Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Victor M. Arellano

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2013 WI 24 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP443-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Victor M. Arellano, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Victor M. Arellano, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ARELLANO     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 21, 2013   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: Abrahamson, C.J., Gableman, J., did not 
participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
2013 WI 24
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP443-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Victor M. Arellano, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Victor M. Arellano, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 21, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Pending before the court is a report and 
recommendation filed by Referee John B. Murphy, recommending the 
court publicly reprimand Attorney Victor M. Arellano for two 
counts of professional misconduct.  No appeal has been filed so 
the court's review proceeds pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  Costs 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
2 
 
totaling $40,960.49 as of August 6, 2012, are disputed.2  We 
conclude that the referee's findings of fact are supported by 
satisfactory 
and 
convincing 
evidence 
and 
we 
adopt 
his 
conclusions of law.  We agree that the appropriate discipline 
for Attorney Arellano's misconduct is a public reprimand.  We 
further conclude that 25 percent of the costs of the proceeding 
should be assessed against Attorney Arellano. 
¶2 
Attorney Arellano was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin on September 27, 1985.  He practices in Middleton, 
Wisconsin.  He has one previous private reprimand dating from 
2008.   
¶3 
On February 28, 2011, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging 14 counts of misconduct based on events spanning from 
1991 to 2007.  The OLR initiated this proceeding after four 
female 
former 
clients 
filed 
grievances 
against 
Attorney 
Arellano, 
each 
alleging 
professional 
misconduct, 
including 
claims that Attorney Arellano engaged in improper sexual 
relations with them.  The OLR sought revocation of Attorney 
Arellano's license.  
¶4 
Referee Murphy was appointed on April 18, 2011.  Over 
the ensuing year, nine of the 14 counts were dismissed before 
                                                                                                                                                             
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
2 The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) does not seek 
restitution and we accede to the OLR's judgment on this issue. 
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
3 
 
the evidentiary hearing.3  In January 2012 the referee conducted 
a 2 1/2 day evidentiary proceeding on the remaining five counts 
of alleged misconduct.4  The referee subsequently dismissed Count 
One in his report filed February 3, 2012, and on May 25, 2012, 
filed a report concluding that Attorney Arellano committed two 
counts of professional misconduct and dismissed two counts.5  The 
parties filed briefs on the issue of sanctions, and on July 16, 
2012, the referee filed his final order entitled "Recommendation 
as 
to 
Appropriate 
Discipline" 
recommending 
that 
Attorney 
Arellano be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct. 
¶5 
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 
                                                 
3 Attorney Arellano filed a motion for partial summary 
judgment on August 26, 2011, seeking summary judgment on Counts 
One, Seven, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, and Fourteen.   The OLR 
conceded it could not prove and dismissed Counts Thirteen and 
Fourteen.  On November 15, 2011, the referee filed a decision 
reserving the issue regarding Count One, denying the motion 
regarding Counts Seven and Twelve, and granting to motion as to 
Count Eleven.  On December 8, 2011, the parties filed a 
stipulation and order dismissing Counts Two, Three, Four, and 
Six of the complaint.  This left seven counts. 
4 At the start of the evidentiary hearing on January 3, 
2012, the referee granted the OLR's motion to dismiss Count 
Seven.  On the third day of the hearing, the referee granted 
Attorney Arellano's unopposed motion to dismiss Count Twelve, 
leaving five counts outstanding. 
5 On February 3, 2012, following the evidentiary hearing, 
the referee filed a decision dismissing Count One of the 
complaint on statute of limitations grounds.  On May 25, 2012, 
the referee filed a decision dismissing Counts Five and Ten of 
the complaint and concluding Attorney Arellano committed the 
misconduct alleged in Counts Eight and Nine of the complaint. 
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
4 
 
