Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Gino M. Alia

Citation: 2006 WI 12

Docket Number: 2003AP002124-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2006-02-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
2006 WI 12 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2003AP2124-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gino M. Alia, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant-Appellant-Cross-
Respondent, 
     v. 
Gino M. Alia,  
          Respondent-Respondent-Cross-Appellant. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ALIA 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 7, 2006   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
October 7, 2005   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the complainant-appellant-cross-respondent there were 
briefs by Robert G. Krohn and Roethe, Krohn, Pope, McCarthy, 
Haas & Robinson, LLP, Edgerton, and oral argument by Robert G. 
Krohn. 
 
For the respondent-respondent-cross-appellant there were 
briefs by Terry E. Johnson and Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C., 
Milwaukee, and oral argument by Terry E. Johnson. 
 
2006 WI 12
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2003AP2124-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gino M. Alia, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
         Complainant-Appellant-Cross- 
         Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Gino M. Alia, 
 
         Respondent-Respondent-Cross- 
         Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 7, 2006 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
appeals, and Gino M. Alia cross-appeals, a referee's report 
concluding Attorney Alia engaged in professional misconduct and 
recommending his license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended for 90 days, together with payment of the costs of the 
proceedings.  
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Attorney Gino Alia was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1995 and practices in Kenosha.  He has not been 
subject to prior discipline. 
¶3 
In August 2003 the OLR filed a complaint alleging that 
Attorney Alia engaged in professional misconduct with respect to 
alterations he made to his expert witness's appraisal report, 
marked as an exhibit and used during a jury trial, and with 
respect to statements he made to the court thereafter.  Joan 
Kessler was appointed referee.  Following two days of hearings 
on February 23 and 24, 2004, the referee issued her report 
containing 
comprehensive 
findings 
and 
conclusions 
that 
satisfactory and convincing evidence support the complaint's 
allegations and recommending a 90-day license suspension. 
¶4 
The OLR challenges the recommended 90-day license 
suspension and argues that Attorney Alia's conduct warrants at a 
minimum a six-month suspension.  Attorney Alia challenges the 
referee's findings and conclusions, and argues that the OLR 
failed to meet its burden of proof as to each count.  He further 
argues that, in any event, no more than a public reprimand would 
be appropriate discipline. 
¶5 
Because satisfactory and convincing evidence support 
the referee's fact-findings, we adopt them.  We further adopt 
her conclusions of law and agree that the seriousness of 
Attorney Alia's misconduct, together with mitigating factors, 
warrant suspension of his license to practice law for 90 days.  
We also agree that all costs of the proceeding, which are 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
3 
 
$22,174.29 as of December 8, 2005, should be assessed against 
Attorney Alia. 
I 
¶6 
The events leading to the disciplinary proceedings may 
be summarized as follows:  T.T. retained Attorney Alia to file a 
misrepresentation action against R.C. and other defendants 
represented by Attorney Eric Olson.  In 1997, T.T. had purchased 
a condominium home from R.C.  T.T. claimed he relied on R.C.'s 
promise that a nine-hole golf course would be built adjacent to 
T.T.'s condominium.  T.T. alleged the golf course was never 
built and, therefore, his condominium was less valuable than it 
would have been had the golf course been constructed. 
¶7 
In 1999, Attorney Alia filed an action on behalf of 
T.T. in Kenosha County Circuit Court.  The case was assigned to 
Judge Bruce Schroeder and set for a January 31, 2000, jury 
trial.  Attorney Alia retained an expert appraiser to assess the 
condominium's value for the purpose of proving damages at trial.  
Attorney Alia had not discussed with the appraiser the relevant 
time frame for the damage appraisal, but provided him with 
copies of pleadings and purchase documents.  
¶8 
The appraiser prepared his report, dated December 14, 
1999, setting forth the condominium's value as of 1999 with, and 
without, the nine-hole golf course.  The report indicated that 
T.T.'s damages were $78,000, reflecting the difference between 
the two values.  The appraiser included evidence of comparable 
properties' values, also as of 1999.  In January 2000 the 
appraiser mailed Attorney Alia two "originals" of the report and 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
4 
 
retained one copy.  The report consisted of more than 30 pages 
secured in a plastic spiral binding, with a clear plastic cover.  
The report's title page, with a color photograph of the 
condominium unit, showed through the clear plastic cover.  
¶9 
No pretrial order required Attorney Alia to share the 
report with opposing counsel and, accordingly, he did not 
provide Attorney Olson a copy before trial.  After receiving the 
report, Attorney Alia conferred with other attorneys at his law 
firm and determined the appropriate time frame for valuing the 
condominium for the purpose of proving damages at trial was 
during 1997, not 1999.   
¶10 On January 26, 2000, Attorney Alia met with his 
appraiser and gave him a copy of the proposed jury instruction 
describing the measure of damages.  Attorney Alia, for the first 
time, told him that 1999 was not the proper year for valuation 
purposes and reference to 1999 values would not be admissible at 
trial.  Attorney Alia's understanding was the appraiser would 
revise his calculations based on 1997 values and that T.T.'s 
damages, based on 1997 figures, would reflect the same loss as 
that based on 1999 values, $78,000.  Attorney Alia did not, 
however, request the appraiser prepare a new appraisal with 1997 
values.   
¶11 At the disciplinary hearing, Attorney Alia stated his 
client, T.T., and one other client, jointly retained the 
appraiser in October or November of 1999, for the sum of $1200.  
The two clients would equally share the expense.  Attorney Alia 
maintained that on Thursday, January 27, 2000, after he had met 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
5 
 
with the appraiser, he made all the whited-out redactions to the 
report observed on the second day of trial, "to have a redacted 
report available to [the appraiser] in the event he needed to 
refer to it without the inadmissible evidence."  Attorney Alia 
concedes he had not advised the appraiser his report would be 
altered in any way.    
¶12 At the disciplinary 
hearing, Attorney 
Alia 
also 
presented the testimony of witnesses, including his friend and 
former colleague at the law firm, that Attorney Alia was 
observed before the first day of trial, making whited-out 
changes in a report that was to be used at trial.  Attorney Alia 
also presented his wife's testimony that she did not observe him 
make any white-out changes after the end of the first day of 
trial.   
¶13 On January 31, 2000, the first day of the jury trial, 
both Attorney Alia and Attorney Olson had all anticipated trial 
exhibits pre-marked.  One of the exhibits was Attorney Alia's 
expert appraiser's report, which was pre-marked exhibit 21.   
¶14 At the start of the trial, Attorney Alia moved to 
prohibit 
reference 
to 
his 
client's 
efforts 
to 
sell 
the 
condominium for substantially more than he originally paid.  The 
court granted this motion.   
¶15 When Attorney Alia's appraiser testified as an expert 
witness before the jury, he brought documents to the stand, 
which were not marked as exhibits and did not remain in court 
when he left.  Attorney Alia asked the appraiser, "what the 
actual value of the [T.T.] condominium was at the time of 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
6 
 
