Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Carlos Gamino

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 168 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2003AP2422-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carlos Gamino, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Carlos Gamino,  
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GAMINO 
 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 20, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
September 30, 2005   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there were briefs by Michael 
J. Ganzer, Joseph T. Ganzer and Hodan, Doster & Ganzer, S.C., 
Milwaukee. 
 
For the complainant-respondent there was a brief by Robert 
G. Krohn and Roethe Krohn Pope LLP, Edgerton. 
 
 
2005 WI 168
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2003AP2422-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carlos Gamino, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Carlos Gamino, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
Dec 20, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Carlos Gamino appeals from a 
referee's report and recommendation concluding that Attorney 
Gamino engaged in professional misconduct in two client matters 
and misrepresented his conduct to a trial court and to Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) investigators, thereby violating the 
rules of professional conduct.   
¶2 
The referee recommended the court suspend Attorney 
Gamino's license to practice law for a period of six months.  We 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
2 
 
adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and 
agree that a six-month suspension is appropriate discipline for 
Attorney Gamino's misconduct in this matter.  We further 
conclude that Attorney Gamino should pay the costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding of $19,437.35 as of October 3, 2005. 
¶3 
Attorney Gamino was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1997.  He has no prior disciplinary history.   
¶4 
The OLR filed a complaint in this matter on September 
17, 2003, alleging four counts of misconduct stemming from 
allegations that Attorney Gamino engaged in inappropriate sexual 
relations with two clients and that he misrepresented his 
activities with one of these clients in open court and to the 
OLR investigators, all in violation of the Supreme Court Rules 
of Professional Conduct.  Specifically, the complaint alleged: 
COUNT ONE: 
By representing [C.M.] while having sexual 
relations with [C.M.'s] mother, respondent provided 
representation that may have been materially limited 
by his own interests and failed to obtain a written 
waiver of the conflict from his client, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.7(b). 
COUNT TWO: 
By testifying inaccurately, under oath, 
that he had not met [M.C-M.] on December 12, 2000, and 
by testifying he never had sexual relations with [M.C-
M.], respondent knowingly made a false statement of 
fact to a tribunal, in violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1). 
COUNT THREE: 
By 
asserting 
to 
staff 
and 
District 
investigators that he had not met with [M.C-M.] on 
December 12, 2000, by asserting that he had never had 
sexual relations with [M.C-M.], and by stating that an 
imposter must have made a call to the juvenile 
authorities on behalf of [C.M.] on December 12, 2000, 
respondent, in the course of an investigation, made 
misrepresentations, in violation of SCR 22.03(6) and 
SCR 20:8.4(f). 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
3 
 
COUNT FOUR: By engaging in sexual relations with 
[J.M.] when she was his client and when a consensual 
sexual relationship did not exist prior to the 
commencement 
of 
the 
lawyer-client 
relationship, 
respondent 
entered 
into 
a 
prohibited 
transaction 
creating a conflict of interest, in violation of SCR 
20:1.8(k)(2). 
¶5 
Attorney Gamino filed an answer on November 14, 2003, 
and the matter was submitted to referee Kim Peterson.  Attorney 
Gamino vigorously challenged the OLR's allegations; he moved to 
dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the charges filed 
against him were both vague and stale.  The motion was denied 
and the matter proceeded to an evidentiary hearing in May 2004.  
Following submission of post-hearing briefs, the referee issued 
a report and recommendation dated October 25, 2004.  Attorney 
Gamino now appeals. 
¶6 
Attorney 
Gamino 
contends 
that 
a 
number 
of 
the 
referee's findings of fact are clearly erroneous.  He contends, 
further, that his due process rights have been violated by this 
proceeding. 
¶7 
The standard of review before this court is that the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
are 
affirmed 
unless 
clearly 
erroneous, but conclusions of law are reviewed on a de novo 
basis.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kalal, 2002 
WI 45, 252 Wis. 2d 261, 643 N.W.2d 466.  The referee's 
credibility determinations are intertwined with his or her 
findings of fact.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Charlton, 174 Wis. 2d 844, 498 N.W.2d 380 (1993). 
¶8 
We first review the referee's findings of fact made 
with respect to Attorney Gamino's representation of C.M., a 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
4 
 