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  
Here, the OLR acceded to the dismissal of six counts (Counts 
Two, Three, Four, Six, Thirteen, and Fourteen) so we need not 
review these.  They will be mentioned only for context. 
N.S.M.:  Counts One through Eight 
¶6 
The first eight counts of misconduct were filed in 
connection with the matter of N.S.M.  With respect to the 
allegations involving N.S.M., the referee found that Attorney 
Arellano engaged only in the misconduct alleged in Count Eight; 
the OLR agreed to dismiss Counts Two, Three, Four, and Six.  The 
referee recommended dismissal of Counts One, Five, and Seven.   
¶7 
The matter will be briefly summarized.  On or about 
August 1, 1996, N.S.M. retained Attorney Arellano to represent 
her in a divorce.  Attorney Arellano and N.S.M. quickly 
commenced a relationship and eventually lived together for 
several years.  Their relationship ended, acrimoniously, in 
2005.   
¶8 
Following the breakup, N.S.M. alleged that Attorney 
Arellano disparaged and defamed her in telephone calls to her 
father, e-mails to her sister and her cousin, in correspondence 
to some of her employers, and he reported to the sheriff that 
she had committed forgery.6  N.S.M. also alleged that Attorney 
Arellano provided private information to her former husband in 
                                                 
6 In July 2006 N.S.M. was charged with 16 criminal counts 
including forgery, writing bad checks, and failure to file tax 
returns.  On June 11, 2007, she entered no contest pleas to a 
felony forgery charge and a misdemeanor charge of issuing a 
worthless check. 
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
5 
 
an effort to adversely affect her custody of the minor child 
from the marriage.  Attorney Arellano, in turn, alleged that 
N.S.M. took large sums of money from him. 
¶9 
Count One of the OLR's complaint alleged that by 
commencing a sexual relationship with N.S.M. after she hired him 
to represent her in a divorce in August 1996, Attorney Arellano 
violated former SCR 20:1.8(k)(1) and (2), effective prior to 
July 1, 2007.  The referee dismissed Count One as exceeding the 
permissible statute of limitations in an order filed February 3, 
2012.  The OLR does not appeal this ruling.  We accept the 
referee's findings and conclusions on this charge. 
¶10 Count Two alleged that by having at least 152 
telephone conversations with N.S.M.'s former husband and/or her 
former 
husband's 
wife 
subsequent 
to 
Attorney 
Arellano's 
representation of N.S.M., when some of those conversations 
involved ongoing proceedings relating to a custody dispute, 
Attorney Arellano violated former SCR 20:1.9(b), effective prior 
to July 1, 2007, and current SCR 20:1.9(c). 
¶11 On December 8, 2011, the OLR stipulated to the 
dismissal of Count Two, admitting it could not prove the 
information 
was 
"related" 
to 
Attorney 
Arellano's 
former 
representation of N.S.M. 
¶12 Count Three of the complaint alleged that by providing 
N.S.M.'s former husband with a copy of at least one of N.S.M.'s 
bank statements, for the purpose of indicating that N.S.M. had 
filed a false financial disclosure statement in the post-divorce 
matters, Attorney Arellano violated former SCR 20:1.9(b).  The 
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
6 
 
OLR stipulated to the dismissal of this count on December 8, 
2011. 
¶13 Count Four of the complaint alleged that by giving 
N.S.M.'s former husband a May 4, 2006 letter with enclosures, 
Attorney Arellano violated former SCR 20:1.9(b).  The OLR 
stipulated to the dismissal of this count on December 8, 2011. 
¶14 Count Five of the complaint alleged that by providing 
the guardian ad litem for N.S.M.'s minor child with 73 proposed 
requests to admit pertaining to N.S.M. for use in the post-
divorce 
matters, 
Attorney 
Arellano 
violated 
former 
SCR 20:1.9(b). 
¶15 The referee conducted a hearing on Count Five.  After 
the hearing, the referee recommended dismissal of the count 
stating, "While [Attorney] Arellano's use of this information 
was clearly meant to harm [N.S.M.'s] chances in her custody 
dispute and was, therefore, inappropriate, mean spirited and 
childish, its use does not constitute a violation of the Rule."  
The OLR did not appeal this decision, and we accept the 
referee's findings and conclusions on this charge. 
¶16 Count Six of the complaint alleged that by providing 
the 
Madison 
Police 
Department, 
through 
his 
attorney, 
a 
Confidential Financial Disclosure Statement and an affidavit 
with N.S.M.'s son's school progress report, both of which had 
been filed by N.S.M. in post-divorce matters in which Attorney 
Arellano had previously represented her, and by giving N.S.M.'s 
bank 
statements 
to 
the 
sheriff's 
department 
and 
police 
department, Attorney Arellano violated former SCR 20:1.9(b).  
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
7 
 
