Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Carlos Gamino

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2007 WI 115 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2003AP2422-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carlos Gamino, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Carlos Gamino, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GAMINO 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 5, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ZIEGLER, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 115
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2003AP2422-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carlos Gamino, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Carlos Gamino, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
SEP 5, 2007 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Reinstatement granted. 
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We 
review 
a 
referee's 
report 
recommending that Carlos Gamino's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be reinstated.  We adopt the referee's findings of 
fact and conclusions of law and conclude that Attorney Gamino's 
license to practice law should be reinstated.  We further direct 
Attorney 
Gamino 
to 
pay 
the 
costs 
of 
the 
reinstatement 
proceeding, which are $4429.13, as of March 14, 2007. 
¶2 
Attorney Gamino was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1997.  His license was suspended for a period of 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
2 
 
six months commencing January 24, 2006, for misconduct committed 
in two client matters.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gamino, 2005 WI 168, 286 Wis. 2d 558, 707 N.W.2d 132.  
In one matter, Attorney Gamino was found to have engaged in a 
sexual 
relationship 
with 
a 
client 
in 
violation 
of 
SCR 
20:1.8(k)(2).  In the other matter, Attorney Gamino was found to 
have violated SCR 20:1.7(b) for engaging in sexual relations 
with a client's mother.  He was also found to have violated SCR 
20:3.3(a)(1), SCR 20:8.4(f), and SCR 22.03(6) for making certain 
misrepresentations about his conduct to a court and to the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  Subsequently, Attorney 
Gamino was publicly reprimanded for misconduct consisting of 
failure to act with reasonable diligence, failure to immediately 
refund unearned fees, contacting a client after receiving notice 
successor counsel had been retained, and a trust account 
violation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gamino, 
2006 WI 32, 290 Wis. 2d 1, 712 N.W.2d 873. 
¶3 
On May 19, 2006, Attorney Gamino filed a petition for 
reinstatement of his license to practice law.  Curry First was 
appointed referee.  A hearing was held before the referee on 
November 17, 2006.  Following submission of post-hearing briefs, 
on 
February 
26, 
2007, 
the 
referee 
filed 
a 
report 
and 
recommendation recommending that Attorney Gamino's reinstatement 
petition be granted. 
¶4 
The 
referee 
found 
that 
clear, 
satisfactory 
and 
convincing evidence supported Attorney Gamino's petition for 
reinstatement, and he recommended that Attorney Gamino's license 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
3 
 
to practice law be reinstated.  The referee also recommended 
that Attorney Gamino be required to pay the costs of the 
reinstatement proceeding. 
¶5 
The standard to be met for reinstatement of a law 
license is provided in SCR 22.31(1).  The petitioner has the 
burden of demonstrating "by clear, satisfactory and convincing 
evidence" that the lawyer has the moral character to practice 
law, that the lawyer's resumption of the practice of law will 
not 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
administration 
of 
justice 
or 
subversive of the public interest, and that the lawyer has 
complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of the suspension.  In 
addition, SCR 22.29(4) sets forth related requirements that a 
petition for reinstatement must show.  All of these additional 
requirements are effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1). 
¶6 
This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718.   
¶7 
The referee found that Attorney Gamino has not 
practiced law during his period of suspension.  He spent his 
time during suspension caring for his two young children and 
managing his rental properties.  The referee found further that 
Attorney Gamino has complied fully with the terms of the order 
of suspension, and that he has maintained competence and 
learning in the law, as evidenced by a memorandum from the Board 
of Bar Examiners. 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
4 
 
¶8 
Attorney Gamino's wife, Attorney Tedia Gamino, and his 
father-in-law, William Smoler, testified in support of Attorney 
Gamino's petition for reinstatement.  The referee stated that 
this testimony "established positively Gamino's post-suspension 
moral character and exemplary conduct."   
¶9 
The referee noted that the OLR expressed concern 
regarding evidence suggesting that Attorney Gamino may have 
failed 
to 
disclose 
certain 
known 
liabilities 
on 
loan 
applications he made to refinance property.  However, the 
referee noted that the dates of the relevant loan applications 
preceded 
Attorney 
Gamino's 
suspension 
and, 
after 
further 
discussion of the evidence presented, stated that the OLR 
"failed in convincing this referee" that the evidence should 
adversely affect the petition for reinstatement.   
¶10 The referee noted further that Attorney Gamino has 
made arrangements to pay the costs of his suspension proceeding, 
and is currently making monthly payments toward those costs.  
Ultimately, 
the 
referee 
found 
that 
Attorney 
Gamino 
"has 
substantiated each element of the Petition for Reinstatement." 
¶11 After careful review of the record we agree with the 
referee 
that 
Attorney 
Gamino 
has 
established 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory and convincing evidence that he has satisfied all 
of the criteria necessary for reinstatement.  Accordingly, we 
adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and 
we accept the referee's recommendation to reinstate Attorney 
Gamino's license to practice law in Wisconsin.  We further 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
5 
 
direct Attorney Gamino to pay the costs of the reinstatement 
proceeding. 
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 
the license of Attorney Carlos Gamino to practice law in 
Wisconsin is granted, effective the date of this order. 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Gamino pay the 
costs of the reinstatement proceeding.  If Attorney Gamino fails 
to pay the costs of this proceeding as required by this order, 
and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay, the 
license of Attorney Carlos Gamino to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall be suspended until further order of the court. 
¶14 ANNETTE K. ZIEGLER, J., did not participate. 
 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
 
 
1