2015 WI 39 

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2014AP569-D 

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Ernesto Chavez, Attorney at Law: 

Office of Lawyer Regulation, 

 Complainant, 

 v. 

Ernesto Chavez, 

 Respondent. 

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CHAVEZ 

OPINION FILED: April 17, 2015 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL: 

 COURT: 

 COUNTY: 

 JUDGE: 

 

JUSTICES: 

 CONCURRED: 

 DISSENTED: 

 NOT PARTICIPATING: 

 

ATTORNEYS: 
2015 WI 39

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2014AP569-D 

 

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT 

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Ernesto Chavez, Attorney at Law: 

Office of Lawyer Regulation, 

 Complainant, 

 v. 

Ernesto Chavez, 

 Respondent. 

FILED 

APR 17, 2015 

Diane M. Fremgen 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

suspended. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. On November 25, 2014, the Honorable 

William Eich, the referee in this matter, issued a report 

recommending that Attorney Ernesto Chavez be declared in default 

and that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended 

for a period of one year for 41 counts of professional 

misconduct. The referee also recommended that Attorney Chavez 

pay restitution to one client and to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund 

for Client Protection (Fund), which made payments to three other 
No. 2014AP569-D 

2 

clients. The referee further recommended that Attorney Chavez 

be required to pay the full costs of this proceeding, which are 

$677.58 as of December 15, 2014. 

¶2 We declare Attorney Chavez to be in default. We agree 

with the referee that Attorney Chavez's professional misconduct 

warrants a one-year license suspension. We also agree that 

Attorney Chavez should be ordered to make restitution and pay 

the full costs of this proceeding. 

¶3 Attorney Chavez was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 2000. The address he has on file with the State 

Bar of Wisconsin is Madison, Wisconsin; however, it is the 

belief of the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) that Attorney 

Chavez resides in the state of Washington. 

¶4 In 2008, Attorney Chavez received a private reprimand 

in a civil rights case, in which he failed to keep his clients 

informed of the status or merits of their case and failed to 

respond to numerous requests for information. Private Reprimand 

No. 2008-34. On April 23, 2012, this court temporarily 

suspended Attorney Chavez's law license pursuant to SCR 22.03(4) 

for failure to cooperate in various OLR investigations 

concerning his conduct. In addition, his license is 

administratively suspended for failure to pay State Bar dues and 

failure to complete continuing legal education (CLE) 

requirements. 

¶5 On March 13, 2014, the OLR filed a complaint against 

Attorney Chavez alleging 41 counts of misconduct with respect to 

his handling of nine client matters. Attorney Chavez was 
No. 2014AP569-D 

3 

personally served with the complaint on April 18, 2014. He 

failed to file an answer. The OLR filed a motion for default 

judgment on June 24, 2014. Attorney Chavez was notified at both 

his home address and his last known professional address of a 

telephone hearing on the motion scheduled for October 6, 2014. 

Attorney Chavez failed to appear in any manner at the hearing. 

On November 13, 2014, the referee issued an order recommending 

that Attorney Chavez be found in default. As noted above, the 

formal referee's report followed on November 25, 2014. 

¶6 The allegations in the OLR's complaint, which are 

discussed in detail in the referee's report, will not be 

extensively recited or repeated here. We will briefly summarize 

the incidents giving rise to the misconduct. 

Representation of S.C. (Counts One through Four) 

¶7 In April of 2009, S.C. and her husband hired Attorney 

Chavez to represent them in two appellate cases. S.C. paid 

Attorney Chavez $1,500. No written fee agreement was signed. 

Attorney Chavez placed the $1,500 advanced fee in a non-trust 

account. S.C. terminated Attorney Chavez's representation in 

November 2009. Attorney Chavez never returned S.C.'s files. 