The OLR stipulated to the dismissal of this count on December 8, 
2011. 
¶17 Count Seven alleged that by sending a disparaging e-
mail about N.S.M. to her sister and her cousin using his law 
firm's 
equipment 
and 
the 
services 
of 
his 
paralegal, 
by 
contacting N.S.M.'s employer to make negative allegations about 
her, by repeatedly contacting a co-worker of N.S.M.'s to 
disparage N.S.M., by delivering to the co-worker's home in a law 
firm envelope documents intended to disparage N.S.M., by making 
at least 186 telephone calls to N.S.M. in the course of one day, 
and by telephoning N.S.M.'s father in the middle of the night in 
August 2005 to insult N.S.M. in a crude and offensive manner, 
including describing sexual acts, Attorney Arellano violated 
SCR 40.15. 
¶18 The referee granted the OLR's motion to dismiss this 
charge at the start of the evidentiary hearing on January 3, 
2012. 
¶19 Count Eight of the complaint alleged that by making 
misrepresentations to the OLR and to its District 9 Committee, 
or members thereof, in the course of the OLR's investigation of 
N.S.M.'s grievance, Attorney Arellano violated SCR 22.03(6)7 via 
                                                 
7 SCR 22.03(6) provides:  
 
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. 
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
8 
 
SCR 20:8.4(h).8  The referee concluded that Attorney Arellano 
committed this misconduct. 
¶20 The referee noted that obstructing the work of the 
District Committee by his misleading and false statements is a 
serious violation.  The referee observed that the "ability of 
the Supreme Court to properly monitor and enforce the Rules of 
Professional 
Conduct 
through 
its 
investigative 
resources 
requires 
that 
attorneys under investigation be absolutely 
truthful in their response to inquiries."  The referee observed 
that Attorney Arellano was an experienced attorney who had been 
previously investigated in another matter unrelated to this 
case.  He knew the rules and his obligation to be truthful even 
when not under oath.  In spite of this knowledge, Attorney 
Arellano chose to lie and to mislead the District Committee and, 
in doing so, he undermined the integrity of both the lawyer 
regulation system and the legal profession itself.  
¶21 Thus, the referee found, and the record supports the 
finding, that Attorney Arellano was, for a time, N.S.M.'s lawyer 
and he and N.S.M. subsequently had an acrimonious break-up.  The 
record discloses that both individuals engaged in behavior that 
was, to use the referee's words, "inappropriate, mean spirited 
and childish."  Ultimately, there was insufficient evidence to 
substantiate the allegations in Counts One through Seven of the 
                                                 
8 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. 
2011AP443-D   
 
9 
 
complaint.  The referee concluded that Attorney Arellano 
committed the misconduct alleged in Count Eight by misleading 
the OLR and the District Committee about the nature of his 
representation 
of 
N.S.M. 
 
We 
accept 
these 
findings 
and 
conclusions. 
M.F.:  Counts Nine and Ten 
¶22 On or about October 11, 2000, M.F. filed a Charge of 
Discrimination 
(Discrimination 
Charge) 
with 
the 
Equal 
Opportunity Employment Commission and the Equal Rights Division 
of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development against her 
former employer, the City of Milwaukee Mayor's Office (City). 
M.F. alleged that between 1995 and 2000, then-City of Milwaukee 
Mayor John Norquist unlawfully harassed M.F.  
¶23 At or about the time M.F. filed the Discrimination 
Charge, Attorney Arellano initiated contact with M.F., calling 
her telephone number and leaving voicemail messages.  Attorney 
Arellano 
solicited 
employment 
as 
her 
lawyer 
in 
the 
discrimination matter.  
¶24 On or about October 23, 2000, M.F. retained Attorney 
Arellano and his then-firm, Lawton & Cates, S.C., to represent 
her in the Discrimination Charge against the City.  The OLR 
alleged that following commencement of their attorney-client 
relationship, Attorney Arellano and M.F. commenced a sexual 
relationship.   
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
10 
 