minor, in a children in need of protection or services (CHIPS) 
proceeding, and his subsequent representation of the child's 
mother, M.C-M.   
¶9 
We recite the history giving rise to the grievance 
filed against Attorney Gamino because it is relevant to his 
arguments on appeal.  M.C-M. initially retained Attorney Gamino 
in December 2000 to represent her minor son, C.M., in a pending 
juvenile proceeding.  As will be discussed, the parties 
vigorously dispute whether Attorney Gamino was retained on 
December 12 or on December 13.  They vigorously dispute what, if 
anything, occurred between Attorney Gamino and M.C-M. on 
December 12.  It is undisputed that M.C-M. subsequently retained 
Attorney Gamino on her own behalf to help her secure a temporary 
restraining order against a male acquaintance.  She also 
retained Attorney Gamino's legal services in February 2001 after 
she was taken into custody in Waukesha County and her probation 
status was threatened.  Attorney Gamino later represented M.C-M. 
on 
charges 
of 
theft, 
forgery, 
and 
contributing 
to 
the 
delinquency of a minor.   
¶10 On October 23, 2001, M.C-M. was sentenced to ten years 
in prison related to earlier criminal convictions.  Attorney 
Gamino represented M.C-M. for post-sentencing purposes.  In late 
2001 he sought an appointment of a public defender on M.C-M.'s 
behalf on the grounds that she was indigent.   
¶11 On December 5, 2001, M.C-M. wrote a letter to the 
circuit court in her postconviction sentencing proceeding in 
which she requested a new lawyer, claiming that Attorney Gamino 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
5 
 
was unethical.  In this letter she alleged that she and Attorney 
Gamino had engaged in sexual relations beginning December 12, 
2000, the night she retained him to represent her son.  She 
claimed that she was entitled to postconviction relief and new 
counsel on the grounds that her lawyer had engaged in sexual 
relations 
with 
her 
during 
the 
course 
of 
the 
legal 
representation.   
¶12 At the hearing before the circuit court on M.C-M.'s 
postconviction sentencing matter, Attorney Gamino denied having 
sexual relations with M.C-M.  He asserted that he did not meet 
her until December 13, 2000. 
¶13 The circuit court denied M.C-M.'s motion.  Although 
the circuit court declined to make specific findings on the 
alleged sexual misconduct, the circuit court commented quite 
unfavorably on M.C-M.'s credibility. 
¶14 In February 2002 a grievance was filed against 
Attorney Gamino alleging that he had engaged in an inappropriate 
sexual relationship with M.C-M.  Gamino was notified of this 
grievance in April 2002.  He wholly denied the accusations and 
the matter proceeded to an evidentiary hearing. 
¶15 The 
evidence 
elicited 
at 
the 
hearing 
included 
documentary evidence, the testimony of the two grievants, 
Attorney Gamino's testimony, and the testimony of various other 
witnesses for both Attorney Gamino and the OLR.   
¶16 M.C-M. testified that she first met Attorney Gamino on 
the morning of December 12, 2000, at a bagel shop to discuss her 
son's case.  She claims they flirted during this meeting and 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
6 
 
that they arranged to meet later that day at a mall to further 
discuss the case.  She testified that at her request, Attorney 
Gamino arranged for her son's release from the juvenile 
detention center where he was detained so the boy could spend 
the day and night with her. 
¶17 M.C-M. testified that she and her son met Attorney 
Gamino at a mall later that afternoon and that Attorney Gamino 
was physically affectionate with her during this time.  She 
claimed that she told Attorney Gamino she was concerned about 
her living situation because her boyfriend was sometimes 
violent.  She testified that Attorney Gamino made arrangements 
for M.C-M. and her son to stay at a hotel that night. 
¶18 M.C-M. testified that while she was home collecting 
additional clothing for the evening, the juvenile detention 
center telephoned her inquiring when her son would return.  She 
apparently informed them that she had met with her lawyer and 
that C.M. would return the following day. 
¶19 M.C-M. testified that she, her son and a couple of his 
friends arrived at the hotel around midnight and that Attorney 
Gamino was waiting for her.  She testified that two hotel rooms 
were obtained and that she and Attorney Gamino engaged in sexual 
relations in one of the hotel rooms that evening. 
¶20 M.C-M. 
testified 
that 
the 
sexual 
relationship 
continued after she retained Attorney Gamino to assist her in 
obtaining a restraining order and she described several specific 
incidents of sexual activity between them, including one that 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
7 
 
