Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. J. Manuel Raneda

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2012 WI 42 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP817-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against J. Manuel Raneda, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
J. Manuel Raneda, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RANEDA 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 1, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 42
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP817-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against J. Manuel Raneda, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
J. Manuel Raneda, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 1, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   On November 28, 2011, Referee Hannah C. 
Dugan issued a report recommending that Attorney J. Manuel 
Raneda be declared in default, concluding that Attorney Raneda 
engaged in numerous counts of professional misconduct, and 
recommending that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended for one year and that he pay the full costs of this 
proceeding. 
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  Since 
Attorney Raneda failed to present a defense despite being given 
multiple opportunities to do so, we declare him to be in 
default.  We further agree with the referee that Attorney 
Raneda's professional misconduct warrants a suspension of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of one year.  
We also agree that the full costs of the proceeding, which are 
$3,232.05 as of December 19, 2011, should be assessed against 
Attorney Raneda. 
¶3 
Attorney Raneda was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2002.  He practiced in Milwaukee.  According to the 
record, he now lives in San Francisco, California.  He has no 
previous disciplinary history. 
¶4 
On April 12, 2011, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) issued a complaint against Attorney Raneda alleging 14 
counts of misconduct with respect to his handling of two client 
matters. 
¶5 
The 
first 
client 
matter 
detailed 
in 
the 
OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Raneda's representation of T.W.  
T.W. fell behind on his mortgage payments, and in 2006 a 
judgment of foreclosure was entered against him.  In March 2007 
T.W.'s home was sold at a sheriff's sale.  Prior to a hearing to 
confirm the sheriff's sale, a real estate investor contacted 
T.W. and offered to purchase the home pursuant to a sale-
leaseback arrangement whereby T.W. would sell the house to the 
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
3 
 
investor, enter into a residential lease agreement, and later 
purchase the house back once T.W.'s credit was restored. 
¶6 
T.W. sold the home to the investor's assignee and 
signed a residential month-to-month lease agreement whereby he 
agreed to pay rent in the amount of $1,500 per month.  The 
agreement included an option for T.W. to repurchase the home 
once his credit history was repaired.  The parties later agreed 
to raise the rental payments to $1,800 per month. 
¶7 
T.W. was unable to pay the monthly rent or repurchase 
the home.  In December 2007 the owner of the home filed a small 
claims complaint seeking to evict T.W. from the home.  T.W. 
hired Attorney Raneda to defend him in the eviction action.  
Attorney Raneda filed an answer, counterclaims, and a third-
party summons and complaint naming the real estate investor and 
other parties as third-party defendants.  The pleadings filed by 
Attorney Raneda alleged that the sale-leaseback arrangement was 
a 
fraud 
and 
that 
the 
defendants 
had 
made 
multiple 
misrepresentations regarding the sale and lease of the property. 
¶8 
On January 4, 2008, the homeowner, through his 
attorney, Matthew O'Neill, filed a motion for judgment of 
eviction and a writ of restitution.  The circuit court held a 
hearing on January 16, 2008.  The court denied the motion for 
judgment of eviction, ordered T.W. to deposit into a trust 
account all past due rents by February 1, 2008, and ordered T.W. 
to continue paying all future rent into the trust account until 
further order of the court.  The court also ordered Attorney 
Raneda to provide documentation showing the rent deposits.   
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
4 
 
