Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Albert J. Armonda

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2004 WI 82 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
04-0984-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Albert J. Armonda, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Albert J. Armonda,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ARMONDA 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 29, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2004 WI 82 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  04-0984-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Albert J. Armonda, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Albert J. Armonda,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 29, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This case is before us under SCR 22.121 
on a stipulation between the parties, Attorney Albert J. 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides: Stipulation. 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee.  
No. 
04-0984-D   
 
2 
 
Armonda, and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  The 
stipulation consists of Attorney Armonda's admission of the 
facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR and his agreement to the 
level of discipline that the OLR is seeking.   
¶2 
We accept the stipulation and determine that the 
seriousness of Attorney 
Armonda's 
misconduct 
warrants the 
imposition of the stipulated six-month suspension.   
¶3 
Attorney Armonda was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1996.  He has had four prior administrative 
suspensions for failing to comply with mandatory CLE reporting 
requirements and for non-payment of state bar dues.   
¶4 
In addition, he was recently suspended for 60 days for 
misconduct consisting of failing to timely respond to the OLR's 
correspondence relating to a grievance investigation, practicing 
law while his license was suspended, failing to inform his 
clients of his suspended license, failing to act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client, failing to 
keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, 
failing to surrender papers and property to the client, failing 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. 
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
No. 
04-0984-D   
 
3 
 
to timely refund an advance payment of fees and property of a 
client upon termination of representation, failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness by not appearing at a 
conference in a client's divorce action and not complying with 
opposing counsel's discovery requests, interfering with the 
OLR's investigation by drafting a client letter withdrawing 
their grievance, and failing to properly safeguard property of a 
third person by losing track of a client's cashier's check 
intended for their mortgage payment.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Armonda, 2003 WI 136, 266 Wis. 2d 29, 670 
N.W.2d 542.  That suspension remains in effect.   
¶5 
The complaint against him which is the subject of this 
stipulation covers seven counts arising out of four grievances.   
¶6 
Count one involves a violation of SCR 10.03(6)2 and SCR 
20:8.4(f)3 arising out of Attorney Armonda's appearance in at 
least four circuit court cases when his license to practice law 
was previously suspended due to his failure to pay 2002 state 
bar dues and supreme court assessments.   
                                                 
2 SCR 10.03(6) provides: 
(6) Penalty for nonpayment of dues. If the annual 
dues of any member remain unpaid 120 days after the 
payment is due, the membership of the member may be 
suspended in the manner provided in the bylaws; and no 
person whose membership is so suspended for nonpayment 
of dues may practice law during the period of the 
suspension.  
3 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides: "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to: (f) violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
No. 
04-0984-D   
 
4 
 
¶7 
Count two involves a violation of SCR 20:8.4(f) and 
SCR 22.03(6),4 failing to provide relevant information during the 
course of an OLR investigation, arising out of his failure on 
two occasions to respond to the OLR correspondence regarding 
count one.   
¶8 
Count three involves a violation of SCR 20:1.5(a),5 
charging an unreasonable fee, arising out of Attorney Armonda 
                                                 
4 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
"(6) 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." 
5 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides: 
(a) A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable. The 
factors 
to 
be 
considered 
in 
determining 
the 
reasonableness of a fee include the following:  
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and 
difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill 
requisite to perform the legal service properly;  
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 
that the acceptance of the particular employment will 
preclude other employment by the lawyer;  
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality 
for similar legal services;  
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;  
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or 
by the circumstances;  
(6) the nature and length of the professional 
relationship with the client;  
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of 
the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and  
No. 
04-0984-D   
 
5 
 
charging a client $6500 to represent him in a bankruptcy.  The 
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of 
Wisconsin had previously determined that the fee was excessive 
and ordered that it be returned in its entirety to the client.  
¶9 
Count 
four, 
arising 
out 
of 
the 
same 
set 
of 
circumstances, involves a concurrent violation of SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶10 Count five involves another violation of SCR 22.03(6) 
involving 
Attorney 
Armonda's 
failure 
to 
provide 
relevant 
information during the course of the OLR's investigation of the 
bankruptcy matter.  
¶11 Count six involves a violation of SCR 20:1.1,6 failure 
to provide competent representation to a client, arising out of 
Attorney Armonda filing a divorce petition which failed to 
accurately state the number of children born to the marriage.   
¶12 Count seven involves a violation of SCR 22.03(2),7 
requiring full disclosure to the OLR, and another violation of 
                                                                                                                                                             
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.  
6 SCR 20:1.1 provides: "Competence. A lawyer shall provide 
competent representation to a client. Competent representation 
requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." 
7 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
(2) 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 request for a written response. The 
director 
may 
allow 
additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
No. 
04-0984-D   
 
6 
 
SCR 20:8.4(f), arising out of his failure to disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to matters arising out of count six 
after the OLR's request for a response.  
¶13 The parties advise the court that the terms of this 
stipulation were not bargained for or negotiated between the 
parties.  Attorney Armonda admits the facts and misconduct 
alleged by the OLR and agrees to the level of discipline that 
the OLR seeks.  He further indicates that he fully understands 
the misconduct allegations, the ramifications should the court 
impose the stipulated level of discipline, his right to contest 
the matter, including consultation with retained counsel, and 
that his entry into the stipulation is knowing and voluntary. 
¶14 The 
OLR 
submits 
that 
an 
appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline is a six-month suspension.  It notes that in similar 
cases, an example being In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Gibson, 230 Wis. 279, 601 N.W.2d 824 (1999), such a suspension 
was 
ordered. 
 
The 
OLR 
contends 
that 
Attorney 
Armonda's 
misconduct 
is 
aggravated 
by 
his 
previous 
misconduct, 
particularly the 60-day suspension which is currently in effect.  
However, it contends that his misconduct was mitigated by the 
fact he was experiencing personal difficulties during the period 
of misconduct and appears to be remorseful.   
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
 
No. 
04-0984-D   
 
7 
 
¶15 In conclusion, we accept the stipulation of the 
parties.  Attorney Armonda's misconduct represents a serious 
failure to comply with the specified rules of professional 
conduct.  Furthermore, the level of discipline requested by the 
OLR is appropriate for this misconduct.  
¶16 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Albert J. 
Armonda to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of six months, and until reinstated by this court, effective 
August 3, 2004.  
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Albert J. Armonda 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26, concerning the duties 
of an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended, 
to the extent he has not already done so.  
No. 
04-0984-D   
 
 
 
1