allegedly occurred in the conference room of the jail where M.C-
M. was incarcerated. 
¶21 Attorney 
Gamino 
vigorously 
challenged 
M.C-M.'s 
testimony and her credibility.  He correctly notes that M.C-M. 
was not specific as to the dates many of the alleged incidents 
occurred,1 and he contends this undermines her credibility and 
makes 
it 
exceedingly 
difficult 
to 
defend 
against 
her 
allegations. 
¶22 Attorney Gamino asserts that he did not meet M.C-M. 
until December 13 and he wholly denies having any sexual 
relationship with her, at any time.  He denies accompanying her 
at the mall on December 12, and he denies staying at the hotel 
with her that night.  He maintains that he spent December 12 at 
a "Market America" meeting with his brother and that he and his 
brother socialized together that night, returning home about 
2:30 a.m. 
¶23 Attorney 
Gamino's 
brother 
corroborated 
Gamino's 
testimony regarding their whereabouts on December 12, 2000. 
¶24 An employee of the jail testified that M.C-M.'s claim 
of engaging in sexual activity in the jail conference room 
sounded "exceptionally difficult." 
¶25 This was a challenging matter for the referee to 
evaluate.  As a "he said/she said" situation with no third-party 
witnesses to the alleged sexual activity, resolution of the 
                                                 
1 For example, M.C-M. described one incident of alleged 
sexual activity as occurring "around Christmas."   
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
8 
 
question 
turned 
almost 
completely 
on 
the 
referee's 
determinations of various witnesses' credibility.  It is 
undisputed——and indeed the referee acknowledged——that there were 
substantial reasons to question M.C-M.'s credibility, not least 
of which was the fact that the initial allegations were made in 
the context of M.C-M.'s effort to obtain new counsel and 
rehearing on an unsatisfactory criminal sentencing matter. 
¶26 The referee acknowledged the issues undermining M.C-
M.'s 
credibility, 
including 
her lengthy criminal history.  
Indeed, the referee stated: "Taken alone, [M.C-M.'s] testimony 
may be hard to believe." 
¶27 However, the referee was persuaded by other evidence 
adduced at the hearing, including the testimony of M.C-M.'s son, 
C.M.  The referee stated that she found C.M. to be very credible 
and was impressed with his testimony. 
¶28 At the time of the hearing C.M. was 18 years old, 
living with a foster family, and finishing high school.  He 
corroborated his mother's testimony about Attorney Gamino and 
M.C-M.'s conduct at the mall on December 12, 2000.  He testified 
that Attorney Gamino and his mother slept together in a separate 
hotel room, apart from him that night.  He testified that he was 
upset by his mother's conduct and that he went to his mother's 
hotel room at approximately 2 or 3 a.m.  He testified that he 
found Attorney Gamino present in the hotel room and saw an open 
condom wrapper on the nightstand.  He testified that he became 
upset and yelled at his mother.  He testified that Attorney 
Gamino left the room and that M.C-M. then called Attorney 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
9 
 
