Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Carlos A. Gamino
Citation: 2011 WI 42
Docket Number: 2006AP002430-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 15, 2011

2011 WI 42 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP2430-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carlos A. Gamiño, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Carlos A. Gamiño, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GAMIÑO 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 15, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2011 WI 42
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2006AP2430-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carlos A. Gamiño, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Carlos A. Gamiño, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 15, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.   Attorney's license 
reinstated with conditions.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee, Timothy L. Vocke, that Attorney Carlos A. Gamiño's 
petition seeking the reinstatement of his license to practice 
law in Wisconsin be granted.  No appeal has been filed so we 
review 
this 
matter 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 
22.17(2).1 
 
After 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
2 
 
consideration of the referee's report and the entire record, we 
agree that Attorney Gamiño's petition for reinstatement should 
be granted, but we impose conditions on his reinstatement as set 
forth herein.  We direct that the costs of the reinstatement 
proceeding, which total $7,827.83 as of December 13, 2010, be 
paid by Attorney Gamiño.   
¶2 
Attorney Gamiño was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1997.  His law license was suspended for six months 
effective January 24, 2006, because he was found to have engaged 
in a sexual relationship with a client in one matter and a 
sexual relationship with a juvenile client's mother in another 
matter.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gamiño, 2005 
WI 168, 286 Wis. 2d 558, 707 N.W.2d 132.  He also made false 
representations about his conduct to a court and to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) investigators in that matter.  
Attorney Gamiño was publicly reprimanded on April 28, 2006, for 
failure to act with reasonable diligence, failure to immediately 
refund unearned fees, contacting a client after receiving notice 
that successor counsel had been retained in one matter, and for 
a trust account violation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gamiño, 2006 WI 32, 290 Wis. 2d 1, 712 N.W.2d 873.  
Attorney Gamiño's petition for reinstatement was granted by this 
court on September 5, 2007.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
3 
 
Against Gamiño, 2007 WI 115, 305 Wis. 2d 1, 737 N.W.2d 662.  In 
2008 Attorney Gamiño was suspended for 18 months for five counts 
of misconduct relating to his handling of a family law matter in 
which he failed to obtain information essential to ensure an 
equitable division of property in a divorce proceeding.  See In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gamiño, 2008 WI 107, 314 
Wis. 2d 514, 753 N.W.2d 521.  This misconduct was committed in 
2004 and 2005. 
¶3 
On April 15, 2010, Attorney Gamiño filed a petition 
seeking reinstatement of his license to practice law.  The OLR 
opposed the petition.  Public hearings on the reinstatement 
petition were held on September 20, November 2, and November 9, 
2010.  On November 23, 2010, the referee filed a report 
recommending the court grant the petition for reinstatement.  
¶4 
Supreme court rule 22.31(1) provides the standards to 
be met for reinstatement.2  Specifically, the petitioner must 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.31(1) provides as follows: 
The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all 
of the following: 
(a) That he or she has the moral character to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
(b) That his or her resumption of the practice of 
law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest. 
(c) That 
his or her representations in the 
petition, including the representations required by 
SCR 
22.29(4)(a) 
to 
[(4m)] 
and 
22.29(5), 
are 
substantiated. 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
4 
 
show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he or 
she has the moral character to practice law, that his or her 
resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the 
administration of justice or subversive of the public interest, 
and that he or she has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of 
the order of suspension.  In addition to these requirements, 
SCRs 22.29(4)(a) through (4m)3 provide additional requirements 
                                                                                                                                                             
(d) That he or she has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
with the requirements of SCR 22.26. 
3 SCRs 22.29(4)(a) through (4m) state: 
The petition for reinstatement shall show all of 
the following: 
(a) The 
petitioner 
desires 
to 
have 
the 
petitioner's license reinstated. 
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during 
the period of suspension or revocation. 
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
will 
continue 
to 
comply 
with 
them 
until 
the 
petitioner's license is reinstated. 
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and 
learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities. 
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension 
or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach. 
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of 
and attitude toward the standards that are imposed 
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with the standards. 
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to 
the legal profession, the courts and the public as a 
person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
5 
 
that a petition for reinstatement must show.  All of these 
additional 
requirements 
are 
effectively 
incorporated 
into 
SCR 22.31(1).   
¶5 
When we review a referee's report and recommendation, 
we 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 Eisenberg, 2004 WI 
14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.   
¶6 
The OLR did not dispute that Attorney Gamiño had met 
several of the criteria needed for reinstatement.  Attorney 
Gamiño 
desires 
to 
have 
his 
license 
reinstated, 
see 
SCR 22.29(4)(a); Attorney Gamiño has not practiced law during 
the period of suspension, see SCR 22.29(4)(b); Attorney Gamiño 
                                                                                                                                                             
them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence and in general to aid in the administration 
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 
the courts. 
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. 
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license 
if reinstated. 
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation. 
(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 
petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to 
the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection for 
all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the 
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability 
to do so. 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
6 
 
