Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert Paul D'Arruda

Citation: 2013 WI 90

Docket Number: 2012AP002338-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2013-11-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
2013 WI 90 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP2338-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against   
Robert Paul D'Arruda, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Robert Paul D'Arruda, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST D’ARRUDA  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 20, 2013 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2013 WI 90
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP2338-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Robert Paul D'Arruda, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Robert Paul D'Arruda, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 20, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review, pursuant to SCR 22.17(2),1 the 
report of the referee, Richard C. Ninneman, recommending the 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2012AP2338-D   
 
2 
 
court publicly reprimand Attorney Robert Paul D'Arruda for 
professional misconduct.  No appeal has been filed.  
¶2 
We approve and adopt the referee's findings of fact 
and conclusions of law.  We agree that Attorney D'Arruda's 
misconduct warrants a public reprimand, and we direct Attorney 
D'Arruda to reimburse one former client, as provided herein.  We 
impose the full costs of this proceeding, which total $6,014.07 
as of September 4, 2013. 
¶3 
Attorney D'Arruda was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1993.  He is a criminal defense attorney from 
Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin. 
 
Attorney 
D'Arruda 
was 
privately 
reprimanded in 2011 for misconduct in two client matters 
involving failure to provide clients with a written fee 
agreement, failure to provide clients with an itemized statement 
or accounting for services, and failure to respond in a timely 
manner to clients' grievances and Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) requests for information.  
¶4 
On October 25, 2012, the OLR filed a 14-count 
complaint alleging that Attorney D'Arruda committed misconduct 
in connection with four client matters.  Attorney D'Arruda filed 
an answer admitting allegations related to ten of the counts.  
On June 28, 2013, the parties entered into a stipulation 
reflecting these concessions.  Prior to the hearing, the OLR 
voluntarily dismissed one of the remaining counts.   
¶5 
On July 25, 2013, the referee conducted an evidentiary 
hearing.  Attorney D'Arruda testified on his own behalf and 
called character witnesses.  On August 15, 2013, the referee 
No. 
2012AP2338-D   
 
3 
 
filed a report and recommendation accepting the parties' 
stipulation and, with respect to the remaining three counts of 
misconduct, concluding Attorney D'Arruda engaged in misconduct 
on two of the counts and recommending dismissal of the third.  
The referee recommended the court impose a public reprimand and 
order restitution to one client.  No appeal was filed. 
¶6 
This court will affirm a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous; conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  This 
court 
is 
free 
to 
impose 
whatever 
discipline 
it 
deems 
appropriate, regardless 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. 
¶7 
The referee accepted the parties' stipulation that 
Attorney D'Arruda failed to provide his clients H.A. and A.M. a 
written communication explaining the basis or rate of his fee 
and the purpose and effect of the advanced fee he accepted in 
violation of SCRs 20:1.5(b)(l) and (2)2 (Count 1); failed to 
                                                 
2 SCRs 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2) state as follows:   
 
(1) The scope of the representation and the basis 
or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client 
will be responsible shall be communicated to the 
client in writing, except when the lawyer will charge 
a regularly represented client on the same basis or 
rate as in the past.  If it is reasonably foreseeable 
that the total cost of representation to the client, 
including attorney's fees, will be $1000 or less, the 
communication may be oral or in writing.  Any changes 
in the basis or rate of the fee or expenses shall also 
be communicated in writing to the client.   
No. 
2012AP2338-D   
 
4 
 
deposit funds in a trust account until earned, and failed to 
refund an unearned $500 fee upon request in violation of 
SCRs 20:1.15(b)(4)3 (Count 2) and 20:1.16(d)4 (Count 3); and 
failed to timely respond to the ensuing grievance in violation 
of SCR 22.03(2),5 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h)6 (Count 4). 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(2) If the total cost of representation to the 
client, including attorney's fees, is more than $1000, 
the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance fee 
that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 
writing. 
3 SCR 
20:1.15(b)(4) 
states: 
 
Unearned 
fees 
and 
cost 
advances.   
 
Except as provided in par. (4m), unearned fees 
and advanced payments of fees shall be held in trust 
until earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to 
sub. (g).  Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 
payment of costs shall be held in trust until the 
costs are incurred. 
4 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 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. 
5 SCR 22.03(2) states: 
 
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the respondent of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
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 
No. 
2012AP2338-D   
 
5 
 
Record evidence indicates the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection 
(the 
Fund) 
subsequently 
reimbursed 
Attorney 
D'Arruda's client $500 for an advanced fee and Attorney D'Arruda 
testified that he, in turn, reimbursed the Fund such that 
restitution in this matter is not warranted.  
¶8 
The referee also accepted the parties' stipulation 
relating to the matter of B.F., concluding that Attorney 
D'Arruda failed to turn over B.F.'s file and discovery materials 
to successor appellate counsel after his representation was 
terminated in January 2011, in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d) 
(Count 12); and failed to provide a timely written response to 
the B.F. grievance in violation of SCR 22.03(2), enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count 13).   
¶9 
The referee also accepted the parties' stipulation 
that Attorney D'Arruda failed to respond to multiple requests by 
the OLR regarding a grievance filed by another former client, 
D.L.  The referee thus concluded that Attorney D'Arruda violated 
SCR 22.03(2), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h), based on his delay 
in responding to the grievance (Count 14).  
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
6 SCR 20:8.4(h) states 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. 
2012AP2338-D   
 