¶9 
Attorney Raneda agreed to keep the rent payments in 
his client trust account.  On January 31, 2008, Attorney Raneda 
filed an affidavit with the court showing that T.W. had paid 
$5,100 into his client trust account, representing past due rent 
from October 2007 through January 2008.  Attorney Raneda stated 
in the affidavit that the funds were deposited into his IOLTA 
trust account, and Attorney Raneda stated he would retain the 
funds until further court order. 
¶10 Notwithstanding the express statements made in his 
affidavit, Attorney Raneda took $5,000 out of his client trust 
account on February 1, 2008, to pay himself attorney's fees.  He 
did not notify the court or opposing counsel of the withdrawal. 
¶11 A second hearing was held on February 19, 2008, to 
clarify the precise terms of the court's earlier order, 
including whether T.W. was to pay $1,500 or $1,800 monthly rent.  
By order of February 20, 2008, the circuit court required T.W. 
to make monthly deposits into Attorney Raneda's trust account 
for past due rents at $1,800 per month until the matter was 
fully resolved.  The court ordered that, upon request, T.W. was 
to provide the court and opposing counsel proof of each deposit.  
Attorney Raneda did not tell the court or opposing counsel that 
he had already taken $5,000 out of his client trust account to 
pay himself attorney's fees, and he did not provide a full 
written accounting of his distribution of the trust property. 
¶12 Attorney O'Neill made multiple written requests for 
proof from Attorney Raneda that T.W. was continuing to make rent 
payments into Attorney Raneda's trust account.  Attorney Raneda 
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
5 
 
told Attorney O'Neill he had "received payments from [his] 
client" and that he would provide details about the payments. 
¶13 On March 24, 2008, Attorney Raneda filed a motion for 
default judgment.  On April 14, 2008, he filed a motion for 
declaratory judgment.  On April 29, 2008, the homeowner filed a 
motion for sanctions against T.W. seeking dismissal of his 
counterclaims and other claims.  On May 2, 2008, the circuit 
court 
denied 
Attorney 
Raneda's 
motions 
for 
default 
and 
declaratory judgment.  The court ruled, however, that the 
buyback agreement entered into by T.W. failed to satisfy the 
statute of frauds. 
¶14 On May 9, 2008, Attorney Raneda filed a response to 
the sanction motion in which he denied that he had disobeyed the 
terms of the court's February 20, 2008 order.  Attorney Raneda's 
response to the motion for sanctions included an affidavit from 
T.W. showing that he had paid $8,728 into Attorney Raneda's 
trust account.  Of that amount, Attorney Raneda had already 
withdrawn $5,000.   
¶15 The circuit court held a hearing on the motion for 
sanctions on May 14, 2008.  Despite having already paid himself 
$5,000, Attorney Raneda said T.W. did not have the ability to 
pay him and that, "I haven't gotten paid."  The circuit court 
denied 
the 
request 
for 
sanctions, 
but 
reaffirmed 
its 
February 20, 2008 order that required T.W. to pay rent owed into 
an escrow account.  The court warned Attorney Raneda that in the 
event of T.W.'s failure to pay the rent, the court would strike 
T.W.'s pleadings as a sanction. 
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
6 
 
¶16 On May 14, 2008, Attorney Raneda wrote himself a check 
from his client trust account in the amount of $3,700 for 
attorney's fees.  He did not notify the court or opposing 
counsel of this withdrawal. 
¶17 On May 28, 2008, the circuit court entered a written 
order reiterating the requirement that T.W. pay into escrow all 
amounts due under the February 20, 2008 order.  That same day 
Attorney Raneda wrote the court indicating that T.W. was unable 
to meet the financial obligations set by the court at the 
May 14, 2008 hearing.  He noted that T.W. had decided to file an 
interlocutory appeal.  Attorney Raneda did not inform the court 
that he had removed $8,700 from his trust account to pay himself 
attorney's fees.   
¶18 Also on May 28, 2008, Attorney Raneda wrote Attorney 
O'Neill saying that T.W. had requested the withdrawal of the 
remaining funds left in his client trust account.  Attorney 
Raneda also said he had a priority lien over the funds.  On 
May 29, 2008, the homeowner filed an additional motion for 
sanctions for T.W.'s failure to comply with the circuit court 
orders.  The circuit court granted the sanction motion on 
June 23, 2008, finding that T.W. had failed to comply with a 
valid court order and that his conduct was "egregious," "without 
justifiable excuse," and "repetitive."  The court ordered T.W.'s 
counterclaims and third-party complaint dismissed and also 
ordered that the escrowed funds be turned over to the homeowner.  
At no time did Attorney Raneda inform the court or opposing 
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
7 
 