purchase back in 1997."  The appraiser testified that it was 
approximately $185,000.   
¶16 Attorney Alia next inquired:  "And in terms . . . to a 
reasonable degree of professional certainty what the value of 
the [T.T.] condominium was as represented; in other words, as 
being on a 9 hole golf course?"  The appraiser replied, "about 
$266,000."  The appraiser agreed T.T. sustained a loss of 
$78,000 because the condominium was not as represented.  He 
explained his opinion was based on "taking a look at sales of 
properties that were on golf courses and sales of properties 
that weren't."   
¶17 Toward the conclusion of his direct examination, 
Attorney Alia displayed exhibit 21 and inquired as follows: 
Q. 
[D]id you prepare a report in this case? 
A. 
Yes, I did. 
Q. 
And you prepared a report looking at the value of 
the property today as well? 
A. 
No, I did not. 
Q. 
Well, I'm sorry.  As of the time of your report? 
A. 
Yes. 
Q. 
Okay.  And that is the basis for your opinions as 
to the value of the loss sustained by [T.T.] in 
this case? 
A. 
That's correct. 
Q. 
I'm showing you a document that's probably in 
excess of 30 pages. . . . [C]ould you identify 
for the jury what that is? 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
7 
 
A. 
This document was the appraisal report that I 
compiled for this property. It spells out what 
the property is . . . plus the comparable sales 
and a conclusion of value . . . . 
¶18 The referee determined that through this testimony, 
Attorney Alia had his expert witness identify exhibit 21 as a 
copy of his appraisal report.  Because Attorney Alia had altered 
the report marked as exhibit 21, Attorney Alia knew that it 
contained alterations from the appraiser's original report.1  It 
is undisputed Attorney Alia had not, however, disclosed the 
alterations to the appraiser, Attorney Olson, the court, or the 
jury.     
¶19 Attorney Alia never formally offered exhibit 21 into 
evidence.  After the testimony ended, and the jury was excused, 
Attorney Olson asked Attorney Alia if he could photocopy the 
appraisal report.  Attorney Alia agreed but insisted Attorney 
Olson hurry because Attorney Alia wanted to leave and take his 
materials with him.  Attorney Olson obtained exhibit 21 and went 
to photocopy it, taking about five minutes.  After Attorney 
Olson returned exhibit 21 to the courtroom, Attorney Alia and 
his wife left the courthouse with some of his trial materials.   
¶20 On the morning of the second day of trial, February 1, 
2000, Attorney Olson cross-examined T.T.  Attorney Alia objected 
                                                 
1  It was later determined that the copy of the appraiser's 
report marked as exhibit 21 on the first day of trial had two 
alterations at the time Attorney Olson made his photocopy: 
(1) the listing price of the condominium had been whited-out, 
and (2) the front cover containing a photo of the condominium 
contained a photocopy which obscured a realty sign that appeared 
on the original cover. 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
8 
 
on grounds of relevance and hearsay to a question Attorney Olson 
asked regarding the appraisal.  Judge Schroeder convened outside 
the jury's presence to discuss the objection.   
¶21 During 
the 
discussion, 
Judge 
Schroeder 
inquired 
whether the appraiser had testified as to current value.  He 
noted the appraisal report stated an effective date of December 
14, 1999, and that the comparables the appraiser used to 
determine the value of T.T.'s condominium were from 1999 sales.  
Attorney Alia said the appraiser testified as to the 1997 value.  
Judge Schroeder observed, "his report does not say any such 
thing," and explained, "the problem is your evidence does not 
mesh with your case," because the appraiser "gives his valuation 
as of now." 
¶22 Judge Schroeder also stated that an opinion as to 1997 
value would certainly "not be in conformity with the report."  
The judge added he would not want to make a finding as to value 
without some expert evidence, "anymore than I would want to find 
that the appraisal as of now has any meaning in 1997, 
particularly in the fluid market."  
¶23 After further discussion, the trial resumed.  Attorney 
Olson's copy of the appraisal report, which he had made the day 
before and which bore a photocopy of the exhibit 21 sticker, was 
marked exhibit 24.  During his cross-examination of T.T., he 
referred to the appraisal and showed him exhibit 24.  Attorney 
Alia requested to be "heard on this exhibit."  The circuit court 
denied his request and asked whether there was an objection.  
Attorney Alia objected as to foundation.   
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
9 
 
¶24 Attorney Olson responded, "This is Defendant's Exhibit 
24, a Xerox copy of plaintiff's exhibit.  [The expert witness's] 
appraisal which he testified from yesterday."  The court asked 
why he did not use the original and Attorney Alia located 
exhibit 21, which had not been offered into evidence.  Attorney 
Olson observed exhibit 21 was different than the day before, 
saying "It's whited out so it's different than when I copied it 
yesterday."2 
¶25 At Attorney Alia's request, Judge Schroeder convened 
outside the jury's presence.  As Judge Schroeder compared 
exhibit 
21 
with 
exhibit 
24, 
Attorney 
Olson 
pointed 
out 
differences, and Attorney Alia said, "I was going to show you 
the original report, which is what he copied."  After additional 
discussion, Attorney Alia then produced the "original report," 
which the clerk marked exhibit 25.  Judge Schroeder asked, "You 
state, Mr. Alia, that when Mr. Olson asked for a copy of the 
report you gave him Exhibit 25?"  Attorney Alia said, "Correct.  
I may have gave [sic] him both exhibits."  
                                                 
2 On the second day of trial, the exhibit 21 contained 
numerous alterations, in addition to the two alterations 
discovered on Attorney Olson's copy marked exhibit 24 that he 
photocopied on January 31.  
The alterations observed on February 1 include whited-out 
redactions on pages 3 and 5, to obliterate the 1999 values; on 
page 18, to obscure the square footage calculations; on page 19, 
value without the golf course and an entire sentence calculating 
value based on square footage eliminated; on page 20, obscured 
listing price of $239,000 and a comparison value of $210,000; on 
page 21, the 1999 value without the golf course obscured; on an 
attached exhibit D, 1999 values of the listing price and 
comparison whited-out.  
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
10 
 
¶26 There were no alterations to exhibit 25. The referee 
found there was no evidence Attorney Olson had ever seen it or 
knew of its existence before it was marked as exhibit 25.  
Attorney Olson insisted he took only one document with him to be 
photocopied, exhibit 21.  He asked for an explanation for the 
whited-out redactions on exhibit 21.  Attorney Alia responded: 
It was redacted when I met with [the appraiser] on 
Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday afternoon.  We had 
talked about it.  We went over the numbers and there -
- there was a redacted copy.  I have the original 
copies as well and so -- I mean technically there are 
two reports out there.  There is [sic] the ones with 
the numbers and the ones with the redacted numbers.  
The calculations come out the same, $78,000.00, but 
it's talking –- one report talks in terms of the 1999 
valuation of 210 vs. 288, which the jury is not to 
consider.  And the other one talks just in terms of 
his testimony being 188 vs. 266.3 
¶27 Attorney Alia further stated, "If the Court wants to 
enter both reports, I have no problem with that.  But the jury 
is going to be misled as to the figures and the calculation that 
they have to do."  Attorney Olson replied that the jury would be 
"plenty confused if they ask for the exhibit and one has been 
whited out and one hasn't," and would want an explanation.  
Judge Schroeder indicated he also wanted an explanation.   
¶28 After further discussion, the court reconvened and 
excused the jury.  Later, in response to Judge Schroeder's 
                                                 