has complied fully with the terms of the order of suspension and 
will continue to comply with them until his license is 
reinstated, see SCR 22.29(4)(c);4 Attorney Gamiño has maintained 
competence and learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities, see SCR 22.29(4)(d); Attorney Gamiño has 
stated his proposed use of his license if reinstated, see 
SCR 22.29(4)(j); and Attorney Gamiño provided a full description 
of all of his business activities during the period of 
suspension, see SCR 22.29(4)(k).   
¶7 
During his suspension, Attorney Gamiño worked at 
Gentile Automotive Group in Racine as a finance director.  He 
also continued to manage Gamiño Enterprises, a real estate 
rental business owned by the Gamiño family.  During his day off 
he is the primary caregiver to his four young children.  There 
appeared to be no dispute that Attorney Gamiño established 
compliance with the requirements set forth in SCR 22.26.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(h). 
¶8 
The OLR opposed Attorney Gamiño's petition on the 
grounds that he had failed to meet several of the criteria for 
reinstatement.  Attorney Gamiño's license was suspended for 
professional misconduct based on the manner in which he jointly 
represented a married couple in a divorce proceeding that 
resulted in a divorce agreement that was patently unfair to the 
                                                 
4 There was some question as to whether Attorney Gamiño had 
satisfied the requirement of obtaining adequate continuing legal 
education credits as directed by the court in its decision 
suspending Attorney Gamiño's license to practice law in 2008 but 
the referee concluded he has obtained sufficient credits.   
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
7 
 
wife, N.B.  Subsequently, N.B. filed for bankruptcy and 
eventually obtained a judgment against Attorney Gamiño for some 
$13,000.   
¶9 
The OLR opposed Attorney Gamiño's reinstatement based 
on its concerns regarding: (1) whether Attorney Gamiño obtained 
the appropriate CLE-EPR credits required by the court and as a 
condition to reinstatement; (2) whether Attorney Gamiño had 
misrepresented his financial status in regard to payment of the 
bankruptcy estate claim; and (3) the OLR's opinion that Attorney 
Gamiño had not shown any remorse as to N.B.  These factors are 
all 
relevant 
to 
whether 
Attorney 
Gamiño 
satisfied 
SCR 22.29(4)(e) (requiring Attorney Gamiño to establish that his 
conduct since the suspension or revocation has been exemplary 
and above reproach), SCR 22.29(4)(f) (requiring Attorney Gamiño 
to establish that he has a proper understanding of and attitude 
toward the standards that are imposed upon members of the bar 
and will act in conformity with the standards), SCR 22.29(4)(g) 
(requiring Attorney Gamiño to establish that he can safely be 
recommended to the legal profession, the courts, and the public 
as a person fit to be consulted by others and to represent them 
and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence and in 
general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of 
the bar and as an officer of the court), and SCR 22.29(4m) 
(requiring that Attorney Gamiño has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by his 
misconduct, including reimbursement to the Wisconsin Lawyers' 
Fund for Client Protection for all payments made from that fund, 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
8 
 
or, if not, Attorney Gamiño's explanation of his failure or 
inability to do so). 
¶10 The referee considered testimony and evidence on each 
of these points.  First, with respect to the question of the 
number of CLE credits the referee acknowledged that Attorney 
Gamiño had not filed appropriate forms with the Board of Bar 
Examiners (BBE), but testimony from BBE staff indicated Attorney 
Gamiño had, as of the date of the evidentiary hearing, completed 
in excess of the number of credits he was required to take to 
satisfy this court's conditions set forth in its prior decision 
and those needed for reinstatement.   
¶11 With respect to concerns regarding whether Attorney 
Gamiño accurately disclosed his financial situation, the referee 
stated that he was persuaded of the accuracy of the Gamiños' 
financial situation based on the referee's review of budget 
sheets, income tax returns, and the credible testimony of 
Attorney Gamiño's wife, also an attorney.  
¶12 A troubling concern articulated by the OLR pertained 
to Attorney Gamiño's alleged attitude toward his misconduct in 
the N.B. matter.  Unfortunately, the referee did not make 
extensive findings relating to this issue, stating:  
I thought that, based upon the testimony, Carlos 
Gamiño is both remorseful and embarrassed.  He brought 
up something that apparently had not been addressed 
before at the hearing on the 20th of September, and 
that was the [family he represented] were not simply 
clients but apparently acquaintances and probably 
friends of his parents going back into the 1960s.   
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
9 
 