counsel that the escrowed funds had already been distributed to 
pay his attorney's fees. 
¶19 On July 11, 2008, the circuit court issued a written 
order striking T.W.'s counterclaims and third-party claims due 
to his failure to obey the court's previous orders.  The July 11 
order also required that Attorney Raneda was to pay the 
homeowner's counsel all funds held in escrow within ten days. 
¶20 On August 1, 2008, Attorney Raneda filed a notice of 
appeal of the sanction order.  That same day the homeowner filed 
a renewed motion for summary judgment on the eviction action.  
On September 3, 2008, the circuit court held a hearing and 
granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowner.  At the 
close of the hearing, the court admonished Attorney Raneda to 
"keep holding" the money in escrow so it could be collected by 
the homeowner in a garnishment action.   
¶21 On September 15, 2008, the circuit court entered a 
written order granting the homeowner's motion for summary 
judgment 
and 
dismissing 
the 
action. 
 
The 
court 
ordered 
restitution 
to 
the 
homeowner 
in 
the 
amount 
of 
$20,700, 
representing the rent T.W. owed.  T.W. had already paid $12,000 
rent to the homeowner.  The restitution order thus placed in 
dispute the $8,700 deposited by T.W. into Attorney Raneda's 
client trust account.  Attorney Raneda filed a notice of appeal 
from that order on September 17, 2008, and the court of appeals 
consolidated T.W.'s two appeals.   
¶22 On October 10, 2008, the homeowner filed a non-
earnings garnishment action against Attorney Raneda to collect 
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
8 
 
the monies held in escrow.  Attorney Raneda filed an answer 
claiming he had no money of T.W.'s under his control.  On 
February 4, 
2009, 
during 
a 
scheduling 
conference 
in 
the 
garnishment action, Attorney Raneda finally disclosed that money 
in his client trust account had been removed to pay his 
attorney's fees. 
¶23 On February 6, 2009, the homeowner filed a motion for 
remedial contempt in the garnishment proceeding and sought 
written discovery from T.W. regarding the escrowed funds.  The 
circuit court ordered Attorney Raneda to respond to the 
discovery request.  In a March 20, 2009 affidavit submitted as a 
part of his own motion for sanctions, Attorney Raneda stated the 
money had been withdrawn on or before May 14, 2008, and that no 
funds belonging to T.W. remained in the trust account. 
¶24 The homeowner filed a motion for contempt in the 
original proceeding.  The circuit court found that Attorney 
Raneda engaged in misconduct by failing to disclose he had 
removed the $8,700 from his client trust account.  The court 
determined the homeowner was entitled to recover attorney's fees 
for having to file the garnishment action.  At a June 4, 2009 
hearing, the circuit court ordered Attorney Raneda to pay $8,700 
to the clerk of circuit court for disbursement to the homeowner.  
Attorney Raneda appealed that order.  In a subsequent hearing 
held on September 28, 2009, the circuit court ordered Attorney 
Raneda to pay the homeowner's attorney fees and costs in the 
amount of $24,130.35.  Attorney Raneda appealed that order as 
well.  
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
9 
 