3 Based on this statement, the referee 
found: 
"Alia 
represented in court that he had original copies (more than one) 
and that he had already redacted a copy when he met with [the 
appraiser] prior to trial.  That latter representation was 
untrue."   
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
11 
 
inquiries, Attorney Alia stated there was an original and two 
redacted copies of the report, but he was unsure what exhibit 25 
was.  This statement conflicted with his previous statement that 
"clearly there is [sic] two reports and the one that [the 
appraiser] acknowledged as his exhibit was the redacted copy."  
Attorney Alia also said that as far as he knew, both originals 
were not whited-out.  Attorney Alia said, "21 is the redacted 
copy.  There is –- which has just been marked 25 is another 
copy.  There is another copy that [the appraiser] may have or 
not have . . . ."   
¶29 Following a recess, discussions continued in chambers.  
Attorney Alia explained he met with the appraiser the previous 
week, they went over the various elements of proof he needed 
and, "[s]ometime between our meeting and the trial the portions 
concerning the 1999 values were redacted . . . .  Do I know 
exactly . . . when it occurred, honestly I can't say I do." 
¶30 In response to the court's inquiry whether Attorney 
Alia made the changes, Attorney Alia replied, "I redacted this 
document.  There is no question about that. . . . I did it 
before the trial started."   
¶31 After 
more discussion, Attorney Olson 
moved for 
dismissal, with costs.  Attorney Alia objected, stating that the 
possibilities "include that either Mr. Olson, [the defendant,] 
or someone else removed a copy and has altered the document as 
well."  The court initially ruled it would continue the trial 
"[a]nd I'm going to leave it to the parties to handle their 
evidence as they see fit in terms of what the jury finds out 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
12 
 
about what's occurred."  Following consultation with his client, 
Attorney Alia alternatively requested an adjournment or a 
mistrial.  
¶32 After another recess, Judge Schroeder telephoned the 
appraiser from chambers in both counsels' presence.  The 
appraiser acknowledged the report he brought to the stand when 
he testified was unaltered.  While the appraiser was still on 
the line, and in response to Judge Schroeder's question, 
Attorney Alia responded that the appraiser had not consented to 
alteration of his report.  The appraiser, in response to Judge 
Schroeder's questions, said he had no discussion with Attorney 
Alia in which Attorney Alia indicated he was going to cross off 
or cover anything in the report.  
¶33 Attorney Alia again requested a mistrial.  He stated, 
"the reports I had and the various [appraiser's] reports that I 
had in my possession are not all accounted for . . . ."  
Attorney Alia said the defendant had kept overnight the copy 
Attorney Olson had made of exhibit 21.  The defendant, R.C., 
denied making any changes to Attorney Olson's copy.  
¶34 Judge Schroeder determined the most appropriate course 
would be to declare a mistrial and decide the question of costs 
at a later date.  The judge excused the jury.  Months later, at 
a May 31, 2000, motion hearing before Judge Schroeder, Attorney 
Olson asserted that Attorney Alia changed exhibit 21 between the 
end of the day on January 31 and his cross-examination of T.T. 
the next day by whiting-out information harmful to his case and 
the credibility of his expert witness.  Attorney Alia countered 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
13 
 
by asserting Attorney Olson or his client stole a copy of the 
report from his papers, together with exhibit 21, and had 
fabricated exhibit 24 from exhibit 21 and the missing report.  
Attorney Alia alleged, "an unredacted report, was taken from my 
trial materials and papers and pages were substituted."   
¶35 In July 2000 Judge Schroeder held another hearing to 
take testimony in an attempt to resolve the dispute regarding 
the various versions of the report.  In October, Judge Schroeder 
issued a written decision dismissing T.T.'s suit on the merits, 
found egregious misconduct by Attorney Alia and awarded costs 
and attorney's fees to R.C. in the amount of $11,618.40.  T.T. 
appealed.  The court of appeals affirmed and this court 
subsequently denied a petition for review.  See Teubel v. Prime 
Dev., Inc., 2002 WI App 26, 249 Wis. 2d 743, 641 N.W.2d 461.   
¶36 The OLR's disciplinary complaint against Attorney Alia 
alleges five counts of misconduct.  The referee determined the 
OLR met its burden of proof with respect to all five counts.  
The referee summarized her assessment of the nature of the 
violations: 
The conduct is serious because it involves the 
personal integrity of an attorney and challenges the 
integrity of the judicial system.  The injury caused 
to the adverse party . . . has, to a large degree, 
been rectified by the sanctions reflected in the court 
record . . . imposed by Judge Schroeder.  The injury 
to the judicial system, in the form of substantial 
time spent trying to determine the truth, goes 
uncompensated.  It was exacerbated by Attorney Alia's 
unclear, confusing, and contradictory statements to 
the court and by his actual misrepresentations to the 
court 
and 
unfounded 
accusations 
against 
his 
adversary. . . . Alia made more redactions to try to 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
14 
 
keep the information from the jury, then tried to 
develop different explanations as to the reason for 
the differences.  He continued the deception and 
cover-up of his conduct by never involving his 
supervisors or his firm until after sanctions had been 
imposed. 
¶37 The referee also notes, "Attorney Alia did not seem to 
understand, even during the disciplinary hearing, that there is 
anything fraudulent or deceitful about altering an expert's 
report without the expert's specific approval and without 
notifying the court and opposing counsel of the alterations in 
advance of using the document in any court proceeding."  The 
referee recommends a 90-day license suspension and also that 
Attorney Alia be responsible for the costs of the proceeding. 
II 
¶38 We first address the counts charged and the evidence 
supporting each count.  We then turn to Attorney Alia's 
arguments 
challenging the 
referee's 
factual 
findings, her 
conclusion that the OLR met its burden of proof as to each 
count, and her evidentiary rulings.  Lastly, we will consider 
the parties' arguments as to the appropriate sanction. 
A. 
Count I: SCR 20:3.3(a)(4) 
¶39 The first count of the disciplinary complaint alleges 
Attorney Alia violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(4), which provides that a 
lawyer shall not knowingly "offer evidence that the lawyer knows 
to be false."  The question for this court is whether the record 
demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that Attorney Alia 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
15 
 
violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(4).  See SCR 22.16(5).4  We do not 
overturn a referee's finding of fact unless clearly erroneous.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sosnay, 209 Wis. 2d 
241, 243, 562 N.W.2d 137 (1997).  We review the referee's 
conclusions of law de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 
718.   
¶40 The referee concludes:  
When Alia had [the appraiser] identify Ex. 21 as a 
copy of [the appraiser's] report, although Alia knew 
he had made white out changes to Ex. 21, he knowingly 
offered false evidence in the form of false testimony 
by [the appraiser]. Further, Alia used a document, Ex. 
21 which he knew he had changed from the original 
expert report and falsely held out Ex. 21 to the 
court, the jury and the expert witness as an accurate 
copy of the original report.  
¶41 The evidence supports the referee's determination.  
Attorney Alia admitted to making whited-out redactions to the 
appraisal report before trial.  It is undisputed that the 
alterations were made without the appraiser's knowledge or 
consent.  On the first day of trial, Attorney Alia referred to 
the altered copy of the report, marked as exhibit 21, and asked 
the appraiser,  "And that is the basis for your opinions as to 
the value of the loss sustained by [T.T.] in this case?"  To 
which the witness replied, "That's correct."  Attorney Alia 
showed him the exhibit, which the witness identified, saying, 
                                                 