Gamino's cell phone telling him to return to the hotel room.  
The referee noted that cellular telephone records confirm that a 
telephone call was made to Attorney Gamino's cell phone at 2:25 
a.m. 
¶29 Documentary evidence in the record indicated that two 
separate hotel rooms were obtained for M.C-M. and her son, on 
two separate floors, on the night of December 12, 2000. 
¶30 As noted, Attorney Gamino denied that a meeting with 
M.C-M. at a bagel shop ever occurred.  However, an investigator 
with the Public Defender's Office testified that he saw Attorney 
Gamino with a woman at the bagel shop one morning in December 
and that their behavior was "verging on flirtatious."  While he 
could not remember the specific date of the incident he 
testified that he noticed the incident and the individuals' 
behavior, because he knew Attorney Gamino's fiancée. 
¶31 An attorney and former judge who shared offices with 
Attorney Gamino also testified at the evidentiary hearing.  He 
testified that he saw Attorney Gamino and M.C-M. together on 
several occasions after December 12 and that he was "concerned" 
about their relationship and behavior, in part because he knew 
Attorney Gamino's fiancée.  He stated that he spoke with 
Attorney Gamino on one occasion, informing him that he felt 
Attorney Gamino's relationship with M.C-M. was "inappropriate." 
¶32 A social worker for Waukesha County testified that on 
December 20, 2000, M.C-M. confided that she was having an affair 
with her lawyer, Gamino.  The social worker noted this 
disclosure in her file. 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
10 
 
¶33 The referee found that various telephone records 
corroborated M.C-M.'s version of events.  Although Attorney 
Gamino initially denied making any calls to the juvenile 
detention center on C.M.'s behalf on December 12, and claims he 
was not retained to represent C.M. until December 13, there is 
record evidence indicating that Attorney Gamino did telephone 
the juvenile detention center around 10:40 p.m. on December 12 
to confirm the boy would spend the night with his mother.2 
¶34 Telephone records also reflect that Attorney Gamino 
called the home where M.C-M. was staying on the morning of 
December 12, 2000.  Attorney Gamino's telephone records reflect 
numerous calls to M.C-M.'s telephone number between 10:22 p.m. 
and 12:30 a.m.  Attorney Gamino also placed a telephone call to 
the home where M.C-M. was staying at 10:43 p.m. on December 12. 
¶35 With respect to Attorney Gamino's alibi and his 
brother's testimony, the referee noted that "Market America" 
meetings are busy meetings with hundreds of attendees that are 
conducted each Tuesday.  She noted that there was no other 
evidence that Attorney Gamino attended a meeting on December 12.  
The referee also noted that Attorney Gamino did not advance this 
alibi during the course of the investigation, but for the first 
time at the hearing. 
¶36 Ultimately, 
after 
acknowledging 
a 
number 
of 
discrepancies among the witnesses' testimony, the referee found 
                                                 
2 Attorney Gamino initially explained the telephone call 
made to the juvenile detention center on behalf of C.M. on 
December 12, 2000 must have been made by "an imposter."  
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
11 
 
that the witness testimony and documentary evidence supported 
M.C-M.'s version of events.  Specifically, the referee found, 
inter alia, that M.C-M. retained Attorney Gamino to represent 
her minor son on December 12, 2000, and that Attorney Gamino and 
M.C-M. engaged in a sexual relationship on December 12 and 13, 
2000.  The referee found further that no written waiver was 
obtained relating to this conflict of interest.  The referee 
also found that Attorney Gamino represented to the trial court 
in M.C-M.'s postconviction sentencing matter that he never had 
sexual 
relations 
with 
M.C-M., 
and 
that 
Attorney 
Gamino 
represented to OLR staff and a district investigator that he 
never had sexual relations with M.C-M.  The referee specifically 
found that these latter "representations were not truthful." 
¶37 We now review the referee's findings of fact made with 
respect to Attorney Gamino's representation of a client named 
J.M. 
¶38 J.M. was charged with driving under the influence, 
third offense, in January 2001.  It is undisputed that she had 
no connection with Attorney Gamino before she retained him on or 
about February 2, 2001.  J.M. later retained Attorney Gamino to 
represent her on several successive matters. 
¶39 J.M. testified that she met Attorney Gamino at a bar 
in Wauwatosa in February 2001 to discuss legal representation.  
She described a "mutual attraction."  She testified that they 
met again a couple weeks later at a Champs restaurant.  She 
testified that both drank alcohol at this meeting and that she 
became intoxicated.  She testified that later that evening, they 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
12 
 