¶25 The court of appeals ultimately upheld the circuit 
court's decision to dismiss T.W.'s claims as sanctions for 
T.W.'s numerous failures to comply with court orders.  The court 
of appeals affirmed the judgment of eviction and writ of 
restitution in favor of the homeowner.  The court of appeals 
also held that Attorney Raneda failed to appeal in his own name 
the sanction order requiring him to pay the $8,700 to the 
homeowner as well as the sanction order requiring him to pay 
attorney's fees.  Thus, the court of appeals concluded it lacked 
jurisdiction to consider those appeals, and it dismissed them.  
The court of appeals deferred judgment on whether the homeowner 
was entitled to prevail on his cross-appeal for interest on the 
attorney fee award. 
¶26 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Raneda's representation of 
T.W.: 
[COUNT ONE]  By distributing to himself $5,000.00 
in trust funds on February 1, 2008, as well as 
$3,700.00 in trust funds on May 14, 2008, without 
promptly providing a full written accounting regarding 
the property to [the homeowner], who had ownership in 
the 
property, 
[Attorney] 
Raneda 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(d)(2).1 
[COUNT TWO]  By failing to hold disputed funds in 
trust, and, instead, unilaterally distributing the 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.15(d)(2) states:  "Accounting.  Upon final 
distribution of any trust property or upon request by the client 
or a 3rd party having an ownership interest in the property, the 
lawyer shall promptly render a full written accounting regarding 
the property." 
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
10 
 
funds to pay for his attorney's fees and costs, 
[Attorney] Raneda violated SCR 20:1.15(d)(3).2 
[COUNT THREE]  By claiming in an affidavit dated 
January 31, 2008, filed with the Court, that he would 
retain the funds that he received from [T.W.] in his 
trust account until further order from the Court and 
then withdrawing those same funds on February 1, 2008, 
to pay himself attorney's fees, without notifying the 
Court; by claiming during argument before [the Court] 
on May 14, 2008, that his client had not paid him, 
because he did not have the ability to pay, when 
[Attorney] Raneda had already paid himself $5,000.00 
out of the client trust account as attorney's fees; by 
failing to inform [the Court] during the May 14, 2008, 
sanction hearing that he had removed $5,000.00 in 
funds from trust to pay attorney's fees; by failing to 
inform [the Court] in a letter to the Court dated 
May 28, 2008, that [Attorney] Raneda had removed 
$8,700.00 in funds from the trust account to pay 
attorney's 
fees after previously stating to the 
tribunal both in an affidavit filed with the Court and 
in pleadings that the funds had been "set aside;" by 
failing to inform [the Court] during the June 23, 
2008, sanctions hearing that [Attorney] Raneda had 
previously removed $8,700.00 from the trust account to 
pay attorney's fees, causing [the Court] to order that 
the escrowed funds be turned over based upon a belief 
that the escrowed funds existed; and by failing to 
inform [the Court] during the September 3, 2008, 
motion for judgment and eviction that [Attorney] 
Raneda had previously removed $8,700.00 from the trust 
account to pay attorney's fees, causing [the Court] to 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.15(d)(3) provides:  Disputes regarding trust 
property. 
When the lawyer and another person or the client 
and another person claim ownership interest in trust 
property identified by a lien, court order, judgment, 
or contract, the lawyer shall hold that property in 
trust until there is an accounting and severance of 
the interests.  If a dispute arises regarding the 
division of the property, the lawyer shall hold the 
disputed portion in trust until the dispute is 
resolved.  Disputes between the lawyer and a client 
are subject to the provisions of sub. (g)(2). 
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
11 
 
order [Attorney] Raneda to continue to hold such 
funds, [Attorney] Raneda violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).3  
[COUNT FOUR]  By submitting an affidavit to the 
Court from his client on May 9, 2008, stating that his 
client had set aside approximately $8,700.00 into his 
client trust 
account when [Attorney] Raneda had 
already withdrawn $5,000.00 to pay himself attorney's 
fees, [Attorney] Raneda violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(3).4 
[COUNT FIVE]  By paying himself $5,000.00 of 
attorney's fees on February 1, 2008, from his client 
trust account, after the Court ordered him to keep the 
funds paid by his client in a trust account until 
further order and by paying himself $3,700.00 in 
attorney's fees on May 14, 2008, from his client trust 
account, after the Court ordered him to keep the funds 
in his client trust account until further order, 
[Attorney] Raneda violated SCR 20:3.4(c).5 
[COUNT SIX]  By failing to disclose in response 
to the April 1, 2009, interrogatories and requests for 
admissions that he had paid himself attorney's fees 
out of the trust account designed to hold his client's 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) states a lawyer shall not knowingly "make 
a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to 
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously 
made to the tribunal by the lawyer; . . . ." 
4 SCR 20:3.3(a)(3) states that a lawyer shall not knowingly: 
offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.  If 
a lawyer, the lawyer's client, or a witness called by 
the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the 
lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall 
take 
reasonable 
remedial 
measures, 
including, 
if 
necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.  A lawyer may 
refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of 
a defendant in a criminal matter that the lawyer 
reasonably believes is false. 
5 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. 
2011AP817-D   
 