¶8 In April of 2010, Attorney Chavez executed a one-year 

diversion agreement with the OLR concerning a grievance S.C. had 

filed. In July of 2011, the OLR informed Attorney Chavez that 

he had breached the diversion agreement and that the OLR would 

continue investigating S.C.'s grievance. 
No. 2014AP569-D 

4 

¶9 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 

that Attorney Chavez committed the following counts of 

misconduct with respect to his representation of S.C.: 

[COUNT ONE] By failing to provide a written fee 

agreement to [S.C.] when she paid an advanced fee of 

$1,500 for his representation, Chavez violated 

SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2).1

[COUNT TWO] Upon receipt of $1,500, specifically 

in anticipation of providing legal representation to 

[S.C.], by failing to deposit those funds into his 

trust account, instead admittedly depositing the funds 

into his general account, and with no evidence that he 

intended to utilize the alternative fee placement 

measures permitted under SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m), Chavez

violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(4).2

 

1 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2) provide: 

(1) The scope of the representation and the basis 

or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client 

will be responsible shall be communicated to the 

client in writing, before or within a reasonable time 

after commencing the representation, except when the 

lawyer will charge a regularly represented client on 

the same basis or rate as in the past. If it is 

reasonably foreseeable that the total cost of 

representation to the client, including attorney's 

fees, will be $1000 or less, the communication may be 

oral or in writing. Any changes in the basis or rate 

of the fee or expenses shall also be communicated in 

writing to the client. 

(2) If the total cost of representation to the 

client, including attorney's fees, is more than $1000, 

the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance fee 

that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in

writing. 

2 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) provides: 

Except as provided in par. (4m), unearned fees 

and advanced payments of fees shall be held in trust 

until earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to 

(continued) 
No. 2014AP569-D 

5 

[COUNT THREE] By failing to return [S.C.'s] 

files to her, Chavez violated SCR 20:1.16(d).3

[COUNT FOUR] By failing to respond to OLR, 

Chavez violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6),4 enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(h).5

 

sub. (g). Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 

payment of costs shall be held in trust until the 

costs are incurred. 

3 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 

Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 

shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 

to protect a client's interests, such as giving 

reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 

employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 

property to which the client is entitled and refunding 

any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 

been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers 

relating to the client to the extent permitted by 

other law. 

4 SCR 22.03(2) and (6) provide: 

(2) Upon commencing an investigation, the 

director shall notify the respondent of the matter 

being investigated unless in the opinion of the 

director the investigation of the matter requires 

otherwise. The respondent shall fully and fairly 

disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 

alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 

by ordinary mail a request for a written response. 

The director may allow additional time to respond. 

Following receipt of the response, the director may

conduct further investigation and may compel the 

respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 

present any information deemed relevant to the 

investigation. 

. . . . 

(6) In the course of the investigation, the 

respondent's wilful failure to provide relevant 

information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 

documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a 

(continued) 
No. 2014AP569-D 

6 

Representation of G.N. and G.S. (Counts Five through Ten) 

¶10 In January of 2010, G.N. paid Attorney Chavez $5,000 

to represent her brother, G.S., in post-conviction proceedings. 

Attorney Chavez deposited the money into his business account. 

Attorney Chavez made various false statements to G.N. and to 

G.S.'s wife, including that he had ordered transcripts, that he 

had contacted a social worker at G.S.'s prison to schedule a 

visit, and that he had drafted a brief. 

¶11 In April of 2011, G.N. wrote to Attorney Chavez asking 

him to refund the $5,000. Attorney Chavez told G.N. that he 

would send her the brief but would refund the money if she did 

not approve of the brief. Attorney Chavez never sent G.N. a 

brief, nor did he refund any money. In September of 2012, the 

Fund paid $5,000 to G.N. as reimbursement for her legal fees. 

¶12 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 

that Attorney Chavez committed the following counts of 

misconduct with respect to his representation of G.N. and G.S.: 

[COUNT FIVE] By failing to order any transcripts 

or take any post-conviction action on [G.S.'s] behalf, 

Chavez violated SCR 20:1.3.6

 

disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 

the matters asserted in the grievance." 

5 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides that it is professional misconduct 

for a lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 

grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 

by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 

or SCR 22.04(1)." 

6 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 

reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 2014AP569-D 

7 

[COUNT SIX] Having accepted $5,000 from [G.N.] 

to pursue post-conviction proceedings, and in the 

absence of any evidence of having prepared any motions 

or documents on behalf of [G.S.], Chavez violated 

SCR 20:1.5(a).7

[COUNT SEVEN] By failing to return any of 

[G.N.'s] money, after admitting she was entitled to at 

least a partial refund, Chavez violated 

SCR 20:1.16(d). 