4 SCR 22.16(5) provides that "[t]he office of lawyer 
regulation 
has 
the 
burden 
of 
demonstrating 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory and convincing evidence that the respondent has 
engaged in misconduct." 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
16 
 
"This document was the appraisal report that I compiled for this 
property."  Thus, his own expert witness, the jury, the court 
and counsel were led to believe that exhibit 21 was an unaltered 
copy of the appraiser's report. 
¶42 We agree with the referee's conclusion that Attorney 
Alia's failure to say, "I offer Ex. 21" does nothing to diminish 
the impact on the jury, the court and opposing counsel that 
exhibit 21 was an accurate version of the original report.  The 
record establishes Attorney Alia made alterations to the 
appraiser's report before trial, had the altered copy marked as 
exhibit 21, and elicited his expert's testimony to the effect it 
was an accurate copy of the appraiser's report when, in fact, 
Attorney Alia knew it was not.  It is undisputed that Attorney 
Alia had not, however, disclosed the alterations to the 
appraiser, counsel, the court, or the jury.  By representing the 
altered report as an unaltered version through its use at trial, 
Attorney Alia knowingly offered false evidence in the form of 
false testimony.  Therefore, clear and convincing evidence 
supports the referee's findings of fact and conclusion that the 
OLR met its burden of proof with respect to Count I.  
B. 
Count II: SCR 20:3.4(a) and SCR 20:8.4(c) 
¶43 The second count alleges Attorney Alia violated SCR 
20:3.4(a) which addresses fairness to opposing party and 
counsel, and provides that a lawyer shall not "unlawfully 
obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, 
destroy or conceal a document . . . having potential evidentiary 
value."   
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
17 
 
¶44 Alternatively, Count II also alleges Attorney Alia 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c) which provides it is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."   
¶45 The 
referee 
determined 
Attorney 
Alia's 
conduct 
violated both these sections  
when he altered [the appraiser's] report without 
telling the court, opposing counsel, or the expert 
witness, and by making further redactions after the 
expert had testified (and identified the altered 
report as [the expert's] work when the redactions were 
not his work).  This conduct obstructed Olson's access 
to evidence, by destroying or concealing information 
in a document which had potential evidentiary value.  
This conduct involved misrepresentation because Alia 
held out Ex. 21 as [the appraiser's] work when he knew 
it was not.  
¶46 The 
record 
supports 
the 
referee's 
finding 
that 
Attorney Alia made additional alterations to exhibit 21 after 
his expert witness testified on the first day of the trial.  
Because Attorney Olson's copy, marked exhibit 24, made at the 
end of the first day of trial, had a copy of the exhibit 21 
sticker, and contained only two alterations, it was reasonable 
for the referee to find that the report contained the two 
alterations at the end of the first day of trial.  Because on 
the second day of trial exhibit 21 contained many more 
alterations, it was reasonable for the referee to find that 
additional alterations to exhibit 21 had been made after the 
first day of trial.   
¶47 The referee found only two possible explanations 
emerged for the differences between exhibits 21 and 24.  One 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
18 
 
was, "Alia made changes, by additional white out of 1999 values 
and references to sales information during the break between the 
two days of trial."   
¶48 The other potential explanation was that "Olson, in 
Alia's presence, stole or accidentally took two reports, had 
time to review them both, find the significant differences and 
copy only one of the reports, all in approximately five minutes, 
return one document to court in Alia's presence, and later allow 
[his client] to collate the two copies into a combined new 
document." 
¶49 Because the referee found there was no evidence to 
show that at the time Attorney Olson made his copy he even knew 
there were multiple or different copies of the report, and no 
evidence he had two copies, the referee rejected the latter 
explanation.  We conclude that the referee's finding that 
Attorney Alia made additional alterations to exhibit 21 after 
his expert witness testified on the first day of trial is 
reasonably supported by the record and, therefore, do not 
disturb it on appeal.  Accordingly, we agree with the referee's 
determination that the OLR met its burden of proof as to Count 
II.     
C. 
Count III: SCR 20:3.4(b) 
¶50 In Count III, the OLR charges that the same evidence 
supporting Count I also supports a violation of SCR 20:3.4(b), 
which provides that a lawyer shall not "falsify evidence, 
counsel, or assist a witness to testify falsely . . . ."  The 
referee concludes the OLR met its burden of proof as to Count 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
19 
 
III when it demonstrated Attorney Alia elicited his expert 
appraiser's testimony to identify exhibit 21 as his own report, 
when in fact Attorney Alia knew it did not represent an accurate 
copy.  We conclude that the record permitted the referee to 
conclude that Attorney Alia changed the expert witness's 
appraisal without his knowledge or permission and then permitted 
the appraiser to testify falsely to the effect that exhibit 21 
represented an accurate copy of his report, contrary to SCR 
20:3.4(b). 
D. 
Count IV: SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) 
¶51 Count IV charges Attorney Alia with violating SCR 
20:3.3(a)(1), which provides that a lawyer shall not knowingly 
"make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal."  The 
referee found Attorney Alia knowingly made false statements to 
the court when he stated, and led all parties to believe, that 
he had made alterations to exhibit 21 in advance of the expert 
witness's testimony, and by claiming all changes in the expert 
report were made with the appraiser's knowledge and approval.  
The referee concludes that this evidence demonstrates the OLR 
met its burden of proof with respect to Count IV.   
¶52 The 
record 
supports 
the 
referee's 
findings 
and 
conclusion.  On the second day of trial, in chambers with Judge 
Schroeder, Attorney Alia indicated he made the whited-out 
changes when he met with the appraiser several days before 
trial.5  Attorney Alia's statements that "[i]t was redacted when 
                                                 
5 Attorney Alia stated: "It was redacted when I met with 
[the appraiser] on Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday afternoon.  We 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
20 
 
