Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ismael Gonzalez

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2016 WI 87 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP971-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ismael Gonzalez, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Ismael Gonzalez, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GONZALEZ 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 20, 2016 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 WI 87
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2016AP971-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Ismael Gonzalez, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Ismael Gonzalez, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 20, 2016 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter. 
On May 16, 2016, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a 
complaint and motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22,1 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 provides:  Reciprocal discipline.  
(1) 
An 
attorney 
on 
whom 
public 
discipline 
for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
shall promptly notify the director of the matter. 
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP971-D   
 
2 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.  
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a judgment 
or order of another jurisdiction imposing discipline 
for misconduct or a license suspension for medical 
incapacity of an attorney admitted to the practice of 
law or engaged in the practice of law in this state, 
the director may file a complaint in the supreme court 
containing all of the following:  
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order from the 
other jurisdiction.  
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the 
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the 
grounds set forth in sub.(3) that the imposition of 
the identical discipline or license suspension by the 
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual 
basis for the claim.  
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present:  
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was so 
lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process.  
(b) There was such an infirmity of proof establishing 
the misconduct or medical incapacity that the supreme 
court could not accept as final the conclusion in 
respect to the misconduct or medical incapacity,  
(c) The misconduct justifies substantially different 
discipline in this state.  
(4) 
Except 
as 
provided 
in 
sub.(3), 
a 
final 
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney 
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity 
shall 
be 
conclusive 
evidence 
of 
the 
attorney's 
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a 
proceeding under this rule.  
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP971-D   
 
3 
 
requesting this court suspend Attorney Ismael Gonzalez's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of one year, as 
reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the Supreme 
Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First 
Judicial Department, and impose costs.  Upon our review, we 
agree that it is appropriate to impose the same one year 
suspension imposed by the Supreme Court of the State of New York 
Appellate Division, First Judicial Department.  We decline to 
award costs. 
¶2 
Attorney Gonzalez was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1981.  Attorney Gonzalez's Wisconsin law license is 
currently suspended for failure to pay annual bar dues.  He was 
admitted to practice law in New York in 1990 and resides in New 
York.   
                                                                                                                                                             
(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint filed 
under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a report 
and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16. At the 
hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the 
imposition 
of 
discipline 
or 
license 
suspension 
different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction 
to demonstrate that the imposition of identical 
discipline or license suspension by the supreme court 
is unwarranted.  
(6) If the discipline or license suspension imposed in 
the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any reciprocal 
discipline or license suspension imposed by the 
supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the stay 
expires.  
 
No. 
2016AP971-D   
 
4 
 
¶3 
The following facts are taken from the documents 
attached to the OLR's complaint relating to the New York 
disciplinary proceedings.  On August 11, 2015, the New York 
Appellate Division Supreme Court First Judicial Department 
suspended Gonzalez's law license for one year, effective 
September 10, 2015, based upon 12 counts of misconduct involving 
five clients, violation of escrow rules, and failure to file 
income tax returns for specific years.  Gonzalez's misconduct 
included:  belligerent and verbal abuse towards his client's 
wife; threatening his client's wife that he would have his 
client arrested and deported; communicating information to the 
immigration authorities that he wanted his client arrested and 
deported; falsely telling the immigration authorities that his 
client would not appear for his deferred inspection appointment; 
and intentionally damaging his client during the course of the 
professional relationship.  He also entered into several written 
retainer agreements that contained a nonrefundable clause, 
delayed filing a bankruptcy petition for 21 months, and failed 
to file federal and state personal income tax returns for 2002 
through 2007.   
¶4 
The Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate 
Division, First Judicial Department found that Gonzalez violated 
the Code of Professional Responsibility by:  "conduct adversely 
reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer, in violation of Code of 
Professional 
Responsibility 
DR 
1-102(a)(7) 
(22 
NYCRR 
1200.3[a][7]"); 
"engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit and misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-
No. 
2016AP971-D   
 
5 
 
102(a)(4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][4]"); "intentionally prejudicing 
or damaging his client, during the course of the professional 
relationship, 
in 
violation 
of 
DR 
7-101(a)(3) 
(22 
NYCRR 
1200.32[a][3]"); entering into a written retainer agreement with 
clients that contained a non-refundable fee clause, in violation 
of Rule 1.5(d)(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 
1200.0); neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, in 
violation of Rule 1.3(b); causing a cash withdrawal in the 
amount of $1,400.00 from his master escrow account, not to a 
named payee, thereby violating Rule 1.15(e); and engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer by 
failing to file federal and state personal income tax returns 
for the years 2002 through 2007, in violation of DR 1-102(a)(7). 
¶5 
In addition, Gonzalez did not notify the OLR of the 
New York suspension within 20 days of its effective date.  
¶6 
The OLR complaint alleged that, by virtue of the New 
York disciplinary one year suspension, Gonzalez is subject to 
reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22 and 
that, by failing to notify the OLR of his suspension in New York 
for professional misconduct within 20 days of the effective date 
of its imposition, Gonzalez violated SCR 22.22(1).   
¶7 
The OLR asks this court to suspend Attorney Gonzalez's 
Wisconsin law license for one year as discipline reciprocal to 
that imposed in New York and to impose costs. 
¶8 
On August 10, 2016, this court directed Attorney 
Gonzalez to inform the court in writing within 20 days of any 
claim by him, predicated upon the grounds set forth in SCR 
No. 
2016AP971-D   
 
6 
 
22.22(3), that the imposition of discipline reciprocal to that 
imposed in New York would be unwarranted, and of the factual 
basis for any such claim.  No response was received. 
¶9 
Under SCR 22.22(3), in reciprocal discipline matters, 
this court shall impose the identical discipline unless one of 
the exceptions enumerated in the rule is shown.  There is no 
indication that any of those exceptions apply in this case. 
Therefore, we impose discipline identical to that imposed by the 
Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First 
Judicial Department. 
¶10 We decline to impose the costs of this proceeding on 
Attorney Gonzalez.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Hooker, 2012 WI 100, ¶26, 343 Wis. 2d 397, 816 N.W.2d 310 
(noting that in reciprocal discipline cases where a referee is 
not appointed, costs are generally not imposed as there are no 
referee expenses and the proceedings are less involved).  
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Ismael Gonzalez to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already 
done 
so, 
Ismael 
Gonzalez 
shall 
comply 
with 
the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order, as well as compliance with all 
conditions of the disciplinary orders imposed on him by the 
Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First 
No. 
2016AP971-D   
 
7 
 
Judicial Department, is required for reinstatement.  See SCR 
22.29(4)(c). 
¶14 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Ismael Gonzalez's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues, will 
remain in effect until the administrative suspension has been 
rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 
 
 
No. 
2016AP971-D   
 
 
 
1