[COUNT EIGHT] Upon receipt of $5,000, 

specifically in anticipation of providing legal 

representation to [G.S.], by failing to deposit those 

funds into his trust account, instead admittedly 

 

7 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides: 

A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, 

or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable 

amount for expenses. The factors to be considered in 

determining the reasonableness of a fee include the

following: 

(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and 

difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill

requisite to perform the legal service properly; 

(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 

that the acceptance of the particular employment will 

preclude other employment by the lawyer; 

(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality 

for similar legal services; 

(4) the amount involved and the results obtained; 

(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or 

by the circumstances; 

(6) the nature and length of the professional 

relationship with the client; 

(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of 

the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and 

(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 
No. 2014AP569-D 

8 

depositing the funds into a non-trust account, and 

with no evidence that he intended to utilize the 

alternative fee placement measures permitted under 

SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m), Chavez violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(4). 

[COUNT NINE] By providing false information 

regarding case status, including that transcripts had 

been requested, that he had been attempting to set up 

a phone visit with [G.S.], and that he had a draft 

brief that he would provide to [G.N.], Chavez violated 

SCR 20:8.4(c).8

[COUNT TEN] By failing to respond to OLR's 

investigation of [G.N.'s] and [G.S.'s] grievance, 

Chavez violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(h). 

Representation of L.T. (Counts 11-14) 

¶13 Attorney Chavez's Wisconsin law license was suspended 

for failure to comply with CLE reporting requirements on June 6, 

2011. Attorney Chavez began representing L.T. in a Dane County 

case in August of 2010. In late June of 2011, Attorney Chavez 

sent emails to opposing counsel about a possible agreement in 

the L.T. case and appeared on L.T.'s behalf at a plea hearing in 

Dane County. Attorney Chavez failed to notify the court, 

opposing counsel, or his client of his suspension. 

¶14 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 

that Attorney Chavez committed the following counts of 

misconduct with respect to his representation of L.T.: 

[COUNT 11] By failing to provide notice of his 

suspension to his client, the court, or opposing 

 

8 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 

for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 

deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 2014AP569-D 

9 

counsel, Chavez violated [SCR] 22.26(1)(a), (b), and 

(c),9 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).10

[COUNT 12] By failing to withdraw from the case 

when he was suspended, Chavez violated 

SCR 20:1.16(a)(1).11

[COUNT 13] By telling the bailiff on June 29, 

2011 that they were prepared to proceed, negotiating 

with the district attorney's office, and preparing to 

 

9 SCR 22.26(1)(a), (b), and (c) provide: 

(1) On or before the effective date of license 

suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 

suspended or revoked shall do all of the following:

(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 

represented in pending matters of the suspension or

revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 

to act as an attorney following the effective date of 

the suspension or revocation. 

(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 

their choice elsewhere. 

(c) Promptly provide written notification to the 

court or administrative agency and the attorney for

each party in a matter pending before a court or 

administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 

and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 

an attorney following the effective date of the 

suspension or revocation. The notice shall identify 

the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 

there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 

the client's place of residence. 

10 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct 

for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 

court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 

lawyers." 

11 SCR 20:1.16(a)(1), as relevant here, provides that a 

lawyer shall withdraw from the representation of a client if 

"the representation will result in violation of the Rules of 

Professional Conduct or other law." 
No. 2014AP569-D 

10 

enter a plea on his client's behalf in State v. [L.T.] 

while his law license was suspended, Chavez violated 

SCR 31.10(1)12 and [SCR] 22.26(2),13 which are enforced 

under the Rules of Professional Conduct via 

SCR 20:8.4(f). 

[COUNT 14] By failing to respond to OLR, Chavez 

violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(h). 

 

12 SCR 31.10(1) provides: 

If a lawyer fails to comply with the attendance 

requirement of SCR 31.02, fails to comply with the 

reporting requirement of SCR 31.03(1), or fails to pay 

the late fee under SCR 31.03(2), the board shall serve 

a notice of noncompliance on the lawyer. This notice 

shall advise the lawyer that the lawyer’s state bar

membership shall be automatically suspended for 

failing to file evidence of compliance or to pay the 

late fee within 60 days after service of the notice. 