I met with [the appraiser]" and that "[w]e talked about it" 
support the referee's finding that Attorney Alia claimed all 
changes in the expert report were made with the appraiser's 
knowledge and approval.  Attorney Alia subsequently stated that 
he made all the alterations after he met with the appraiser on 
Thursday, January 27, without the appraiser's knowledge.  This 
latter statement confirms that his first statement was untrue.    
¶53 Also, Attorney Alia maintained he had made all changes 
to the report before the trial, and made no changes after the 
document was marked as exhibit 21.  However, because on the 
first day of trial, Attorney Olson made a copy of exhibit 21 
showing just two alterations, but on the second day of trial 
exhibit 21 had many more alterations, the referee was entitled 
to find that Attorney Alia made alterations to exhibit 21 
between the first and second days of trial.  Therefore, the 
evidence 
permits 
the 
determination 
that 
Attorney 
Alia's 
statement to Judge Schroeder that he made all redactions before 
trial was untrue.  Consequently, the referee was entitled to 
conclude that the OLR met its burden of proof as to Count IV. 
E. 
COUNT V: SCR 20:8.4(c) 
¶54 The last count of the disciplinary complaint, Count V, 
charges that Attorney Alia violated SCR 20:8.4(c), which 
provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to 
                                                                                                                                                             
talked about it."  At the disciplinary hearing, Attorney Alia's 
witnesses testified to seeing Attorney Alia make whited-out 
changes to a report on January 27.  Attorney Alia also testified 
that he made all the redactions on the evening of January 27, 
2000.  That was the day after he met with the appraiser.    
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
21 
 
"engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation."  The referee concludes the OLR met its 
burden of proof with respect to Count V in three ways.  First, 
Attorney Alia induced the appraiser to authenticate a report 
that Attorney Alia knew was not in fact an accurate copy of his 
report.  Second, Attorney Alia falsely accused Attorney Olson 
and/or 
his 
client 
of 
fabricating 
exhibit 
24 
from 
other 
unidentified documents that had been solely in Attorney Alia's 
possession and about which Attorney Olson had no knowledge.  
Third, Attorney Alia accused Attorney Olson of being untruthful 
with the court. 
¶55 This opinion has already discussed Attorney Alia's 
inducement of false testimony and need not repeat the discussion 
here.  Also, we have previously noted the record supports the 
referee's determination that there was no basis for any 
accusation against Attorney Olson.  Because eliciting false 
testimony and making baseless accusations against opposing 
counsel that he fabricated evidence and was untruthful with the 
court is dishonest and deceitful, this conduct provides a basis 
for a violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).  Consequently, we do not 
overturn the referee's determination that the OLR met its burden 
of proof with respect to Count V.     
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
22 
 
III 
¶56 We next turn to Attorney Alia's arguments that the 
referee's findings are clearly erroneous, that the OLR failed to 
meet its burden of proof with respect to each count, and that 
the referee made erroneous evidentiary rulings.   
¶57 Attorney Alia insists the referee found he had no 
actual knowledge of any wrongdoing, pointing to the referee's 
observation he "did not seem to understand . . . that there is 
anything fraudulent or deceitful" about altering an expert's 
report and using it in court without notifying the court and 
opposing counsel in advance.  He claims the OLR must prove 
actual knowledge of wrongdoing, relying on In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Lucareli, 2000 WI 55, ¶31, 235 Wis. 2d 557, 
611 N.W.2d 754.   
¶58 The Lucareli case is inapposite.  In Lucareli, 
"knowledge" of wrongdoing was not the issue.  Instead, the issue 
was whether the supreme court rules referred to the "actual" 
versus constructive knowledge of a fact.  Id., ¶34.  The referee 
concluded that Attorney Lucareli, the prosecutor who was the 
subject of the disciplinary proceeding, did not have actual 
knowledge that the criminal charge he filed against a defense 
attorney 
was 
not 
in 
fact 
supported 
by 
probable 
cause.  
Therefore, the referee determined Attorney Lucareli did not 
violate SCR 20:3.8(a).6    
                                                 
6 SCR 20:3.8(a) entitled "Special responsibilities of a 
prosecutor" provides that the prosecutor in a criminal case 
shall "refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor 
knows is not supported by probable cause." 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
23 
 
¶59 In contrast, here Attorney Alia's knowledge that he 
made whited-out redactions to portions of exhibit 21 is 
undisputed.  Contrary to Attorney Alia's protestations, the 
referee made no finding that Attorney Alia lacked actual 
knowledge of any factual element of the violation.  Instead, the 
referee remarks that Attorney Alia failed to appreciate the 
significance of his deceitful conduct.  Thus, the referee's 
comment indicates Attorney Alia lacked an understanding of 
professional standards, rather than of a factual element of the 
alleged violation as in Lucareli.  Id., ¶29.  Consequently, 
Attorney Alia's argument fails. 
¶60 In a related argument, Attorney Alia contends the 
record lacks proof of any subjective intent to deceive.  He 
claims his alterations to the report did not violate SCR 
20:3.3(a)(4), 
because 
many 
court 
documents 
are 
routinely 
redacted, to remove what has been ruled inadmissible.  He cites, 
for example, State v. Gordon, 159 Wis. 2d 335, 464 N.W.2d 91 
(Ct. App. 1991), in which an informant's statements were 
redacted 
to 
protect 
identity. 
 
Attorney 
Alia 
offers 
no 
                                                                                                                                                             
The referee concluded, and this court agreed, that under 
SCR chapter 20, "Knowingly," "Known" or "Knows" denotes "actual 
knowledge of the fact in question."  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Lucareli, 2000 WI 55, ¶30, 235 Wis. 2d 557, 
611 N.W.2d 754.  Thus, the Board's argument that Attorney 
Lucareli 
should 
have 
known 
"that 
the 
circuit 
court 
had 
determined that the psychologist's notes were not confidential 
patient 
health 
care 
records" 
was 
rejected. 
 
Id., 
¶29.  
Accordingly, this court sustained the referee's finding with 
respect to Attorney Lucareli's knowledge of the non-confidential 
nature of the psychologist's notes.  Id., ¶¶31-32. 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
24 
 
authority, however, that court exhibits are routinely redacted 
without the knowledge of opposing counsel and approval of the 
tribunal.  Therefore, Attorney Alia's argument is rejected. 
¶61 Attorney Alia further claims that since the whited-out 
changes he made were readily observable and, because he brought 
the issue to everyone's attention, albeit after his witness 
testified, he concealed nothing.  This argument discounts his 
failure to bring the alterations to anyone's attention on the 
first day of trial, when he used exhibit 21 while examining his 
expert witness.  It also omits discussion that it was not until 
the second day of trial, after the discussion with Judge 
Schroeder that Attorney Alia's proof did not "mesh" with his 
case, and not until the midst of Attorney Olson's cross-
examination of T.T., in which Attorney Alia objected to the use 
of exhibit 24 and the court requested the use of exhibit 21, 
that it was Attorney Olson who brought to the court's attention 
the existence of the whited-out redactions on exhibit 21.  At 
that point, Attorney Alia asked to discuss the exhibit outside 
the jury's presence and subsequently told the court he made the 
redactions.  By glossing over chronological details, Attorney 
Alia's argument mischaracterizes the record and is unpersuasive. 
¶62 Attorney 
Alia contends, nonetheless, 
he did not 
falsify any evidence.  He claims the two alterations he was 
found to have made before the first day of trial were not really 
false evidence because the realty sign was not readily visible 
on the original report and there was nothing sinister about 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
25 
 
