Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ernesto Chavez

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2015 WI 39 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP569-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Ernesto Chavez, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Ernesto Chavez, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CHAVEZ 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 17, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 39
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2014AP569-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Ernesto Chavez, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Ernesto Chavez, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 17, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   On November 25, 2014, the Honorable 
William Eich, the referee in this matter, issued a report 
recommending that Attorney Ernesto Chavez be declared in default 
and that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended 
for a period of one year for 41 counts of professional 
misconduct.  The referee also recommended that Attorney Chavez 
pay restitution to one client and to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund 
for Client Protection (Fund), which made payments to three other 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
2 
 
clients.  The referee further recommended that Attorney Chavez 
be required to pay the full costs of this proceeding, which are 
$677.58 as of December 15, 2014. 
¶2 
We declare Attorney Chavez to be in default.  We agree 
with the referee that Attorney Chavez's professional misconduct 
warrants a one-year license suspension.  We also agree that 
Attorney Chavez should be ordered to make restitution and pay 
the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney Chavez was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2000.  The address he has on file with the State 
Bar of Wisconsin is Madison, Wisconsin; however, it is the 
belief of the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) that Attorney 
Chavez resides in the state of Washington.  
¶4 
In 2008, Attorney Chavez received a private reprimand 
in a civil rights case, in which he failed to keep his clients 
informed of the status or merits of their case and failed to 
respond to numerous requests for information.  Private Reprimand 
No. 2008-34.  On April 23, 2012, this court temporarily 
suspended Attorney Chavez's law license pursuant to SCR 22.03(4) 
for 
failure 
to 
cooperate 
in 
various 
OLR 
investigations 
concerning 
his 
conduct. 
 
In 
addition, 
his 
license 
is 
administratively suspended for failure to pay State Bar dues and 
failure 
to 
complete 
continuing 
legal 
education 
(CLE) 
requirements. 
¶5 
On March 13, 2014, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Chavez alleging 41 counts of misconduct with respect to 
his handling of nine client matters.  Attorney Chavez was 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
3 
 
personally served with the complaint on April 18, 2014.  He 
failed to file an answer.  The OLR filed a motion for default 
judgment on June 24, 2014.  Attorney Chavez was notified at both 
his home address and his last known professional address of a 
telephone hearing on the motion scheduled for October 6, 2014.  
Attorney Chavez failed to appear in any manner at the hearing.  
On November 13, 2014, the referee issued an order recommending 
that Attorney Chavez be found in default.  As noted above, the 
formal referee's report followed on November 25, 2014.   
¶6 
The allegations in the OLR's complaint, which are 
discussed in detail in the referee's report, will not be 
extensively recited or repeated here.  We will briefly summarize 
the incidents giving rise to the misconduct. 
Representation of S.C. (Counts One through Four) 
¶7 
In April of 2009, S.C. and her husband hired Attorney 
Chavez to represent them in two appellate cases.  S.C. paid 
Attorney Chavez $1,500.  No written fee agreement was signed.  
Attorney Chavez placed the $1,500 advanced fee in a non-trust 
account.  S.C. terminated Attorney Chavez's representation in 
November 2009.  Attorney Chavez never returned S.C.'s files. 
¶8 
In April of 2010, Attorney Chavez executed a one-year 
diversion agreement with the OLR concerning a grievance S.C. had 
filed.  In July of 2011, the OLR informed Attorney Chavez that 
he had breached the diversion agreement and that the OLR would 
continue investigating S.C.'s grievance. 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
4 
 