The board shall certify the names of all lawyers so

suspended under this rule to the clerk of the supreme 

court, all supreme court justices, all court of 

appeals and circuit court judges, all circuit court

commissioners appointed under SCR 75.02(1) in this 

state, all circuit court clerks, all juvenile court

clerks, all registers in probate, the executive 

director of the state bar of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin 

State Public Defender’s Office, and the clerks of the 

federal district courts in Wisconsin. A lawyer shall 

not engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while 

his or her state bar membership is suspended under 

this rule. 

13 SCR 22.26(2) provides: 

An attorney whose license to practice law is 

suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 

practice of law may not engage in this state in the

practice of law or in any law work activity 

customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 

paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 

engage in law related work in this state for a 

commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 

of law. 
No. 2014AP569-D 

11 

Representation of T.D. (Counts 15-18) 

¶15 In May of 2011, Attorney Chavez filed an 

administrative appeal on behalf of T.D. in Green County. On 

July 8, 2011, after his license was administratively suspended, 

Attorney Chavez appeared at a final status teleconference in the 

T.D. case. Opposing counsel informed the judge that Attorney 

Chavez was suspended, and Attorney Chavez admitted it. 

¶16 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 

that Attorney Chavez committed the following counts of 

misconduct with respect to his representation of T.D.: 

[COUNT 15] By failing, prior to the first 

July 8, 2011 status conference, to provide notice of 

his suspension to adverse counsel or the court in City 

of Brodhead v. [T.D.], Chavez violated 

[SCR] 22.26(1)(c), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f). 

[COUNT 16] By making an appearance on [T.D.'s] 

behalf at the first July 8, 2011 status conference in 

City of Brodhead v. [T.D.], and by thereafter 

attempting to negotiate an agreement with the 

prosecuting attorney while his law license was 

suspended, Chavez violated SCR 31.10(1) and 

SCR 22.26(2), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f). 

[COUNT 17] Having terminated his representation 

of [T.D.] as a result of his June 6, 2011 law license 

suspension, and having been ordered by the court in

the course of a teleconference on July 8, 2011 to 

write a letter to [T.D.] informing him of a July 15, 

2011 status conference, by thereafter failing to 

provide such information to [T.D.], Chavez violated

SCR 20:1.16(d) and SCR 20:3.4(c).14

 

14 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides that a lawyer shall not "knowingly 

disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for 

an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation 

exists." 
No. 2014AP569-D 

12 

[COUNT 18] By failing to respond to OLR, Chavez 

violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(h). 

Representation of S.B. (Counts 19-21) 

¶17 In July of 2011, after his license had been 

administratively suspended, Attorney Chavez represented S.B. in 

a Lafayette County case. He waived S.B.'s preliminary hearing 

and filed a request for substitution. He failed to notify his 

client, the court, or opposing counsel of his suspension. 

¶18 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 

that Attorney Chavez committed the following counts of 

misconduct with respect to his representation of S.B.: 

[COUNT 19] By failing, prior to the July 11, 

2011 preliminary hearing, to provide notice of his 

suspension to his client, adverse counsel, or the 

court in State v. [S.B.], Chavez violated 

SCR 22.26(1)(a), (b), and (c), enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(f). 

[COUNT 20] By making an appearance on [S.B.'s] 

behalf at a July 11, 2011 preliminary hearing in State 

v. [S.B.] while his law license was suspended, Chavez 

violated SCR 31.10(1) and [SCR] 22.26(2), enforceable 

via SCR 20:8.4(f). 

[COUNT 21] By failing to respond to OLR, Chavez 

violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(h). 

Representation of T.B. (Counts 22-26) 

¶19 In April of 2011, T.B. hired Attorney Chavez to

represent her in a municipal traffic case and paid him $1,500 

for the representation. Between May and August of 2011, 

Attorney Chavez stopped updating T.B. about her case in spite of 

the fact that she left him numerous voicemails. In August of 
No. 2014AP569-D 

13 

2011, after his law license had been administratively suspended, 

Attorney Chavez contacted T.B. and told her he could represent 

her only if her case did not go to trial. He admitted to T.B. 

that his law license was suspended. In March of 2012, the Fund 

paid $1,500 to T.B. as reimbursement for her legal fees. 