¶25 Count Nine of the OLR's complaint alleged that 
Attorney Arellano violated former SCR 20:7.3(c),9 by initiating 
contact with M.F. and making one or more unsolicited telephone 
calls to her for the purpose of inducing her to hire him to 
represent her in the Discrimination Charge against the City.  
Following the hearing, the referee concluded Attorney Arellano 
committed this misconduct. 
¶26 The referee found that M.F. did not request the 
contact.  The American Bar Association (ABA) Comment regarding 
SCR 20:7.3 in the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Attorneys makes clear that the purpose of SCR 20:7.3 is to 
prevent a potential client from being pressured into entering 
into a representation agreement with an attorney.  The Comment 
                                                 
9 Former SCR 20:7.3(c), effective prior to July 1, 2007, 
provided:  
 
A lawyer shall not initiate personal contact, 
including telephone contact, with a prospective client 
for the purpose of obtaining professional employment 
except in the following circumstances and subject to 
the requirements of Rule 7.1 and paragraph (d):  
 
(1) If the prospective client is a close friend, 
relative or former client, or one whom the lawyer 
reasonably believes to be a client.  
 
(2) Under the auspices of a public or charitable 
legal services organization.  
 
(3) Under the auspices of a bona fide political, 
social, 
civic, 
fraternal, 
employee 
or 
trade 
organization whose purposes include but are not 
limited to providing or recommending legal services, 
if the legal services are related to the principal 
purposes of the organization. 
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
11 
 
cites the unequal nature of the relationship between the 
potential client and the lawyer as being fertile ground for the 
application of undue pressure upon the client.   
¶27 The referee noted that while it is true that Attorney 
Arellano did contact M.F., the contact was by telephone and not 
in person.  Moreover, Attorney Arellano told M.F. that if she 
wanted to discuss the case further, she must come to Madison 
from Milwaukee and meet at Attorney Arellano's law office.  A 
number of days after the call, M.F. did go to Madison, did meet 
with Attorney Arellano, and did sign a retainer agreement.  M.F. 
never claimed that she was pressured by Attorney Arellano to 
retain his legal services.  Thus, the referee noted: 
 
The elements of undue pressure outlined in the 
Comment to Rule 20:7.3 do not seem to exist in the 
case.  There is no question that the call occurred and 
that the Rule was violated.  However, the violation 
seems more technical than substantive and therefore is 
not nearly as egregious an offense as it might have 
otherwise been. 
We adopt the referee's findings and conclusion on this count. 
¶28 Count Ten alleged that Attorney Arellano violated 
former 
SCR 
20:1.8(k)(1) 
and 
(2) 
by 
commencing 
a 
sexual 
relationship with M.F. after she retained him as her lawyer.  
Attorney Arellano vehemently disputed this charge.  M.F. 
testified in detail about the relationship.  The parties 
litigated this issue extensively.   
¶29 Following the hearing, the referee deemed M.F.'s 
version of events not credible.  Extensive documentary evidence, 
including 
billing 
records submitted by Attorney Arellano, 
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
12 
 
persuaded the referee that it would have been logistically 
impossible for Attorney Arellano and M.F. to conduct the 
relationship in the manner described by M.F.  Thus, the referee 
concluded that the OLR failed to provide clear, satisfactory, 
and convincing evidence sufficient to sustain this charge.  We 
accept the referee's findings and conclusion in this matter. 
¶30 The parties' litigation of Count Ten is relevant 
because 
Attorney 
Arellano 
argues, 
persuasively, 
that 
a 
significant percentage of the evidentiary hearing was dedicated 
to the OLR's unsuccessful attempt to prove this charge.  
Ultimately, the referee had to decide whether M.F. or Attorney 
Arellano was more credible with respect to whether Attorney 
Arellano engaged in an improper sexual relationship in violation 
of former SCR 20:1.8(k)(1) and (2).  Attorney Arellano contends 
the fact he prevailed on this charge warrants a significant 
decrease in the costs imposed on him. 
I.G.: Counts Eleven through Thirteen 
¶31 I.G. is a native and citizen of Mexico.  In the fall 
of 2005, I.G. and Attorney Arellano began dating.  At the time, 
I.G. had two minor children with a former husband from whom she 
was divorced in 1999.  Between 2002 and 2004, I.G. was married 
to a U.S. citizen.  
¶32 When I.G. met Attorney Arellano, she was trying to 
obtain immigrant classification as the spouse of an abusive U.S. 
citizen so she could lawfully remain in the United States and be 
eligible for certain government benefits.  Seeking this status 
required 
her 
to 
file 
an 
"I-360 
Petition 
for 
Amerasian, 
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
13 
 