¶9 
The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that 
Attorney 
Chavez 
committed 
the 
following 
counts 
of 
misconduct with respect to his representation of S.C.: 
[COUNT ONE]  By failing to provide a written fee 
agreement to [S.C.] when she paid an advanced fee of 
$1,500 
for 
his 
representation, 
Chavez 
violated 
SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2).1 
[COUNT TWO]  Upon receipt of $1,500, specifically 
in anticipation of providing legal representation to 
[S.C.], by failing to deposit those funds into his 
trust account, instead admittedly depositing the funds 
into his general account, and with no evidence that he 
intended to utilize the alternative fee placement 
measures permitted under SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m), Chavez 
violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).2 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2) provide: 
(1) The scope of the representation and the basis 
or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client 
will be responsible shall be communicated to the 
client in writing, before or within a reasonable time 
after commencing the representation, except when the 
lawyer will charge a regularly represented client on 
the same basis or rate as in the past.  If it is 
reasonably 
foreseeable 
that 
the 
total 
cost 
of 
representation to the client, including attorney's 
fees, will be $1000 or less, the communication may be 
oral or in writing. Any changes in the basis or rate 
of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated in 
writing to the client.  
(2) If the total cost of representation to the 
client, including attorney's fees, is more than $1000, 
the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance fee 
that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 
writing. 
2 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) provides:  
Except as provided in par. (4m), unearned fees 
and advanced payments of fees shall be held in trust 
until earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
5 
 
[COUNT THREE]  By failing to return [S.C.'s] 
files to her, Chavez violated SCR 20:1.16(d).3 
[COUNT FOUR]  By failing to respond to OLR, 
Chavez violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6),4 enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(h).5 
                                                                                                                                                             
sub. (g).  Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 
payment of costs shall be held in trust until the 
costs are incurred. 
3 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
4 SCR 22.03(2) and (6) provide: 
(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.  
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. 
. . . . 
(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 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
6 
 
Representation of G.N. and G.S. (Counts Five through Ten) 
¶10 In January of 2010, G.N. paid Attorney Chavez $5,000 
to represent her brother, G.S., in post-conviction proceedings.  
Attorney Chavez deposited the money into his business account.  
Attorney Chavez made various false statements to G.N. and to 
G.S.'s wife, including that he had ordered transcripts, that he 
had contacted a social worker at G.S.'s prison to schedule a 
visit, and that he had drafted a brief.   
¶11 In April of 2011, G.N. wrote to Attorney Chavez asking 
him to refund the $5,000.  Attorney Chavez told G.N. that he 
would send her the brief but would refund the money if she did 
not approve of the brief.  Attorney Chavez never sent G.N. a 
brief, nor did he refund any money.  In September of 2012, the 
Fund paid $5,000 to G.N. as reimbursement for her legal fees. 
¶12 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that 
Attorney 
Chavez 
committed 
the 
following 
counts 
of 
misconduct with respect to his representation of G.N. and G.S.: 
[COUNT FIVE]  By failing to order any transcripts 
or take any post-conviction action on [G.S.'s] behalf, 
Chavez violated SCR 20:1.3.6 
                                                                                                                                                             
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 
the matters asserted in the grievance." 
5 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 
or SCR 22.04(1)." 
6 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
7 
 
[COUNT SIX]  Having accepted $5,000 from [G.N.] 
to pursue post-conviction proceedings, and in the 
absence of any evidence of having prepared any motions 
or documents on behalf of [G.S.], Chavez violated 
SCR 20:1.5(a).7 
[COUNT SEVEN]  By failing to return any of 
[G.N.'s] money, after admitting she was entitled to at 
least 
a 
partial 
refund, 
Chavez 
violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d). 
[COUNT 
EIGHT] 
 
Upon 
receipt 
of 
$5,000, 
specifically 
in 
anticipation 
of 
providing 
legal 
representation to [G.S.], by failing to deposit those 
funds into his trust account, instead admittedly 
                                                 