engaged in sexual activity in Attorney Gamino's vehicle.  J.M. 
testified that the sexual relationship continued for a period of 
time; she described six specific incidents of sexual activity.  
However, she admitted that she was usually intoxicated during 
these episodes3 and that she did not remember all the details. 
¶40 J.M. testified that in March 2002 while in drug and 
alcohol treatment following a period of incarceration, she told 
her social worker that she had had a sexual relationship with 
her lawyer, Gamino.  The social worker memorialized this 
conversation in a written memorandum dated March 5, 2002.  J.M. 
filed a grievance against Attorney Gamino in March 2002. 
¶41 After 
the 
OLR 
commenced 
its 
investigation, 
J.M. 
apparently proposed settling her claims against Attorney Gamino 
for $5000.  In July 2002 she wrote Attorney Gamino and demanded 
$25,000 to settle her claims.  Attorney Gamino advised the OLR 
of this communication.  Attorney Gamino did not pay any sums to 
J.M. to "settle" the matter. 
¶42 Attorney Gamino flatly denies engaging in sexual 
activity with J.M.  He introduced evidence, namely the testimony 
of his wife and his physician, disputing J.M.'s characterization 
of certain of his physical characteristics. 
¶43 The referee deemed the discrepancies in testimony 
"minimally relevant."  She found, inter alia, that an attorney-
client relationship existed between J.M. and Attorney Gamino 
                                                 
3 J.M. testified that Attorney Gamino supplied the alcohol 
she drank when some of the incidents allegedly occurred. 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
13 
 
from February 2001 through January 2002.  She found further that 
they also had a sexual relationship as described by J.M. and as 
alleged in the OLR complaint filed against Attorney Gamino 
throughout most of this time.  She found that this relationship 
did not predate Attorney Gamino's representation of J.M. 
¶44 On appeal, Attorney Gamino contends that the referee's 
factual findings with respect to both the M.C-M. and J.M. 
matters 
are 
clearly 
erroneous. 
 
He 
reiterates 
various 
discrepancies among the testimony and evidence presented at the 
hearing.  He describes the two complainants as women with 
"sketchy memories" and "ulterior motives."  He characterizes 
J.M. as "an admitted addict who tried to extort money from Mr. 
Gamino with a false allegation of sexual assault."  His 
depiction of J.M. is strikingly at odds with the referee's 
opinion.  The referee specifically noted that she found J.M.'s 
testimony "particularly compelling" and that J.M. appeared 
"honest and straightforward."  The referee was persuaded that 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
14 
 
J.M. had no motivation to lie and concluded that she was not 
motivated by anger.4 
¶45 We accept the referee's findings of fact. They were, 
for the most part, based on the referee's assessment of the 
credibility of the witnesses, and on review we will not 
interfere with that determination.  The referee obviously 
believed the testimony of the clients and the other witnesses 
above that of Attorney Gamino.5  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, 269 Wis. 2d 43, ¶11, 
675 N.W.2d 747 (declining to conclude that the referee's 
findings were clearly erroneous where they "rely heavily on the 
credibility of the witnesses" and the referee was best situated 
                                                 
4 Following the submission of briefs in this matter Attorney 
Gamino filed a motion to supplement the record with evidence 
that J.M. was not—as she testified—alcohol free for two years 
prior to the disciplinary hearing in May 2004.  As such, he 
contends she committed perjury.  The information provided to the 
court indicates that in June 2004, J.M. was involved in a 
serious 
automobile 
accident 
while 
driving 
drunk. 
 