¶13 A 
longstanding 
acquaintance 
in 
no 
way 
absolves 
Attorney Gamiño of the need to adhere to professional standards.  
However, 
the 
record 
reflects 
that 
Attorney 
Gamiño 
did 
acknowledge his misconduct with respect to his handling of the 
N.B. matter and that he felt "immense remorse" regarding the 
matter.  The testimony to which the referee refers reflects that 
Attorney Gamiño testified that his parents' acquaintance with 
the victim of his misconduct contributed to his embarrassment 
regarding the matter.  The record also reflects that Attorney 
Gamiño has entered into a payment plan to pay the judgment due 
to N.B.  Accordingly, based on these findings, including 
credibility determinations, the referee made the following 
conclusions of law: 
I conclude, as a matter of law, that [Attorney 
Gamiño has] met his burden of proof as found in 
Supreme Court Rule 22.31 as follows:  
1) That he has the moral character to practice 
law in the State of Wisconsin;  
2) That [Attorney Gamiño's] resumption of the 
practice of law will not be detrimental to the 
administration of justice or subversive of the public 
interest;  
3) That his representations in the petition, 
including 
the 
representations 
required 
by 
[SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m)] and 22.29(5), when taken into 
account with the filing of the amendment today in his 
behalf by his attorney, are substantiated; and  
4) That he has complied fully with the terms of 
the order of suspension or revocation as well as with 
the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 22.26. 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
10 
 
¶14 The court has carefully evaluated whether Attorney 
Gamiño has indeed met the requirements for reinstatement of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  We remain troubled by the 
very serious misconduct he committed and its impact on some 
vulnerable clients.  Attorney Gamiño has been suspended twice 
and publicly reprimanded once in the last five years.  His 
misconduct 
has 
included 
misrepresentation, 
improper 
sexual 
relationships 
with 
female 
clients 
in 
vulnerable 
personal 
situations, failure to act with reasonable diligence, failure to 
immediately refund unearned fees, contacting a client after 
receiving notice successor counsel had been retained, and a 
trust account violation.  However, the referee was persuaded 
that Attorney Gamiño has met the requirements for reinstatement 
and 
we 
defer 
to 
a 
referee's 
credibility 
determinations.  
Therefore, upon careful consideration of the entire record, we 
agree that Attorney Gamiño has met his burden of proof with 
respect to the elements necessary to justify reinstatement.   
¶15 We stress that we expect the exemplary behavior which 
Attorney 
Gamiño 
has 
exhibited 
during 
the 
period 
of 
his 
suspension to continue once he resumes the practice of law, and 
we remind him of the concept of progressive discipline that will 
be applied should he fail to adhere to the standard of conduct 
we expect of all attorneys licensed to practice in Wisconsin.  
See, e.g., 
 	








 "!#

 $
%'&()*(,+- .)(/%1032346587
9;:23343?A@3>3@
B
:
5C:
23323D#:    
¶16 In addition, in view of his disciplinary history, 
lingering concerns about his attention to detail as evidenced by 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
11 
 
difficulties 
establishing 
compliance 
with 
continuing 
legal 
education requirements, and in the interests of ensuring 
protection of the public, we conclude that Attorney Gamiño's 
reinstatement to the practice of law should be conditioned upon 
his supervision by a licensed attorney for a period of two years 
following his reinstatement.  The supervising attorney cannot be 
a member of Attorney Gamiño's family or the family of his wife. 
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that Carlos A. Gamiño's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin is reinstated effective the date of 
this order. 
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the reinstatement of 
Attorney Carlos A. Gamiño's license to practice law is subject 
to the following conditions: 
1. 
For a period of two years from the date he resumes the 
practice of law, Attorney Gamiño shall engage in the practice of 
law in Wisconsin under the direct supervision of a licensed 
attorney who is not a family member and who is acceptable to and 
approved by the Office of Lawyer Regulation.5 
2. 
Within ten days of the date Attorney Gamiño resumes 
the 
practice 
of 
law, 
Attorney 
Gamiño 
shall 
provide 
his 
supervising attorney with copies of all of this court's 
decisions relating to Attorney Gamiño's license to practice law, 
including our decision in this case.   
                                                 
5 This condition on Attorney Gamiño's practice is not 
intended to preclude him from practicing law with family 
members. 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
12 
 
3. 
Attorney Gamiño's supervising attorney shall have all 
the duties generally held by a supervising attorney under 
SCR 20:5.1(b).   
4. 
Attorney Gamiño's supervising attorney shall file 
quarterly reports with the Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
5. 
If Attorney Gamiño changes his place of residence or 
employment at any time during the two-year period, he shall 
promptly notify the Office of Lawyer Regulation. 
6. 
If Attorney Gamiño fails to comply with any of the 
foregoing terms and conditions, his license may be suspended.   
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Carlos A. Gamiño shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs 
are not paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to 
this court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, 
the license of Carlos A. Gamiño to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall be suspended until further order of the court. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 5 
were sealed by the referee because they contain personal 
financial information and shall remain confidential unless 
ordered by the court. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that within 60 days of the 
date of this order, Carlos A. Gamiño shall contact the State Bar 
of Wisconsin to make arrangements regarding payment of any past 
due State Bar dues and assessments, if any.   
 
No. 
2006AP2430-D   
 
 
 
1