12 
 
rent 
payments, 
[Attorney] 
Raneda 
violated 
SCR 20:3.4(d).6 
[COUNT SEVEN]  By failing to advise the Court or 
opposing counsel on multiple occasions that he had 
withdrawn funds from his client trust account knowing 
those funds were to be set aside; by stating in his 
May 9, 2008, response to [the homeowner's] motion for 
sanctions that since March of 2007 [T.W.] has paid to 
[the homeowner] or put aside an amount of not less 
than $21,528.00 when [Attorney] Raneda had already 
removed $5,000.00 from a client trust account; by 
filing an affidavit with the Court on May 9, 2008, 
stating that $8,700.00 had been paid into [Attorney] 
Raneda's client trust account, when [Attorney] Raneda 
had 
previously 
removed 
$5,000.00 
in 
funds 
for 
attorney's fees; by filing an affidavit with the Court 
on March 20, 2009, in support of his motion for 
sanctions stating that [T.W.] had made $8,700.00 in 
payments to [Attorney] Raneda's client trust account 
without disclosing that [Attorney] Raneda had removed 
a total of $8,700.00 from such account; and by 
submitting discovery responses on April 1, 2009, that 
contained 
false, 
incomplete, 
or 
misleading 
information, [Attorney] Raneda violated SCR 20:8.4(c).7 
¶27 The second client matter detailed in the OLR's 
complaint involved Attorney Raneda's representation of G.O., who 
purchased a home on North Lake Drive in Milwaukee.  The sellers 
of the home prepared a real estate condition report representing 
they were not aware of any defects in the electrical system.  An 
inspection of the home noted a number of potential safety 
hazards, including defects in the electrical system.  After G.O. 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:3.4(d) states that a lawyer shall not "in pretrial 
procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail to make 
reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper 
discovery request by an opposing party; . . . ." 
7 SCR 20:8.4(c) says it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
13 
 
submitted an offer to purchase, the sellers submitted an amended 
real estate condition report saying that the attic wiring was 
removed and that all outlets were brought up to code.  G.O. did 
not sign the report and denied ever seeing it.  After the 
sellers accepted G.O.'s offer to purchase, G.O. hired a home 
inspector who recommended the sellers fix the electrical defects 
identified in the previous inspection report prior to closing. 
G.O. submitted an amendment to his offer to purchase requesting 
the sellers to make additional repairs to the home.  The sellers 
agreed to the amendment.  The sellers subsequently forwarded 
G.O. a letter from Electrical Concepts saying that while the 
knob and tube behind the plaster wall in the attic had not been 
removed, the wiring was dead. 
¶28 G.O. closed on the house on December 18, 2007.  Soon 
thereafter, he discovered problems with the electrical system. 
He received estimates to repair the electrical system and was 
advised that, contrary to the report prepared by Electrical 
Concepts, the knob and tube wiring in the attic had not been 
disconnected but was live and was being used throughout the 
house. 
¶29 In May 2008 G.O. hired Attorney Raneda to seek 
recovery from the sellers for purportedly making untrue, 
deceptive, or misleading statements in connection with the real 
estate sale.  G.O. signed a fee agreement and paid Attorney 
Raneda $5,000, which Attorney Raneda deposited into his business 
account.   
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
14 
 
¶30 On July 1, 2008, Attorney Raneda sent a demand letter 
to the sellers seeking recovery for the cost of repairing the 
electrical 
defect. 
 
