
 
complaint 
may 
be 
taken 
as 
true 
and 
proved 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Attorney Perez 
committed all of the counts of misconduct alleged in the 
complaint.   
¶47 With respect to the appropriate discipline, upon 
careful review of the matter, we agree with the referee's 
recommendation for a nine-month suspension of Attorney Perez's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  Although no two 
disciplinary proceedings are identical, a nine-month suspension 
is generally consistent with the sanction imposed in In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cavendish-Sosinski, 2004 WI 30, 
270 Wis. 2d 200, 676 N.W.2d 887 (attorney's license suspended 
for nine months for 25 counts of misconduct involving nine 
clients.  As in this case, the attorney defaulted by not 
answering the complaint.  As here, the attorney had no prior 
disciplinary history).  This case is also somewhat analogous to 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hansen, 2009 WI 56, 318 
Wis. 2d 1, 768 N.W.2d 1 (attorney's license suspended for nine 
months for 28 counts of misconduct involving four separate 
matters); and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nott, 2003 
WI 17, 260 Wis. 2d 4, 658 N.W.2d 438 (attorney's license 
suspended for nine months for multiple counts of misconduct 
involving three clients). 
¶48 We also agree with the referee's recommendation that 
Attorney Perez be required to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding.  The OLR does not seek restitution, and we do not 
impose a restitution award. 
No. 
2019AP577-D   
 
18 
 
¶49 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Ricardo Perez to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of nine 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Ricardo Perez shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $1,957.12 as 
of August 21, 2019.  
¶51 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Ricardo Perez shall comply with the provisions 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license 
to practice law has been suspended. 
¶52 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions with this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4). 
¶53 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary suspension of 
Ricardo Perez's Wisconsin law license imposed on February 14, 
2018 is hereby lifted.