Widow(er), or Special Immigrant" (I-360 Petition) along with 
supporting documentation.  She was working with another lawyer 
at this time. 
¶33 In July 2006 I.G. became pregnant and told Attorney 
Arellano that he was the father of her unborn child.10   
¶34 In late 2006 Attorney Arellano began to provide legal 
services to I.G., including assistance in preparing the I-360 
Petition.  Attorney Arellano did this work individually, not 
through his firm.   
¶35 In March 2007 I.G. gave birth to N.G.  In April 2007 
Attorney Arellano executed the I-360 Petition as the person 
preparing the form for I.G. as the petitioner and identified 
himself as the company or organization filing the petition.  
¶36 By letter dated April 20, 2007, and prepared by 
Attorney Arellano, I.G. signed and filed with the INS the I-360 
Petition and supporting materials.  The I-360 Petition required 
that the petitioner supply "Information about the spouse and 
children of the person this petition is for," that is, the 
spouse and children of I.G.  In preparing the I-360 Petition, 
Attorney Arellano included information about I.G.'s two older 
children.  None of the filed documents mention the baby, N.G.   
¶37 Both I.G. and I.G.'s mother allegedly asked Attorney 
Arellano about the omission of any information about the 
expectant child on the I-360 Petition.  Attorney Arellano 
                                                 
10 Attorney Arellano was subsequently adjudicated the father 
of I.G.'s child, N.G.  
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
14 
 
allegedly stated he did not want to include information about 
the expectant child because he did not want the state coming 
after him for support, and they should just wait and he and I.G. 
would be married after the baby was born.  
¶38 On September 24, 2007, without prior notice to I.G., 
Attorney 
Arellano 
withdrew 
as 
counsel 
for 
I.G. 
 
I.G. 
subsequently retained new counsel who notified the INS of the 
need to correct the omission in the I-360 Petition by disclosing 
N.G. as a child "of the person this petition is for."   
¶39 Count Eleven of the OLR's complaint alleged that by 
representing I.G. with respect to her I-360 Petition which asked 
for information about I.G.'s children, when he knew at the time 
of the representation that he was the likely father of N.G., 
without obtaining I.G.'s written consent to the representation, 
Attorney Arellano violated former SCR 20:1.7(b), effective prior 
to July 1, 2007. 
¶40 The referee granted Attorney Arellano's motion to 
dismiss this count on November 15, 2011.  The OLR has not 
appealed this decision, and we accept the referee's findings and 
conclusions on this charge. 
¶41 Count Twelve alleged that by advising I.G. not to 
identify N.G. on the I-360 Petition, by failing to include 
N.G.'s name on the I-360 Petition, by signing a statement 
declaring he prepared the petition and that it was based upon 
all information of which he had knowledge, by drafting for 
I.G.'s signature and notarizing her signature on an affidavit 
which did not mention N.G. and which inaccurately referred to 
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
15 
 
one of her other sons as her youngest son, and by filing the 
petition with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
Department of Homeland Security, Attorney Arellano violated 
SCR 20:1.2(d), SCR 20:8.4(c), and former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1). 
¶42 The referee granted Attorney Arellano's unopposed 
motion to dismiss Count Twelve at the evidentiary hearing on 
January 5, 2012.  The record indicates these charges were 
dismissed 
because 
I.G. 
failed 
to 
appear 
to 
testify.  
Consequently, the uncontroverted evidence from the hearing could 
not 
support 
the 
allegation 
that 
Attorney 
Arellano's 
nondisclosure was intentional.  Attorney Arellano had testified 
that the omission of his child's name from the documents was an 
oversight.  We accept the referee's findings and conclusion on 
this charge. 
¶43 Count Thirteen of the complaint alleged that Attorney 
Arellano violated SCR 20:1.16(d) by unilaterally withdrawing 
from representing I.G. relative to the I-360 Petition without 
prior notice and/or allowing time for employment of substitute 
counsel.  The OLR stipulated to the dismissal of this charge. 
E.W.: Count Fourteen 
¶44 In 
April 
1991 
E.W. 
hired 
Attorney 
Arellano 
to 
represent her in a divorce action.  The complaint alleged that 
Attorney Arellano began a sexual relationship with E.W. that 
continued during his representation of her.  Their relationship 
terminated in 1994.   
¶45 By September 2007 Attorney Arellano had reason to 
believe that N.S.M., I.G., and/or M.F., or possibly another 
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
16 
 