¶20 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 

that Attorney Chavez committed the following counts of 

misconduct with respect to his representation of T.B.: 

[COUNT 22] By collecting a fee of $1,500 as 

payment for all pre-trial services, then failing to

fulfill his obligations under the fee agreement, 

Chavez violated SCR 20:1.5(a). 

[COUNT 23] By failing to withdraw from the case 

when he was suspended, Chavez violated 

SCR 20:1.16(a)(1). 

[COUNT 24] By failing to provide notice of his 

suspension to his client, Chavez violated 

SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b), enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(f). 

[COUNT 25] By telling [T.B.] that he could 

continue to represent her as long as she did not go to 

trial, and telling her that he would attend her case 

review on August 22, 2011 while his law license was

suspended, Chavez violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 

[COUNT 26] By failing to respond to OLR, Chavez 

violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(h). 

Representation of T.D. and J.B. (Counts 27-32) 

¶21 In May of 2010, T.D. hired Attorney Chavez to 

represent her son, J.B., in a criminal appeal. T.D. signed a 

fee agreement and paid Attorney Chavez $2,000. She gave him 

another $1,000 within the following month. Attorney Chavez had 
No. 2014AP569-D 

14 

one meeting with J.B. in July of 2010 where J.B. signed 

paperwork confirming that Attorney Chavez was to appeal his 

criminal conviction. Attorney Chavez never filed a notice of 

intent to pursue post-conviction relief in circuit court, nor 

did he file an appeal in the court of appeals. Attorney Chavez 

never informed T.D. or J.B. of his administrative suspension and 

inability to handle the appeal, nor did he withdraw from 

representation. 

¶22 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 

that Attorney Chavez committed the following counts of 

misconduct with respect to his representation of T.D. and J.B.: 

[COUNT 27] By failing to file notice in Circuit 

Court of [J.B.'s] intent to appeal, or an appeal in

the Court of Appeals, or to otherwise further [J.B.'s] 

interests, Chavez violated SCR 20:1.3. 

[COUNT 28] By collecting a fee of $3,000, then 

failing to fulfill his obligations under the fee 

agreement, Chavez violated SCR 20:1.5(a). 

[COUNT 29] By failing to withdraw from [J.B.'s] 

case when he was suspended, Chavez violated 

SCR 20:1.16(a)(1). 

[COUNT 30] By failing to protect [J.B.'s] 

appellate rights after he ended his representation,

Chavez violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 

[COUNT 31] By failing to provide notice of his 

suspension to his client, Chavez violated 

SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b), enforceable via SCR 

20:8.4(f). 

[COUNT 32] By failing to respond to OLR, Chavez 

violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(h). 
No. 2014AP569-D 

15 

Representation of J.G. (Counts 33-34) 

¶23 In May of 2010, J.G. hired Attorney Chavez in 

anticipation of criminal charges being filed against him. J.G. 

signed a fee agreement and agreed to pay Attorney Chavez $1,500 

over time. He paid Attorney Chavez at least $1,000. After his 

law license was administratively suspended, Attorney Chavez 

offered to prepare papers for J.G. in a civil case in return for 

a fee plus part of the settlement. In September of 2011, 

Attorney Chavez told the OLR that he was going to draft a 

complaint for J.G., who would then appear pro se. 

¶24 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 

that Attorney Chavez committed the following counts of 

misconduct with respect to his representation of J.G.: 

[COUNT 33] By failing to provide notice of his 

suspension to his client, and to advise his client to 

seek legal advice elsewhere, Chavez violated 

[SCR] 22.26(1)(a) and (b), enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(f). 

[COUNT 34] By failing to respond to OLR, Chavez 

violated SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(h). 

Representation of V.S. (Counts 35-41) 

¶25 In March of 2011, V.S. was charged in three Adams 

County traffic cases. In May of that year, she hired Attorney 

Chavez to represent her. She signed a fee agreement and paid 

him $500 as partial payment toward a flat fee. Attorney Chavez 

never filed a notice of appearance or took any other action on 

V.S.'s behalf. On June 27, 2011, V.S. appeared in court for a 

return date, but Attorney Chavez did not appear. Opposing 
No. 2014AP569-D 

16 

counsel informed V.S. that Attorney Chavez's license had been 

suspended. In September of 2012, the Fund paid $500 to V.S. as 

reimbursement for her legal fees. 