7 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides: 
A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, 
or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable 
amount for expenses. 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 
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
8 
 
depositing the funds into a non-trust account, and 
with no evidence that he intended to utilize the 
alternative fee placement measures permitted under 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m), Chavez violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(4). 
[COUNT NINE]  By providing false information 
regarding case status, including that transcripts had 
been requested, that he had been attempting to set up 
a phone visit with [G.S.], and that he had a draft 
brief that he would provide to [G.N.], Chavez violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c).8 
[COUNT TEN]  By failing to respond to OLR's 
investigation of [G.N.'s] and [G.S.'s] grievance, 
Chavez violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
Representation of L.T. (Counts 11-14) 
¶13 Attorney Chavez's Wisconsin law license was suspended 
for failure to comply with CLE reporting requirements on June 6, 
2011.  Attorney Chavez began representing L.T. in a Dane County 
case in August of 2010.  In late June of 2011, Attorney Chavez 
sent emails to opposing counsel about a possible agreement in 
the L.T. case and appeared on L.T.'s behalf at a plea hearing in 
Dane County.  Attorney Chavez failed to notify the court, 
opposing counsel, or his client of his suspension. 
¶14 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that 
Attorney 
Chavez 
committed 
the 
following 
counts 
of 
misconduct with respect to his representation of L.T.: 
[COUNT 11]  By failing to provide notice of his 
suspension to his client, the court, or opposing 
                                                 
8 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
9 
 
counsel, Chavez violated [SCR] 22.26(1)(a), (b), and 
(c),9 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).10 
[COUNT 12]  By failing to withdraw from the case 
when 
he 
was 
suspended, 
Chavez 
violated 
SCR 20:1.16(a)(1).11 
[COUNT 13]  By telling the bailiff on June 29, 
2011 that they were prepared to proceed, negotiating 
with the district attorney's office, and preparing to 
                                                 
9 SCR 22.26(1)(a), (b), and (c) provide: 
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere. 
(c) Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation.  The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence. 
10 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
11 SCR 20:1.16(a)(1), as relevant here, provides that a 
lawyer shall withdraw from the representation of a client if 
"the representation will result in violation of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct or other law." 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
10 
 
enter a plea on his client's behalf in State v. [L.T.] 
while his law license was suspended, Chavez violated 
SCR 31.10(1)12 and [SCR] 22.26(2),13 which are enforced 
under 
the 
Rules 
of 
Professional 
Conduct 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(f). 
[COUNT 14]  By failing to respond to OLR, Chavez 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2) 
and 
(6), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
                                                 
12 SCR 31.10(1) provides:  
If a lawyer fails to comply with the attendance 
requirement of SCR 31.02, fails to comply with the 
reporting requirement of SCR 31.03(1), or fails to pay 
the late fee under SCR 31.03(2), the board shall serve 
a notice of noncompliance on the lawyer.  This notice 
shall advise the lawyer that the lawyer’s state bar 
membership 
shall 
be 
automatically 
suspended 
for 
failing to file evidence of compliance or to pay the 
late fee within 60 days after service of the notice.  
The board shall certify the names of all lawyers so 
suspended under this rule to the clerk of the supreme 
court, all supreme court justices, all court of 
appeals and circuit court judges, all circuit court 
commissioners appointed under SCR 75.02(1) in this 
state, all circuit court clerks, all juvenile court 
clerks, 
all 
registers 
in 
probate, 
the 
executive 
director of the state bar of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin 
State Public Defender’s Office, and the clerks of the 
federal district courts in Wisconsin.  A lawyer shall 
not engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while 
his or her state bar membership is suspended under 
this rule. 
13 SCR 22.26(2) provides: 
An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
11 
 