whiting-out the inadmissible 
listing price.7 
 
He argues, 
therefore, that the meaning of the report had not been changed 
and, accordingly, there was nothing false about the appraiser's 
testimony that exhibit 21 was a copy of his report. 
¶63 Attorney Alia's arguments must fail.  Whether the 
obliterations he made to the report resulted in deleting 
inadmissible or irrelevant information, leaving the balance of 
the report's contents as a truthful rendition of his expert's 
opinion is beside the point.  What made Attorney Alia's conduct 
a violation was that he represented exhibit 21 to the court and 
the jury as an accurate rendition of the original version, when 
he knew, in fact, it was not.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Kalal, 2002 WI 45, ¶48, 252 Wis. 2d 261, 643 
N.W.2d 466 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring) ("SCR 20:3.3 appears 
to allow zero tolerance for false statements of fact or law 
regardless of their materiality."). 
¶64 Because Attorney Alia had altered the report, marked 
as exhibit 21, Attorney Alia knew it contained alterations from 
the original report.  It is undisputed that Attorney Alia had 
not, however, disclosed the alterations to the appraiser, 
counsel, the court, or the jury as of the time he used the 
report in the direct examination of his expert witness.  By 
representing the altered report as an unaltered version of the 
                                                 
7 For purposes of clarity, we note that this argument, while 
based on the referee's findings, is inconsistent with Attorney 
Alia's continued claim that he had made all the substantial 
whited-out redactions later discovered in exhibit 21 before the 
trial. 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
26 
 
appraiser's original report at trial, Attorney Alia knowingly 
offered false evidence in the form of false testimony. 
¶65 Next, Attorney Alia attacks the referee's finding that 
the OLR met its burden as to Count II in three ways:  (1) he 
claims the referee's finding that he made additional alterations 
to exhibit 21 after his expert witness testified was clearly 
erroneous; (2) he contends, alternatively, that in light of the 
finding that he made the majority of the redactions after 
Attorney Olson had photocopied exhibit 21, Attorney Olson was 
not denied access to anything of potential evidentiary value; 
and (3) he argues that there is no evidence that he had 
subjective intent to deceive.  
¶66 Attorney Alia devotes considerable effort to arguing 
that the referee's finding that he made additional changes to 
exhibit 21 after the first day of trial is clearly erroneous.  
He does not challenge, however, the referee's determination that 
only two explanations emerged for the discrepancies between 
exhibits 21 and 24——either Attorney Alia made changes to the 
exhibit after Attorney Olson copied exhibit 21, or Attorney 
Olson fabricated exhibit 24 from stolen and unidentified 
documents.  We have previously concluded that the record 
supports the referee's acceptance of the first explanation and 
rejection of the latter and we do not repeat that discussion 
here. 
¶67 Attorney Alia claims, nonetheless, that the physical 
evidence cannot be reconciled with the testimony of the OLR's 
witnesses.  He points to a small v-shaped mark in the margin on 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
27 
 
one of the pages on exhibit 24, which does not appear on exhibit 
21.  He also points out that the appraiser's full name, apparent 
on exhibit 21, is partially missing on exhibit 24.  He claims 
that when contrary to physical evidence, testimony must give 
way, citing State v. Trudeau, 139 Wis. 2d 91, 408 N.W.2d 337 
(1987).   
¶68 The Trudeau case holds: 
When 
the 
physical 
facts 
are 
unquestionably 
established, testimony to the contrary must give 
way. . . . "Positive uncontradicted testimony as to 
the existence of some fact, or the happening of some 
event, cannot be disregarded by a court or jury in the 
absence of something in the case which discredits the 
same 
or 
renders 
it 
against 
the 
reasonable 
probabilities." 
Id. at 108 (citations omitted). 
¶69 Here, the record does not unquestionably establish 
physical facts or positive uncontradicted testimony as to the 
events in question.  Instead, the referee was presented with 
conflicting evidence and was required to assess its weight and 
credibility.  We conclude that the referee's decision to place 
less weight on the marks and obscurities on exhibit 24 was 
properly within her role as fact finder.  Because her inferences 
are reasonable, they are not overturned on appeal.  See Kalal, 
252 Wis. 2d 261, ¶54 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring) ("[A] 
different view of the facts is not important because this 
referee's finding is determinative.").8   
                                                 
8 In any event, the physical evidence to which Attorney Alia 
refers is not irreconcilable with the ultimate determination 
that exhibit 21 was significantly altered after Attorney Olson 
copied the document. 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
28 
 
¶70 Attorney 
Alia further contends that 
the referee 
erroneously assessed little credibility to his witnesses who 
testified at the disciplinary hearing.  Attorney Alia presented 
his wife, his colleagues at his law firm and other witnesses to 
support his contention that he was seen making whited-out 
changes to a report on January 27 before trial and, after the 
first day of trial, he had no opportunity to apply a white-out 
to exhibit 21.  The referee considered this testimony, but 
accorded it little weight noting that his wife's loyalty and the 
delay between the events and the disciplinary hearing may have 
affected the reliability of the testimony.  The referee noted 
these witnesses were available to testify at the hearings before 
Judge Schroeder, but had not.  Attorney Alia counters the 
referee's credibility assessment by stating that the witnesses' 
testimony was presented in the form of affidavits at a motion to 
reconsider before Judge Schroeder and it is inappropriate to 
consider that they had not presented their testimony previously. 
¶71 "It is well settled that where there is conflicting 
testimony, the referee, as finder of fact, is the ultimate 
arbiter 
of 
the 
credibility 
of 
the 
witnesses." 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶53, 279 
Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910.  The referee was entitled to accept 
Attorney Olson's testimony he made just one copy of the exhibit 
marked exhibit 21 at trial.  Thus, the referee's determination 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
29 
 
to place less weight on Attorney Alia's witnesses' testimony 
does not require this court to overturn her findings.9    
¶72 We further reject 
Attorney 
Alia's 
argument 
that 
Attorney Olson was not denied access to anything of potential 
evidentiary value.  We appreciate that it could be argued the 
appraiser's report lacked potential evidentiary value, because 
it calculated damages from 1999 comparables and, therefore, did 
not conform to the appraiser's opinion of 1997 values.10  It 
could also be argued because Attorney Olson had made a copy of 
exhibit 21 before it had been further redacted to obscure square 
footage and 1999 values, he had access to the evidence, which 
was later eliminated.  Neither argument, however, is persuasive.   
¶73 During Attorney Olson's cross-examination of T.T., 
Attorney Alia objected to exhibit 24 for lack of foundation.  
When Attorney Alia located exhibit 21, Attorney Olson observed 
it was different than what he copied the day before.  In 
chambers, when Attorney Olson requested an explanation, Attorney 
Alia responded, "It was redacted when I met with [the appraiser] 
on Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday afternoon.  We had talked 
                                                 