¶26 The OLR's complaint alleged, and the referee found, 

that Attorney Chavez committed the following counts of 

misconduct with respect to his representation of V.S.: 

[COUNT 35] By accepting funds from [V.S.] in May 

2011, and present[ing] a fee agreement that described 

pretrial and trial events through October 2011, 

knowing that he was subject to an automatic license

suspension at the close of business on June 6, 2011, 

with no apparent intention to remedy his CLE 

deficiencies prior to suspension, and with no notice 

to [V.S.] of his impending suspension, Chavez violated 

SCR 20:8.4(c). 

[COUNT 36] Prior to the June 6, 2011 suspension 

of his law license, by failing to inform [V.S.] of 

relevant case developments, including the impending

suspension of his license and his likely inability to 

appear on [V.S.'s] behalf at the June 27, 2011 

proceeding in Circuit Court, Chavez violated 

SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).15

[COUNT 37] By failing to, while his license was 

valid, enter an appearance in the Adams County 

matters, request discovery or otherwise further 

[V.S.'s] interests, Chavez violated SCR 20:1.3. 

[COUNT 38] Having accepted $500 from [V.S.], 

despite failing to perform any work on her behalf 

beyond the initial introduction and consultation, 

Chavez violated SCR 20:1.5(a). 

[COUNT 39] By failing to provide notice of his 

suspension to [V.S.] following that suspension, Chavez 

 

15 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides that a lawyer shall "keep the 

client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
No. 2014AP569-D 

17 

violated [SCR] 22.26(1)(a) and (b), enforceable via

SCR 20:8.4(f). 

[COUNT 40] Subsequent to his June 6, 2011 

license suspension and the consequent termination of 

his representation of [V.S.], by failing to respond to 

her inquiries regarding case status, particularly 

regarding his failure to appear in court on June 27, 

2011; by failing to return [V.S.'s] case file; and 

failing to return any unearned portion of the advanced 

fee, Chavez violated SCR 20:1.16(d). 

[COUNT 41] By failing to respond to OLR's 

investigation of [V.S.'s] grievance, Chavez violated 

SCR 22.03(2) and (6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 

¶27 The referee recommended that Attorney Chavez's license 

be suspended for a period of one year. The referee also 

recommended that Attorney Chavez be ordered to pay restitution 

of $3,000 to T.D. (T.D. and J.B. matter) and that he be ordered 

to pay restitution to the Fund in the amounts of $1,500 for 

T.B., $500 for V.S., and $5,000 for G.N. The referee also 

recommended that Attorney Chavez be required to pay the full 

costs of the proceeding. 

¶28 Attorney Chavez has not filed an appeal from the 

referee's report. 

¶29 We agree with the referee that Attorney Chavez should 

be declared in default. Although Attorney Chavez was personally 

served with the complaint and was given notice of the hearing on 

the motion for default judgment, he failed to appear or present 

a defense. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to declare him 

in default. 

¶30 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 

clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 
No. 2014AP569-D 

18 

See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 

2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. The court may 

impose whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of the 

referee's recommendation. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 

¶31 We agree with the referee that the allegations in the 

OLR's complaint have been established and that Attorney Chavez 

engaged in the 41 counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint. 

We further agree that a one-year suspension of his license to 

practice law in Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction for the 

misconduct, and we agree that he should pay the full costs of 

the proceeding. Finally, we agree that Attorney Chavez should 

be ordered to make restitution as recommended by the referee. 

¶32 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Ernesto Chavez to 

practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, 

effective the date of this order. 

¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 

of this order, Ernesto Chavez shall make restitution as follows: 

$3,000 to T.D. (T.D. and J.B. matter); and $7,000 to the 

Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, consisting of 

$1,500 on behalf of T.B., $500 on behalf of V.S., and $5,000 on 

behalf of G.N. 

¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 

of this order, Ernesto Chavez shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $677.58. 
No. 2014AP569-D 

19 

¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 

above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation. 

¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 

already done so, Ernesto Chavez shall comply with the provisions 

of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license 

to practice law has been suspended. 
No. 2014AP569-D 

1