Representation of T.D. (Counts 15-18) 
¶15 In 
May 
of 
2011, 
Attorney 
Chavez 
filed 
an 
administrative appeal on behalf of T.D. in Green County.  On 
July 8, 2011, after his license was administratively suspended, 
Attorney Chavez appeared at a final status teleconference in the 
T.D. case.  Opposing counsel informed the judge that Attorney 
Chavez was suspended, and Attorney Chavez admitted it. 
¶16 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that 
Attorney 
Chavez 
committed 
the 
following 
counts 
of 
misconduct with respect to his representation of T.D.: 
[COUNT 15]  By failing, prior to the first 
July 8, 2011 status conference, to provide notice of 
his suspension to adverse counsel or the court in City 
of 
Brodhead 
v. 
[T.D.], 
Chavez 
violated 
[SCR] 22.26(1)(c), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f). 
[COUNT 16]  By making an appearance on [T.D.'s] 
behalf at the first July 8, 2011 status conference in 
City 
of 
Brodhead 
v. 
[T.D.], 
and 
by 
thereafter 
attempting 
to 
negotiate 
an 
agreement 
with 
the 
prosecuting 
attorney 
while 
his 
law 
license 
was 
suspended, 
Chavez 
violated 
SCR 
31.10(1) 
and 
SCR 22.26(2), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f). 
[COUNT 17]  Having terminated his representation 
of [T.D.] as a result of his June 6, 2011 law license 
suspension, and having been ordered by the court in 
the course of a teleconference on July 8, 2011 to 
write a letter to [T.D.] informing him of a July 15, 
2011 status conference, by thereafter failing to 
provide such information to [T.D.], Chavez violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d) and SCR 20:3.4(c).14 
                                                 
14 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides that a lawyer shall not "knowingly 
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for 
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 
exists." 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
12 
 
[COUNT 18]  By failing to respond to OLR, Chavez 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2) 
and 
(6), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
Representation of S.B. (Counts 19-21) 
¶17 In 
July 
of 
2011, 
after 
his 
license 
had 
been 
administratively suspended, Attorney Chavez represented S.B. in 
a Lafayette County case.  He waived S.B.'s preliminary hearing 
and filed a request for substitution.  He failed to notify his 
client, the court, or opposing counsel of his suspension. 
¶18 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that 
Attorney 
Chavez 
committed 
the 
following 
counts 
of 
misconduct with respect to his representation of S.B.: 
[COUNT 19]  By failing, prior to the July 11, 
2011 preliminary hearing, to provide notice of his 
suspension to his client, adverse counsel, or the 
court 
in 
State 
v. 
[S.B.], 
Chavez 
violated 
SCR 22.26(1)(a), 
(b), 
and 
(c), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(f). 
[COUNT 20]  By making an appearance on [S.B.'s] 
behalf at a July 11, 2011 preliminary hearing in State 
v. [S.B.] while his law license was suspended, Chavez 
violated SCR 31.10(1) and [SCR] 22.26(2), enforceable 
via SCR 20:8.4(f). 
[COUNT 21]  By failing to respond to OLR, Chavez 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2) 
and 
(6), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
Representation of T.B. (Counts 22-26) 
¶19 In April of 2011, T.B. hired Attorney Chavez to 
represent her in a municipal traffic case and paid him $1,500 
for the representation.  Between May and August of 2011, 
Attorney Chavez stopped updating T.B. about her case in spite of 
the fact that she left him numerous voicemails.  In August of 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
13 
 
2011, after his law license had been administratively suspended, 
Attorney Chavez contacted T.B. and told her he could represent 
her only if her case did not go to trial.  He admitted to T.B. 
that his law license was suspended.  In March of 2012, the Fund 
paid $1,500 to T.B. as reimbursement for her legal fees. 
¶20 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that 
Attorney 
Chavez 
committed 
the 
following 
counts 
of 
misconduct with respect to his representation of T.B.: 
[COUNT 22]  By collecting a fee of $1,500 as 
payment for all pre-trial services, then failing to 
fulfill his obligations under the fee agreement, 
Chavez violated SCR 20:1.5(a). 
[COUNT 23]  By failing to withdraw from the case 
when 
he 
was 
suspended, 
Chavez 
violated 
SCR 20:1.16(a)(1). 
[COUNT 24]  By failing to provide notice of his 
suspension 
to 
his 
client, 
Chavez 
violated 
SCR 22.26(1)(a) 
and 
(b), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(f). 
[COUNT 25]  By telling [T.B.] that he could 
continue to represent her as long as she did not go to 
trial, and telling her that he would attend her case 
review on August 22, 2011 while his law license was 
suspended, Chavez violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
[COUNT 26]  By failing to respond to OLR, Chavez 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2) 
and 
(6), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
Representation of T.D. and J.B. (Counts 27-32) 
¶21 In May of 2010, T.D. hired Attorney Chavez to 
represent her son, J.B., in a criminal appeal.  T.D. signed a 
fee agreement and paid Attorney Chavez $2,000.  She gave him 
another $1,000 within the following month.  Attorney Chavez had 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
14 
 
