Title: Alejandro R. Palabrica v.

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
97-2287-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Alejandro R. Palabrica, Attorney  
at Law. 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PALABRICA 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
February 24, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 97-2287-D 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 97-2287-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against ALEJANDRO R. PALABRICA, II, 
Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
FEB 24, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney’s 
license 
revoked.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of Attorney Alejandro R. Palabrica, II 
to practice law in Wisconsin be revoked as discipline for 
professional 
misconduct. 
That 
misconduct 
consisted 
of 
his 
misappropriation to his own use of a client’s personal injury 
settlement, his failure to pursue diligently the probate of an 
estate in which he served as personal representative and to 
cooperate with the successor attorney after he was removed, his 
failure to pursue diligently another estate matter and respond to 
reasonable requests from an heir for information in connection 
with it, and his failure to cooperate with the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility (Board) in its investigation of that 
conduct.  
No. 97-2287-D 
 
2 
¶2 
We determine that license revocation is the appropriate 
discipline to impose for Attorney Palabrica’s professional 
misconduct established in this proceeding. The seriousness of 
that misconduct, particularly the misappropriation of funds 
received and held on behalf of a client, warrants the most severe 
discipline.  
¶3 
Attorney Palabrica was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1990 and practiced in Milwaukee. He currently 
resides in Los Angeles, California and has asserted that he is 
not engaged in the practice of law there. By order of October 20, 
1997, the court granted the Board’s motion for the temporary 
suspension of his license to practice law pending disposition of 
the instant proceeding based on the Board’s assertion that he had 
failed to disburse any portion of a $24,000 minor settlement he 
had obtained in November, 1994, to the minor, but his trust 
account records revealed that he had made several disbursements 
of those funds to himself and in other client matters.  
¶4 
Attorney 
Palabrica 
did 
not 
participate 
in 
this 
proceeding after the filing of his answer. Notwithstanding 
notice, he did not attend the telephone scheduling conference or 
respond to the order setting the matter for default hearing. 
Following receipt of his answer the day of the hearing, the 
referee, 
Joan 
Kessler, 
attempted 
unsuccessfully 
on 
seven 
occasions to contact him at the telephone number set forth on the 
No. 97-2287-D 
 
3 
letter accompanying the answer. The referee deemed that letter a 
motion to adjourn the disciplinary proceeding to give Attorney 
Palabrica additional time to respond and a motion objecting to 
the service of process and found it insufficient on its face, as 
it made no claim that Attorney Palabrica did not have actual 
notice of the disciplinary proceeding on or about the time 
personal service of the Board’s complaint was made and there was 
no showing that he lacked access to his records merely because he 
resided in California. In the latter respect, the referee noted 
that they were his own trust account records and were readily 
obtainable from the financial institution. In addition, copies of 
those records were available from the Board. Based on the 
testimony and exhibits presented at the default hearing, the 
referee made the following findings of fact.  
¶5 
In May, 1994, a client retained Attorney Palabrica to 
represent her daughter in a personal injury matter. By means of 
checks written on his trust account between December 30, 1994 and 
November 30, 1995, Attorney Palabrica appropriated to his own use 
the entire settlement of that child’s claim, $15,577.43 of which 
belonged to the child. Three additional checks totaling $5975 
were written on that account for his fees, despite the fact that 
Attorney Palabrica already had obtained his agreed upon $8000 fee 
prior to calculating the client’s portion of the settlement when 
depositing it into the trust account. Also, three checks in the 
No. 97-2287-D 
 
4 
amount of $5750 were written on those funds in that account to a 
law firm for payment of debts Attorney Palabrica owed as a result 
of personal litigation against him. The referee concluded that by 
his handling of the minor settlement proceeds, Attorney Palabrica 
engaged in conduct that was fraudulent and deceitful, in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).1  
¶6 
In another matter, commencing August, 1994, Attorney 
Palabrica served as personal representative of an estate until he 
was removed December 12, 1996 following repeated hearings in 
probate court on orders to show cause why the estate had not been 
closed. Thereafter, Attorney Palabrica did not cooperate with the 
successor attorney, did not return phone calls, and did not turn 
over the file promptly. Beginning in January, 1996, the Board 
attempted to obtain a response from Attorney Palabrica to a 
grievance in this estate matter. He did not reply to several 
letters and telephone calls and repeatedly failed to attend 
meetings with the Board’s investigator, some of which had been 
scheduled at his own request. When he did respond and eventually 
appeared at an investigative meeting in May, 1996, he did not 
                     
1 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part:  
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:  
 . . .  
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
and misrepresentation;  
No. 97-2287-D 
 
5 
produce documents he had promised to provide, and he failed to 
appear at several subsequently scheduled interviews.  
¶7 
Attorney Palabrica failed to conclude the probate of 
another estate from February, 1995 to January, 1997. He did not 
return several telephone calls from an heir in that estate 
seeking to learn why the estate had not been closed.  
¶8 
The referee concluded that Attorney Palabrica failed to 
pursue these two estates diligently, in violation of SCR 20:1.3,2 
and did not respond to reasonable requests for information in 
them, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a).3 In addition, he repeatedly 
and persistently failed to cooperate with the Board in its 
investigation of these three matters, in violation of SCR 
22.07(2)4 and 21.03(4).5  
                     
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
3 SCR 20:1.4 provides, in pertinent part: Communication 
(a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information.  
4 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
 . . .  
No. 97-2287-D 
 
6 
¶9 
As 
discipline 
for 
that 
misconduct, 
the 
referee 
recommended that Attorney Palabrica’s license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be revoked. The referee recommended further that he be 
required, as a condition of reinstatement of his license, to make 
full restitution to the client in the personal injury matter.  
¶10 We adopt the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions 
of law and determine that Attorney Palabrica’s misconduct in 
these matters warrants the recommended license revocation. 
Moreover, pursuant to SCR 22.28(4)(k),6 in order to have his 
                                                                  
(2) 
During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
5 SCR 21.03 provides, in pertinent part: General principles. 
 . . .  
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or 
administrator.  
6 SCR 22.28 provides, in pertinent part: Reinstatement. 
 . . .  
(4) The petition for reinstatement shall show that: 
 . . .  
No. 97-2287-D 
 
7 
license reinstated, he will have to establish that he has made 
restitution to the 
personal 
injury 
client 
or 
provide an 
explanation why he has not done so. Finally, we require him to 
pay the costs of this proceeding.  
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Alejandro R. 
Palabrica, II to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective 
the date of this order.  
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Alejandro R. Palabrica, II pay to the Board of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
the 
costs 
of 
this 
proceeding.  
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Alejandro R. Palabrica, II 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
revoked.  
                                                                  
(k) The petitioner has made restitution or settled all 
claims from persons injured or harmed by petitioner’s misconduct 
or, if the restitution is not complete, petitioner’s explanation 
of the failure or inability to do so.  
 
 
1