woman, had filed or were likely to file grievances against him 
with the OLR.  
¶46 On September 29, 2007, Attorney Arellano called E.W. 
and spoke with her for approximately 20 minutes.  According to 
E.W., Attorney Arellano told E.W. that if she was called by any 
investigators, or by any of the women he had reason to believe 
had filed or may file grievances against him with the OLR, E.W. 
should not speak with them or she should hang up and let 
Attorney Arellano know that she had received such a call.   
¶47 Thus, the OLR alleged that by calling E.W. on 
September 29, 2007, and telling her not to speak with any 
investigators, or to hang up if called, and not to speak with 
any of the women who he had reason to believe had filed or may 
file grievances against him with the OLR, Attorney Arellano 
violated 
SCR 
21.15(4), 
SCR 
22.03(6), 
SCR 
20:8.4(h), 
SCR 20:8.4(a), and SCR 20:8.4(f).  The OLR agreed to dismiss 
this count as part of the summary judgment decision filed 
November 15, 2011.  Record evidence, including deposition 
testimony from E.W., indicated E.W. was persuaded to provide the 
OLR with untruthful information by some of the other grievants 
in this matter. 
¶48 In 
sum, 
following 
extensive 
pre-hearing 
motions, 
decisions, and a lengthy evidentiary hearing, the referee filed 
a report on May 25, 2012.  The referee ultimately concluded that 
the OLR had proven that Attorney Arellano violated SCR 22.03(6) 
via SCR 20:8:4(h) because he was both misleading and untruthful 
in his answers to the District Committee with regard to their 
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
17 
 
investigation of a grievance filed by N.S.M. (Count Eight).  The 
referee also concluded that Attorney Arellano violated former 
SCR 20:7.3(c) by initiating contact with M.F. and making one or 
more unsolicited telephone calls to her for the purpose of 
inducing her to hire him to represent her in the Discrimination 
Charge against the City (Count Nine).  The OLR did not succeed 
in proving any of the other 12 alleged counts of misconduct. 
¶49 The referee then considered the appropriate discipline 
after receiving the parties' briefs on the issue of sanctions.  
The OLR had requested a public reprimand.  Attorney Arellano 
maintained that a private reprimand is sufficient and seeks a 
significant, if not a total reduction in costs.  The referee 
filed a report on July 16, 2012, entitled "Recommendation as to 
Appropriate Discipline."  The referee said that taken alone, the 
violation of Count Eight would merit a private reprimand, and 
the violation of Count Nine would clearly merit a public 
reprimand.  The referee recommended that when taken together, 
and considering the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, 
a public reprimand was appropriate.   
¶50 As to the appropriate sanction, Wisconsin adheres to a 
system of progressive discipline.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Converse, 2006 WI 4, ¶37, 287 Wis. 2d 72, 
707 N.W.2d 530.  Attorney Arellano has been the subject of a 
prior private reprimand.  We agree with the referee that a 
public reprimand is an appropriate sanction for Attorney 
Arellano's misconduct.  
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
18 
 