9 Attorney Alia also contends that Attorney Olson admitted 
his client lied when R.C. said he saw Attorney Alia take the 
original of exhibit 21 home with him on the evening of the first 
day of trial.  We note that the referee did not make an explicit 
finding as to R.C.'s credibility.  In any event, we conclude 
that the discussion to which Attorney Alia refers is subject to 
a number of varying interpretations.   
10 At the disciplinary hearing, Attorney Alia agreed that 
nothing in the report dealt with the value as of 1997.   
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
30 
 
about it.  We went over the numbers and there -- there was a 
redacted copy."   
¶74 By producing what amounted to be three different 
versions of the report during the jury trial, Attorney Alia 
unlawfully obstructed Attorney Olson's access to an accurate 
version of the report, thus preventing him from engaging in 
meaningful cross-examination of T.T.  In so doing, Attorney Alia 
denied Attorney Olson access to a version of the report with 
potential evidentiary value.  From a current perspective, five 
years after the fact, after numerous hearings have been held to 
sort out the events, Attorney Olson presumably would know which 
exhibit represented an accurate version of the appraisal.  
However, at the time of T.T.'s cross-examination, there were two 
different versions of the appraiser's report and a third emerged 
during discussions with Judge Schroeder.  Attorney Alia later 
said there were other copies unaccounted for.  We reject 
Attorney Alia's claim that the confusion generated by his 
conduct did not deny Attorney Olson evidence with potential 
evidentiary value.  
¶75 Attorney Alia also contends he merely made a good 
faith representation of fact that later turned out to be 
inaccurate.  The referee was entitled to conclude otherwise.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jacobson, 2004 WI 
152, ¶50, 277 Wis. 2d 120, 690 N.W.2d 264 ("[I]t was the 
referee's role to judge . . . credibility with respect to 
intent, and the inference to be drawn from the evidence.")  The 
record permits a finding that Attorney Alia intentionally 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
31 
 
altered an exhibit to make it appear his expert witness's 
testimony conformed to his appraisal.11  Therefore, we reject 
Attorney Alia's contention there is no proof he had any 
subjective intent to deceive.   
¶76 Next, Attorney Alia argues the OLR failed to meet its 
burden of proof with respect to Count IV, involving false 
statements to a tribunal.  He argues it is not true he ever 
claimed all the changes in the report were made with the 
appraiser's knowledge or approval.  Attorney Alia points out 
that during Judge Schroeder's telephone call to the appraiser 
from chambers, he admitted the appraiser did not consent to the 
redactions.   
¶77 Attorney Alia's argument offers no defense.  The 
record discloses that Attorney Alia stated in chambers "[i]t was 
redacted when I met with [the appraiser]" and "[w]e had talked 
about it."  These statements may be reasonably interpreted to 
mislead the judge into believing he redacted the report with the 
appraiser's knowledge and consent.  Attorney Alia's subsequent 
contrary statement to Judge Schroeder, made during the telephone 
call to the appraiser, does not eliminate Attorney Alia's 
initially 
false statement. 
 
Attorney 
Alia's 
contradictory 
statements are sufficient to demonstrate a violation of SCR 
                                                 
11 Attorney Alia also complains the referee never made a 
specific finding of his intent to deceive.  We are satisfied 
that the finding is implicit within the context of the referee's 
75 findings of fact regarding the grounds for misconduct.  
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
32 
 
20:3.3(a)(1).  The record supports the referee's determination 
that the OLR met its burden of proof on Count IV.  
¶78 Next, Attorney Alia contends the OLR failed to meet 
its burden of proof with respect to Count V, which included the 
charge that Attorney Alia falsely accused Attorney Olson or his 
client 
of 
stealing 
unidentified 
documents 
from 
him 
and 
fabricating exhibit 24.  Attorney Alia reiterates his previous 
contentions, and points out he made a variety of conflicting 
statements regarding the potential source of exhibit 24.12    
Attorney Alia argues that he has told the truth from the outset 
and, because he made all the redactions before the trial, 
"[t]here is, therefore, only one implication to be drawn as to 
how Olson came to be in possession of a partially redacted 
report."   
¶79 We do not accept the premise that Attorney Alia's 
inconsistent 
statements 
provide 
a 
basis 
to 
overturn 
the 
referee's findings.  Also, because Attorney Alia's argument 
relies on his assessment of his own credibility, it invites us 
to disregard our standard of review.  Where there is conflicting 
testimony, 
the 
referee 
is 
the 
ultimate 
arbiter 
of 
the 
credibility of the witnesses.  See Arthur, 279 Wis. 2d 583, ¶53.  
Here, Attorney Alia did not persuade the referee that Attorney 
Olson fabricated an exhibit from stolen documents.  The referee 
                                                 
12 For example, he also said, "I'm not suggesting anyone 
took one copy . . . but clearly there is [sic] two reports and 
the one that [the appraiser] acknowledged as his exhibit was the 
redacted copy."  Attorney Alia notes he also said, "it could be 
as simple as a copying error by Mr. Olson." 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
33 
 
found "Olson has been consistent, and clear, from the morning of 
February 1, 2000, that he only had and copied one document."  
The referee noted there was no evidence that Attorney Olson even 
knew more than one report existed.  
¶80 In contrast, the referee determined that Attorney Alia 
was "vague, imprecise and confusing about the number of copies 
of the [appraiser's] report he received or the number of copies 
he made."  She notes, for example, Attorney Alia's statement 
during the May 31, 2000, circuit court hearing, in which he 
says:  "There were copies made.  Copies were sent.  I have 
copies in my file.  I can't give you the exact number of copies 
that were made.  But I believe there are copies that are 
unaccounted for."  We do not disturb the referee's credibility 
determinations.13 
 
The 
record 
supports 
the 
referee's 
determination that the OLR met its burden of proof with respect 
to Count V.    
¶81 Next, Attorney Alia attacks the referee's findings 
with respect to motive.  He challenges her finding that the 
information he removed from exhibit 21 was damaging to the 
appraiser's credibility and deprived opposing counsel of useful 
                                                 