This 
information led to further investigation and submission of an 
affidavit from a former boyfriend of J.M. who stated that J.M. 
was drinking alcohol between August 2003 and September 2003.  
The affidavit stated that the affiant and J.M. had a "falling 
out" in September 2003 and that he had not seen J.M. since.  
Attorney Gamino's motion to supplement the record with this 
evidence was granted; his request for a new hearing based on 
this evidence was denied.   
5 Although the information provided to the court in the 
motion to supplement the record gives us pause, we conclude that 
it does not warrant a rehearing.  The referee was well aware of 
J.M.'s alcoholism.  We are not persuaded that evidence that J.M. 
failed 
to 
maintain 
sobriety 
would 
necessarily 
alter 
the 
referee's 
conclusions 
about 
the 
existence 
of 
a 
sexual 
relationship between J.M. and Attorney Gamino. 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
15 
 
to judge the credibility of the witnesses); In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Lucareli, 2000 WI 55, 235 Wis. 2d 557, ¶32, 
611 N.W.2d 754 (noting that a reviewing court defers to the 
finder of fact on matters decided on the basis of witness 
credibility absent an erroneous exercise of discretion or an 
error of law).  With respect to those findings not based on 
witness credibility we also conclude that the referee's findings 
were not clearly erroneous and we accept them.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Camacho, 126 Wis. 2d 104, 209, 
375 N.W.2d 204 (1985).6 
¶46 Attorney 
Gamino 
also 
challenges 
the 
disciplinary 
procedure on several related grounds, contending that he was 
deprived of his right to due process in this proceeding.  He 
contends that the accusations are so stale as to preclude 
disciplinary prosecution.  He challenges the lack of specificity 
with respect to when specific incidents of sexual misconduct 
allegedly occurred, asserting that this compromises his ability 
to defend against the charges.  He contends that this lack of 
specificity rose to a denial of his due process rights. 
                                                 
6 Attorney Gamino specifically challenges the referee's 
detailed descriptions and analysis of the number and timing of 
various telephone calls made to and from Attorney Gamino's 
cellular telephone.  We agree that this analysis was, in some 
instances, overly speculative.  However, it is apparent that 
these findings or the inferences drawn therefrom, are not 
necessary to support the referee's conclusions of law; even if 
these findings are discounted, the ultimate conclusions of law 
have adequate support from the referee's other factual findings.   
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
16 
 
¶47 As we understand it, the crux of Attorney Gamino's 
defense is that he "should only be required to defend himself on 
charges with specific dates that he has a reasonable chance of 
knowing, otherwise he is called to account for all his actions 
over a two year period——an impossible task."  With respect to 
specific dates alleged——namely December 12 and 13, 2000——Gamino 
suggests that these dates are too old or "stale" to permit him 
to prepare a reasonable defense.  He emphasizes that the OLR's 
complaint was filed nearly three years after this alleged 
incident. 
¶48 We are not persuaded.  This court has held that a 
lawyer's constitutional right to due process in a disciplinary 
proceeding involves only the right to prior notice of the 
charges, the right to prepare and defend against the charges, 
and the right to a full hearing on the charges.  See State v. 
Hersh, 73 Wis. 2d 390, 243 N.W.2d 178 (1976); see also, In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 117 Wis. 2d 332, 344 
N.W.2d 169 (1984); and In re Complaint Against Seraphim, 97 
Wis. 2d 485, 294 N.W.2d 485 (1980).  This proceeding certainly 
satisfied these requirements. 
¶49 The incidents involving M.C-M. allegedly occurred from 
December 2000 through 2001.  Attorney Gamino knew of M.C-M.'s 
claims and was called to respond to them in open court as early 
as December 2001 at her postconviction sentencing matter.  He 
was formally notified that a grievance had been filed against 
him on April 15, 2002.  He subsequently had a full evidentiary 
hearing before a referee after the OLR's complaint was filed.  
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
17 
 
It is true that J.M., in particular, was unable to pinpoint the 
dates of alleged sexual contact with much accuracy.  Her 
testimony included statements like: "springtime, you know, 
probably April, May, something like that maybe."  However, J.M. 
conceded in the hearing that her memory was affected by her use 
of alcohol and cocaine during the time she claimed sexual 
involvement with Attorney Gamino, and the referee was able to 
consider these weaknesses in her testimony in evaluating the 
OLR's allegations. 
¶50 Moreover, three of the four counts in the complaint 
pertain to Attorney Gamino's alleged activities with M.C-M. on a 
specific date, December 12, 2000.  These allegations are 
certainly not vague and we decline to hold that a grievance 
filed approximately two years after the attorney misconduct 
allegedly occurred is too stale, as a matter of law, to permit 
prosecution. 
¶51 Having accepted the referee's findings of fact in this 
matter and rejected Attorney Gamino's due process claim, we 
conclude that the referee's findings clearly support the 
conclusions of law articulated in the report and recommendation. 
¶52 The 
referee 
concluded 
that 
by 
undertaking 
representation of C.M., a minor, then engaging in a sexual 
relationship with C.M.'s mother, Attorney Gamino violated SCR 
20:1.7(b), which provides: 
(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the 
representation 
of 
that 
client may 
be 
materially 
limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another 
client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own 
interests, unless:  
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
18 
 