¶51 We turn next to the issue of costs.  Assessment of 
costs in OLR matters is governed by SCR 22.24.  Our general 
policy is that upon a finding of misconduct it is appropriate to 
impose all costs, including the expenses of counsel for the 
office of lawyer regulation, upon the respondent.  In cases 
involving extraordinary circumstances the court may, in the 
exercise of its discretion, reduce the amount of costs imposed 
upon a respondent.  SCR 22.24(1m). 
¶52 The OLR filed its statement of costs on August 6, 
2012, listing $40,960.49 in costs.  The OLR concedes that there 
are extraordinary circumstances present that justify reducing 
the amount of costs imposed on Attorney Arellano, in part 
because OLR voluntarily dismissed six of the 14 alleged counts 
of misconduct prior to the evidentiary hearing.  The OLR thus 
recommends this court impose on Attorney Arellano half of the 
costs, or $20,480.25, explaining that most of the OLR's trial 
time was spent on claims on which the OLR did prevail.   
¶53 Attorney Arellano filed a timely objection, asking the 
court to impose no costs at all, and asserting, in the 
alternative, that imposition of no more than 10 percent of the 
costs is warranted.  
¶54 In exercising our discretion regarding the assessment 
of costs, we consider the submissions of the parties and all of 
the following factors: 
 
(a)  The number of counts charged, contested, and 
proven. 
 
(b)  The nature of the misconduct. 
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
19 
 
 
(c)  The 
level of discipline sought by the 
parties and recommended by the referee. 
 
(d)  The 
respondent's 
cooperation 
with 
the 
disciplinary process. 
 
(e)  Prior discipline, if any. 
 
(f)  Other relevant circumstances. 
See SCR 22.24(1m). 
¶55 Applying 
these 
factors, 
we 
observe 
that 
SCRs 22.24(1m)(a)-(c) are relevant here.  The complaint alleged 
14 counts of misconduct and sought revocation of Attorney 
Arellano's license to practice law.  The referee ultimately 
concluded, and we agree, that Attorney Arellano committed two 
counts of misconduct, warranting a public reprimand.  Without 
minimizing the seriousness of Attorney Arellano's professional 
misconduct, it was far less serious and of a significantly 
different nature than originally alleged.   
¶56 As the litigation proceeded, one witness changed her 
story and conveyed exculpatory evidence to the OLR's retained 
counsel that had not been disclosed to the OLR during its 
investigation.  The OLR promptly disclosed these developments to 
respondent's counsel resulting in the dismissal of six of the 14 
counts.  Two counts were dismissed at trial when one of the 
grievants did not appear in person and the referee concluded 
telephonic testimony should not be permitted.  Under these 
rather extraordinary circumstances, we agree that a reduction in 
costs is warranted in part because of the disparity between the 
allegations and recommended discipline in the complaint and the 
ultimate conclusions of this court. 
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
20 
 
¶57 That said, we reject Attorney Arellano's assertion 
that we should assess no costs at all.  We are not persuaded 
that the counts on which Attorney Arellano prevailed were wholly 
without prosecutorial merit or that the OLR's costs pursuing 
those charges were unreasonable or unnecessary.  The OLR was 
confronted with four separate grievants who each alleged 
Attorney Arellano engaged in extremely serious misconduct.  The 
only evidence given for the charge of over-litigating is that 
the OLR did not prevail on all counts, in part because one 
grievant essentially recanted and another refused to appear.   
¶58 Attorney Arellano litigated this case vigorously as is 
his right.  He cannot, however, be deemed wholly cooperative 
with the disciplinary process given our determination that he 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(6) 
via 
SCR 
20:8.4(h) 
by 
making 
misrepresentations to the OLR and to its District 9 Committee or 
members thereof in the course of the OLR's investigation of the 
N.S.M. grievance, a matter comprising more than half of the 
alleged counts of misconduct.  See SCR 22.24(1m)(d).  Attorney 
Arellano 
has 
also 
been 
disciplined 
before. 
 
See 
SCR 22.24(1m)(e).  These factors weigh against a reduction in 
costs.  
¶59 On balance, we deem it appropriate to impose 25 
percent of the costs on Attorney Arellano, or $10,240.13.  Our 
determination is not the result of the application of a precise 
mathematical formula, but is based on our thorough consideration 
of the record, the manner in which this case developed, the 
OLR's acknowledgement that extraordinary circumstances justify a 
No. 
2011AP443-D   
 
21 
 
reduction 
in 
costs, 
and 
the 
factors 
established 
in 
SCR 22.24(1m). 
¶60 IT IS ORDERED that Victor M. Arellano is publicly 
reprimanded for professional misconduct. 
¶61 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Victor M. Arellano shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the imposed costs of this proceeding. 
¶62 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not 
been full compliance with all conditions of this order. 
¶63 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J., and MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN, 
J., did not participate.