13 Attorney Alia contends that his own statements have been 
consistent from the start, and argues at length the inaccuracies 
and 
inconsistencies 
of 
other 
witnesses, 
including 
Judge 
Schroeder and Attorney Olson.  He also points to inaccuracies in 
the referee's report.  Without belaboring this opinion with a 
recitation of the comparative inconsistencies, our examination 
of 
the 
record 
satisfies 
us 
that 
the 
referee 
reasonably 
determined 
that 
Attorney 
Alia 
made 
vague, 
imprecise 
and 
confusing explanations.  
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
34 
 
evidence.  He also attacks Attorney Olson's statement that if he 
had noticed the elimination of the listing price in the exhibit, 
he would have made an issue out of it on cross-examination.  
Attorney Alia argues that Attorney Olson's testimony is false 
because 
the 
court 
had 
determined 
the 
listing 
price 
was 
irrelevant.  Thus, he submits the referee accepted patently 
false information, so her credibility findings should be 
overturned.  He further contends because he merely eliminated 
certain information regarding the 1999 values, and did not add 
1997 dates, he did not have motive to conceal information 
damaging to his case.  He points out that exhibit 21 still 
stated an effective date of December 14, 1999, even after he had 
made the many redactions.  Therefore, he contends that the 
referee's findings as to motive are "irreconcilably at odds with 
both the report and the 2000 transcripts." 
¶82 Attorney Alia's arguments14 fail to acknowledge that 
what was damaging to his case was not merely the substance of 
the information reported, which was partially eliminated with a 
white-out, but also that the report itself did not conform to 
his witness's testimony.  As the referee's findings indicate, 
the lack of a relevant appraisal report had the potential of 
detracting from the appraiser's credibility.  Thus, the record 
supports 
the 
referee's 
determination 
that 
the 
whited-out 
                                                 
14 Because Attorney Alia does not suggest that it was 
necessary for the OLR to prove motive, his contentions are 
considered in the context of his challenge to the referee's 
credibility findings.   
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
35 
 
redactions were consistent with a motive to conceal information 
damaging to his case, i.e. the information that the report was 
non-conforming to the relevant testimony.   
¶83 Next, we address Attorney Alia's assertion that the 
referee erroneously considered the proceedings and decision at 
the T.T. trial.  Attorney Alia complains the OLR presented Judge 
Schroeder as a witness at the disciplinary hearing to elevate 
him to the status of a "super juror" and permit him to read from 
his decision.  He argues this practice must be condemned.  See 
State v. Dalton, 98 Wis. 2d 725, 298 N.W.2d 398 (1980).  He 
claims, therefore, the circuit court's decision in T.T. and the 
trial transcripts, except where used as impeachment as for the 
attorney's inconsistent statements, should have been excluded.   
¶84 The record reveals the referee articulated a rational 
basis to permit Judge Schroeder to testify as a fact witness and 
to admit the trial transcripts at the disciplinary hearing.  At 
the disciplinary hearing, the OLR stated it did not intend to 
ask Judge Schroeder for his opinion whether Attorney Alia 
violated any supreme court rules or for any conclusions of law.  
The referee determined: "[M]y job is not to accept Judge 
Schroeder's opinion, but to make my own decision based on the 
evidence and . . .  the statements made by both lawyers are 
probably relevant and material both as to their credibility and 
the statements they are making now as to the facts that they 
represented at that time." 
¶85 The referee further explained Judge Schroeder, as a 
fact witness, "has factual observations that he made during the 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
36 
 
course of these events, and his testimony with respect to those 
things is appropriate."  She ruled Judge Schroeder would be 
entitled to "tell us what he has observed, what he has heard."  
The referee further stated that whether Judge Schroeder would be 
entitled to express an opinion to the same extent that a lay 
witness would be entitled to express an opinion would be decided 
"when we get there." 
¶86 To the extent Attorney Alia complains that the 
findings of fact refer to the transcripts of the T.T. trial, we 
conclude 
these 
transcript 
references 
provide 
background 
necessary for an understanding of the charges.  Also, we note 
that at the disciplinary hearing, Attorney Alia's counsel 
stated, "I have no objection to the portions of Mr. Alia's 
statements that are argued to be admissions of some kind being 
received."  During Judge Schroeder's testimony, Attorney Alia's 
counsel argued the trial transcripts were the "best evidence 
rather than the witness's recollection" and at that point the 
transcripts were referred to without objection.  Attorney Alia 
identifies no improper use of Judge Schroeder's testimony, 
decision, or the trial transcripts.   
¶87 After a careful review of the arguments of counsel, 
examination of the record and the exhibits in question, and 
consideration of the relevant case law, we are unpersuaded that 
the referee's findings are clearly erroneous, that the OLR 
failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to each count, 
or that the referee made erroneous evidentiary rulings.  To the 
extent we have not specifically addressed each argument Attorney 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
37 
 
Alia has presented, each argument has been considered and 
rejected, while not always meriting individual discussion.  See 
Arthur, 279 Wis. 2d 583, ¶77.  
IV 
¶88 Finally, we turn to the parties' arguments regarding 
the appropriate sanction to be imposed.  Although this court 
takes into account the referee's recommendation, we do not 
accord it great weight because ultimately, it is this court's 
responsibility to determine appropriate discipline.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Reitz, 2005 WI 39, ¶74, 279 
Wis. 2d 550, 694 N.W.2d 894.  We first consider the seriousness 
of the conduct; we also consider the need to protect the public, 
courts, and legal system from repetition of misconduct, to 
impress upon the attorney the seriousness of the misconduct and 
to deter other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.  
Arthur, 279 Wis. 2d 583, ¶78. 
¶89 The five counts of misconduct committed by Attorney 
Alia are serious infractions of the Supreme Court Rules of 
Professional Responsibility. 
 
Section 
20:3.3 
imposes 
upon 
attorneys a solemn duty of candor toward the tribunal.  See 
Kalal, 252 Wis. 2d 261, ¶1.  "We emphasize at the outset that an 
attorney's duty of candor toward the tribunal is central to the 
truth-seeking function of any court." Id. The significance of 
our courts' truth-seeking function is well imbedded in Wisconsin 
law.  See Hepp v. Petrie, 185 Wis. 350, 200 N.W. 857 (1924) 
("Confidence in the courts is a necessary and indispensable 
factor in our national life.").  This court has the obligation 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
38 
 
to impose a strong unmistakable sanction to reinforce an 
attorney's obligation of truthfulness and to deter deceit and 
gamesmanship in our courts.  See Kalal, 252 Wis. 2d 261, ¶1.   
¶90 We disagree with Attorney Alia that a public reprimand 
is a sufficient sanction.  In contrast to the Kalal case, 
Attorney Alia was not only found to have made untruthful 
statements to the circuit court judge and baseless accusations 
against opposing counsel, but also doctored an exhibit, and used 
it to elicit false testimony at a jury trial, resulting in a 
mistrial.    
¶91 While the five counts are serious violations, Attorney 
Alia has not been previously disciplined and the underlying 
proceedings have already been costly to him.  Thus, we disagree 
with the OLR that at a minimum a six-month suspension is 
necessary.  Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude 
that a 90-day suspension of Attorney Alia's license to practice 
law in this state is an appropriate sanction.  
¶92 We accept the referee's recommendation of suspension 
and that Attorney Alia should pay the costs of the disciplinary 
proceeding.   
¶93 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Gino Alia 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for 90 days, effective 
March 14, 2006. 
¶94 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Gino Alia pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of these proceedings, provided that if the 
costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a 
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
39 
 
showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within 
that time, the license of Gino Alia to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of this court. 
¶95 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Gino Alia comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.  
No. 
2003AP2124-D   
 
 
 
1