  (1) 
the 
lawyer 
reasonably 
believes 
the 
representation will not be adversely affected; and 
  (2) 
the client consents in writing after 
consultation.  When representation of multiple clients 
in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation 
shall include explanation of the implications of the 
common representation and the advantages and risks 
involved.  
It is undisputed that no waiver was obtained in the C.M. matter.  
We agree that by entering into a sexual relationship with M.C-M. 
while having been retained to represent her son and without 
obtaining the requisite written waiver, Attorney Gamino violated 
SCR 20:1.7(b). 
¶53 The referee concluded that Attorney Gamino made a 
false statement of fact to a tribunal in violation of SCR 
20:3.3(a)(1)7 when he testified under oath that he had not 
undertaken representation of M.C-M.'s son on December 12, and 
when he denied having any sexual relationship with M.C-M.  We 
agree that the referee's findings of fact support this legal 
conclusion. 
¶54 The referee further concluded that Attorney Gamino 
violated SCR 20:8.4(f)8 and SCR 22.03(6)9 when he denied to the 
                                                 
7 SCR 
20:3.3(a)(1) 
provides that a lawyer 
shall not 
knowingly "make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal." 
8 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." 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
19 
 
OLR staff and to a district investigator that he met M.C-M. on 
December 12 and also denied having any sexual relationship with 
her.  Again, we conclude that the referee's findings support 
this conclusion of law. 
¶55 Finally, we agree with the referee's conclusion that 
Attorney Gamino violated SCR 20:1.8(k)(2)10 when he commenced and 
engaged in a sexual relationship with his client, J.M. 
¶56 We turn to the appropriate sanction for Attorney 
Gamino's misconduct.  The referee found that on two separate 
occasions Attorney Gamino entered into a sexual relationship 
with a female client in a vulnerable personal situation very 
shortly after he was retained by them.  As the referee observed, 
one of these clients was dealing with drug and alcohol 
dependency 
and 
facing 
the 
loss 
of 
her 
children, 
home, 
possessions and numerous pending criminal matters.  She was 
desperate and vulnerable and Attorney Gamino should have been 
aware of this fact.  This disturbing behavior, combined with the 
finding of his misrepresentations about the nature of the 
relationship evidences a troubling pattern that we agree 
                                                                                                                                                             
9 SCR 22.03(6) provides that in the course of an OLR 
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."   
10 SCR 20:1.8(k)(2) provides that a "lawyer shall not have 
sexual relations with a current client unless a consensual 
sexual relationship existed between them when the lawyer-client 
relationship commenced."  
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
20 
 
warrants significant discipline.  The referee recommended a six-
month suspension of Attorney Gamino's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  We agree that the recommended sanction is not 
inconsistent with other cases involving similar misconduct.  See 
e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kraemer, 200 
Wis. 2d 
547, 
547 
N.W.2d 
186 
(1996) 
(imposing 
six 
month 
suspension on lawyer who engaged in sexual relations with client 
and also engaged in deception). Finally, we direct Attorney 
Gamino to pay the costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶57 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Carlos Gamino to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective January 24, 2006. 
¶58 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Carlos Gamino comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶59 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Carlos Gamino pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, provided that if the 
costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a 
showing to this court of the inability to pay those costs within 
that time, the license of Attorney Carlos Gamino to practice law 
in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
No. 
2003AP2422-D   
 
 
 
1