The 
sellers 
responded 
through 
their 
attorneys, Godfrey & Kahn, saying the sellers had disclosed the 
existence of the knob and tube wiring in their amended real 
estate condition report.  Attorney Raneda wrote back on 
August 4, 2008, saying the sellers knew the home had serious and 
dangerous electrical defects and demanding compensation.  After 
mid-August 2008 G.O. called Attorney Raneda about once a month 
but his calls were rarely returned.  In February 2009 Attorney 
Raneda e-mailed G.O. saying he had not forgotten about the case 
and that he would soon be able to work exclusively on the 
matter.  G.O. subsequently hired another attorney who demanded 
that Attorney Raneda return all unearned fees and costs as well 
as documents from G.O.'s file. 
¶31 On November 3, 2009, G.O. filed a grievance against 
Attorney Raneda with the OLR.  In December 2009 Attorney Raneda 
wrote OLR intake staff claiming he had previously informed G.O. 
that the amended real estate condition report was fatal to his 
claim and that he could not represent G.O. further.  Attorney 
Raneda failed to respond to the OLR's notice of investigation.  
After this court issued an order to show cause, Attorney Raneda 
finally responded to the OLR.   
¶32 The OLR's complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Raneda's representation of 
G.O.: 
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
15 
 
[COUNT EIGHT]  By failing to hold the portion of 
the $5,000.00 collected from [G.O.] designated as an 
advanced payment for "costs and expenses" in trust, 
[Attorney] Raneda violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).8  
[COUNT NINE]  By accepting a $5,000.00 advance 
fee payment from [G.O.] and failing to hold the 
advance fee in trust (with no evidence that he 
intended to utilize the alternative fee placement 
permitted by SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)), [Attorney] Raneda 
violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).9 
[COUNT 
TEN]  By 
failing 
to 
advance 
[G.O.'s] 
interest subsequent to the demand letters he sent on 
behalf of [G.O.] in July and August 2008, [Attorney] 
Raneda violated SCR 20:1.3.10 
[COUNT 
ELEVEN]  By 
failing 
to 
keep 
[G.O.] 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter and 
by failing to promptly comply with [G.O.'s] repeated 
                                                 
8 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides:  Separate account. 
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 
3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation.  All funds of 
clients and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm 
in connection with a representation shall be deposited 
in one or more identifiable trust accounts. 
9 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) states: Unearned fees and cost advances. 
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 
sub. (g).  Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 
payment of costs shall be held in trust until the 
costs are incurred. 
10 SCR 20:1.3 states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
16 
 
requests for information, [Attorney] Raneda violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).11 
[COUNT TWELVE]  By failing to respond to Attorney 
Zimmerman's 
letter 
on 
behalf 
of 
[G.O.] 
dated 
September 23, 2009, seeking an accounting of fees and 
expenses, 
[Attorney] 
Raneda 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.5(b)(3).12 
[COUNT THIRTEEN]  By failing to surrender his 
file after a specific request by Attorney Zimmerman on 
behalf of [G.O.] to do so, and, in addition, in 
failing to refund a portion of the funds advanced by 
[G.O.], a portion of which were designated as being 
for costs and expenses, [Attorney] Raneda violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d).13 
[COUNT FOURTEEN]  By failing to timely cooperate 
with OLR's investigation in the [G.O.] matter and not 
responding until after his law license was under 
threat of suspension for his willful non—cooperation, 
[Attorney] 
Raneda violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 
22.03(6)14 which are enforceable under the Rules of 
Professional Conduct through SCR 20:8.4(h).15 
                                                 
11 SCRs 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) provide that a lawyer shall: 
"(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the 
matter;" and "(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information; . . . ." 
12 SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) states "[a] lawyer shall promptly 
respond to a client's request for information concerning fees 
and expenses." 
13 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides as follows: 
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. 
14 SCRs 22.03(2) and (6) state: 
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
17 
 