one meeting with J.B. in July of 2010 where J.B. signed 
paperwork confirming that Attorney Chavez was to appeal his 
criminal conviction.  Attorney Chavez never filed a notice of 
intent to pursue post-conviction relief in circuit court, nor 
did he file an appeal in the court of appeals.  Attorney Chavez 
never informed T.D. or J.B. of his administrative suspension and 
inability to handle the appeal, nor did he withdraw from 
representation. 
¶22 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that 
Attorney 
Chavez 
committed 
the 
following 
counts 
of 
misconduct with respect to his representation of T.D. and J.B.: 
[COUNT 27]  By failing to file notice in Circuit 
Court of [J.B.'s] intent to appeal, or an appeal in 
the Court of Appeals, or to otherwise further [J.B.'s] 
interests, Chavez violated SCR 20:1.3. 
[COUNT 28]  By collecting a fee of $3,000, then 
failing to fulfill his obligations under the fee 
agreement, Chavez violated SCR 20:1.5(a). 
[COUNT 29]  By failing to withdraw from [J.B.'s] 
case 
when 
he 
was 
suspended, 
Chavez 
violated 
SCR 20:1.16(a)(1). 
[COUNT 30]  By failing to protect [J.B.'s] 
appellate rights after he ended his representation, 
Chavez violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
[COUNT 31]  By failing to provide notice of his 
suspension 
to 
his 
client, 
Chavez 
violated 
SCR 22.26(1)(a) 
and 
(b), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 
20:8.4(f). 
[COUNT 32]  By failing to respond to OLR, Chavez 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2) 
and 
(6), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
15 
 
Representation of J.G. (Counts 33-34) 
¶23 In May of 2010, J.G. hired Attorney Chavez in 
anticipation of criminal charges being filed against him.  J.G. 
signed a fee agreement and agreed to pay Attorney Chavez $1,500 
over time.  He paid Attorney Chavez at least $1,000.  After his 
law license was administratively suspended, Attorney Chavez 
offered to prepare papers for J.G. in a civil case in return for 
a fee plus part of the settlement.  In September of 2011, 
Attorney Chavez told the OLR that he was going to draft a 
complaint for J.G., who would then appear pro se. 
¶24 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that 
Attorney 
Chavez 
committed 
the 
following 
counts 
of 
misconduct with respect to his representation of J.G.: 
[COUNT 33]  By failing to provide notice of his 
suspension to his client, and to advise his client to 
seek 
legal 
advice 
elsewhere, 
Chavez 
violated 
[SCR] 22.26(1)(a) 
and 
(b), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(f). 
[COUNT 34]  By failing to respond to OLR, Chavez 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2) 
and 
(6), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h). 
Representation of V.S. (Counts 35-41) 
¶25 In March of 2011, V.S. was charged in three Adams 
County traffic cases.  In May of that year, she hired Attorney 
Chavez to represent her.  She signed a fee agreement and paid 
him $500 as partial payment toward a flat fee.  Attorney Chavez 
never filed a notice of appearance or took any other action on 
V.S.'s behalf.  On June 27, 2011, V.S. appeared in court for a 
return date, but Attorney Chavez did not appear.  Opposing 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
16 
 