6 
 
¶10 Attorney D'Arruda stipulated to some, but not all of 
the allegations pertaining to his representation of L.N.  
¶11 L.N. hired Attorney D'Arruda in July of 2009 to 
represent her in connection with a police investigation in 
Racine County.  L.N. paid Attorney D'Arruda $750 in 2009 and 
paid him an additional $1,500 in 2010.  On May 17, 2010, the 
State charged L.N. with a felony.  
¶12 Between October 26, 2010, and August 30, 2011, L.N.'s 
case was called for trial several times.  Each time, the court 
convened a status conference instead.  L.N. was unhappy with the 
delay and eventually filed a grievance with the OLR.  In August 
2011 L.N. retained new counsel who arranged a plea deal on her 
behalf.  
¶13 The OLR alleged that Attorney D'Arruda failed to 
promptly pursue resolution of L.N.'s case from November 2010 
until his representation was terminated in July or August 2011 
(Count 5), failed to inform L.N. that he would not appear at all 
scheduled court dates (Count 6), failed to respond to L.N.'s 
phone calls between March 2011 and July 2011 (Count 7), failed 
to give L.N. a final accounting and a refund of any unearned 
advanced fees and required notices upon the termination of his 
representation (Count 8), failed to refund unearned fees (Count 
9), and failed to timely respond in writing to L.N.'s grievance 
(Count 10).  
¶14 Attorney D'Arruda stipulated to the misconduct alleged 
in Counts 6, 8, and 10, and the referee accepted that 
stipulation.  Attorney D'Arruda contested the OLR's claims that 
No. 
2012AP2338-D   
 
7 
 
he failed to diligently pursue the case, failed to respond to 
phone calls, and failed to refund unearned fees.   
¶15 Attorney D'Arruda testified that he was prepared to 
try L.N.'s case as early as October 26, 2010.  However, when the 
case was called on October 26, 2010, the prosecutor was in 
another trial and the court continued the case.  Attorney 
D'Arruda admits that he did not appear at a February 15, 2011 
trial date because he was in another trial in Milwaukee County.  
He explained that he sent a message by facsimile to both the 
Racine County District Attorney's office and the court.  The 
message did not reach the court because Attorney D'Arruda used 
an incorrect fax number, but the prosecutor received the message 
and the court adjourned the matter.  On May 10, 2011, the trial 
date was changed to a scheduling conference because of a lack of 
communication 
between 
Attorney 
D'Arruda 
and 
the 
district 
attorney.  
¶16 The referee declined to hold Attorney D'Arruda solely 
responsible for these delays in advancing the L.N. matter to 
resolution.  The referee thus concluded that the OLR failed to 
prove this claim by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence 
and recommended the court dismiss Count 5. 
¶17 The referee found that facts set forth in the 
stipulation clearly established that Attorney D'Arruda failed to 
respond to L.N.'s phone calls during the relevant time period 
No. 
2012AP2338-D   
 
8 
 
and 
thus 
concluded 
that 
Attorney 
D'Arruda 
violated 
SCR 20:l.4(a)(4)7 (Count 7).   
¶18 Regarding the alleged failure to refund unearned fees, 
the referee noted that L.N. paid Attorney D'Arruda $2,250 and 
the record evidence indicates the cost of the legal services 
Attorney D'Arruda provided exceeded that payment.  However, the 
June 2, 2010 fee agreement between L.N. and Attorney D'Arruda's 
law firm stated that L.N. would be provided with "a written 
accounting of all fees incurred in the matter and a refund of 
any advanced fees, if any, that have not been earned or advanced 
costs that have not been used."  Attorney D'Arruda testified 
that he was willing to pay $250 as a refund to L.N. for unearned 
fees, and the referee recommended this court order Attorney 
D'Arruda to do so.   
¶19 We 
accept 
the 
referee's 
conclusions 
and 
recommendations 
regarding 
the 
L.N. 
matter 
including 
the 
dismissal of Count 5 of the complaint.   
¶20 The referee then considered the appropriate discipline 
for Attorney D'Arruda's misconduct.  The OLR sought a 60-day 
suspension and restitution to L.N. in the amount of $250 for 
unearned advanced fees.  Attorney D'Arruda asked for a public 
reprimand.  
¶21 The referee recommends this court impose a public 
reprimand.  The referee acknowledges that Attorney D'Arruda 
                                                 
7 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides that a lawyer shall "promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
by 
the 
client 
for 
information; . . . ." 
No. 
2012AP2338-D   
 
9 
 
previously 
received 
a 
private 
reprimand, 
but 
noted 
the 
misconduct in this case occurred at a time when Attorney 
D'Arruda faced multiple outside pressures including dissolution 
of his small law firm, divorce, financial pressures, and an 
excessive caseload.  The referee explicitly noted that "[f]rom 
the testimony, these pressures and distractions are behind him."  
The referee noted that character witnesses described Attorney 
D'Arruda as a highly experienced criminal lawyer who is 
"competent, dignified and respected."  The referee was mindful 
that "[a] suspension at this time and the resulting closure of 
his sole practitioner office for several months could be 
devastating to his law practice."  We agree.   
¶22 Finally, we turn to the issue of costs.  Our general 
policy is to impose the full costs of a disciplinary proceeding 
on the respondent attorney who is found to have committed 
professional misconduct.  See SCR 22.24(1m).  We see no reason 
to depart from that policy in this matter.   
¶23 Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of fact 
and conclusions of law and determine that a public reprimand is 
the appropriate discipline for Attorney D'Arruda's professional 
misconduct, together with restitution to L.N., and payment of 
full costs.   
¶24 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Robert Paul D'Arruda is 
publicly reprimanded for his professional misconduct. 
¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if he has not already done 
so, within 60 days of the date of this order, Attorney Robert 
No. 
2012AP2338-D   
 
10 
 
Paul D'Arruda shall pay $250 in restitution to his former 
client, L.N.  
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Attorney Robert Paul D'Arruda shall pay to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution is to be 
completed before payment of costs to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 
been full compliance with all conditions of this order. 
 
 
No. 
2012AP2338-D   
 
 
 
1