¶33 Although he was served with the OLR's complaint, 
Attorney Raneda did not file an answer nor did he participate in 
a telephonic scheduling/status conference held in July 2011.  On 
August 15, 2011, the OLR filed a notice of motion and motion for 
default judgment.  A hearing on the motion was scheduled for 
September 27, 2011.  Attorney Raneda was notified of the hearing 
via certified mail.  Attorney Raneda failed to appear at the 
hearing.  The referee stated on the record that she received the 
return receipt of the hearing notice that had been sent via 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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 
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 
the matters asserted in the grievance. 
15 SCR 20:8.4(h) states 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); . . . ." 
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
18 
 
certified mail, and the receipt indicated that Attorney Raneda 
had changed his address to San Francisco, California. 
¶34 The referee's report notes that although Attorney 
Raneda initially cooperated with the OLR's investigation, he 
chose not to respond or otherwise engage in a defense to the 14 
counts of alleged misconduct.  The referee accepted the 
allegations of misconduct set forth in the OLR's complaint as 
true and recommends that Attorney Raneda be declared in default. 
¶35 The referee concluded that a one-year suspension of 
Attorney Raneda's license to practice law in Wisconsin was 
warranted.  The referee noted that Attorney Raneda's misconduct 
was intentional and repeated and caused needless delay, harm to 
the parties' interests, and constituted an abuse and misuse of 
the limited resources of the justice system.  As mitigating 
factors, the referee noted that Attorney Raneda had no prior 
disciplinary record, he ultimately returned the $8,700 in 
diverted 
funds, 
he 
initially 
cooperated 
with 
the 
OLR's 
investigation, and he incurred a personal obligation of nearly 
$25,000 in sanctions for his conduct.  The referee noted the OLR 
was not seeking restitution since the funds in dispute in the 
T.W. case had been repaid.  The referee recommended that 
Attorney Raneda pay the full costs of the proceeding. 
¶36 Attorney Raneda has not filed an appeal from the 
referee's report and recommendation.   
¶37 As an initial matter, we agree with the referee that 
Attorney Raneda should be declared in default.  Although 
Attorney Raneda was served with the OLR's complaint and was 
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
19 
 
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. 
¶38 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless they 
are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
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.   
¶39 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact are clearly erroneous.  Therefore, we adopt them.  We 
also agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney 
Raneda engaged in multiple counts of misconduct.  We further 
agree that a one-year suspension of Attorney Raneda's license to 
practice law is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct, and 
we agree that he should pay the full costs of the proceeding. 
¶40 Although 
the 
OLR 
indicated 
it 
was 
not 
seeking 
restitution in the T.W. case because the funds had been repaid, 
the record was silent as to whether restitution should be 
ordered in the G.O. case.  Accordingly, on February 23, 2012, 
the parties were ordered to inform this court why Attorney 
Raneda should not be required to make restitution to G.O.  The 
OLR filed a response on March 7, 2012.  Attorney Raneda did not 
respond. 
¶41 The OLR states that it considered whether to seek 
restitution but ultimately concluded not to do so since the 
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
20 
 
amount of restitution was not readily ascertainable because 
Attorney Raneda did perform some work on behalf of G.O., 
including writing demand letters, communicating with opposing 
counsel, and researching case law.  Upon consideration of the 
OLR's response, we agree that an award of restitution is not 
appropriate. 
¶42 IT IS ORDERED that the license of J. Manuel Raneda to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for one year, effective 
June 4, 2012. 
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, J. Manuel Raneda shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs 
are not paid within the time specified and J. Manuel Raneda has 
not entered into a payment plan approved by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation, then the Office of Lawyer Regulation is authorized 
to move this court for a further suspension of the license of 
J. Manuel Raneda to practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that J. Manuel Raneda shall 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
 
 
No. 
2011AP817-D   
 
 
 
1