counsel informed V.S. that Attorney Chavez's license had been 
suspended.  In September of 2012, the Fund paid $500 to V.S. as 
reimbursement for her legal fees. 
¶26 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 
that 
Attorney 
Chavez 
committed 
the 
following 
counts 
of 
misconduct with respect to his representation of V.S.: 
[COUNT 35]  By accepting funds from [V.S.] in May 
2011, and present[ing] a fee agreement that described 
pretrial 
and 
trial 
events 
through 
October 
2011, 
knowing that he was subject to an automatic license 
suspension at the close of business on June 6, 2011, 
with 
no 
apparent 
intention 
to 
remedy 
his 
CLE 
deficiencies prior to suspension, and with no notice 
to [V.S.] of his impending suspension, Chavez violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c). 
[COUNT 36]  Prior to the June 6, 2011 suspension 
of his law license, by failing to inform [V.S.] of 
relevant case developments, including the impending 
suspension of his license and his likely inability to 
appear on [V.S.'s] behalf at the June 27, 2011 
proceeding 
in 
Circuit 
Court, 
Chavez 
violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).15 
[COUNT 37]  By failing to, while his license was 
valid, enter an appearance in the Adams County 
matters, 
request 
discovery 
or 
otherwise 
further 
[V.S.'s] interests, Chavez violated SCR 20:1.3. 
[COUNT 38]  Having accepted $500 from [V.S.], 
despite failing to perform any work on her behalf 
beyond the initial introduction and consultation, 
Chavez violated SCR 20:1.5(a). 
[COUNT 39]  By failing to provide notice of his 
suspension to [V.S.] following that suspension, Chavez 
                                                 
15 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides that a lawyer shall "keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
17 
 
violated [SCR] 22.26(1)(a) and (b), enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(f). 
[COUNT 40]  Subsequent to his June 6, 2011 
license suspension and the consequent termination of 
his representation of [V.S.], by failing to respond to 
her inquiries regarding case status, particularly 
regarding his failure to appear in court on June 27, 
2011; by failing to return [V.S.'s] case file; and 
failing to return any unearned portion of the advanced 
fee, Chavez violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 
[COUNT 41]  By failing to respond to OLR's 
investigation of [V.S.'s] grievance, Chavez violated 
SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶27 The referee recommended that Attorney Chavez's license 
be suspended for a period of one year.  The referee also 
recommended that Attorney Chavez be ordered to pay restitution 
of $3,000 to T.D. (T.D. and J.B. matter) and that he be ordered 
to pay restitution to the Fund in the amounts of $1,500 for 
T.B., $500 for V.S., and $5,000 for G.N.  The referee also 
recommended that Attorney Chavez be required to pay the full 
costs of the proceeding. 
¶28 Attorney Chavez has not filed an appeal from the 
referee's report. 
¶29 We agree with the referee that Attorney Chavez should 
be declared in default.  Although Attorney Chavez was personally 
served with the complaint and was given notice of the hearing on 
the motion for default judgment, he failed to appear or present 
a defense.  Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to declare him 
in default. 
¶30 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
18 
 
See 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Eisenberg, 
2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The court may 
impose whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of the 
referee's recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.   
¶31 We agree with the referee that the allegations in the 
OLR's complaint have been established and that Attorney Chavez 
engaged in the 41 counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint.  
We further agree that a one-year suspension of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction for the 
misconduct, and we agree that he should pay the full costs of 
the proceeding.  Finally, we agree that Attorney Chavez should 
be ordered to make restitution as recommended by the referee. 
¶32 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Ernesto Chavez to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Ernesto Chavez shall make restitution as follows:  
$3,000 to T.D. (T.D. and J.B. matter); and $7,000 to the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, consisting of 
$1,500 on behalf of T.B., $500 on behalf of V.S., and $5,000 on 
behalf of G.N. 
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Ernesto Chavez shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $677.58. 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
19 
 
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Ernesto Chavez shall comply with the provisions 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license 
to practice law has been suspended. 
 
No. 
2014AP569-D   
 
 
 
1