Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Albert J. Armonda
Citation: 2003 WI 136
Docket Number: 2003AP001652-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: October 28, 2003

2003 WI 136 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-1652-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Albert J. Armonda, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Albert J. Armonda,  
          Complainant. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ARMONDA 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 28, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 136 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  03-1652-D  
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Albert J. Armonda, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Albert J. Armonda,  
 
          Complainant. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 28, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This case is before us under SCR 22.121 
on a stipulation between the parties, Attorney Albert J. 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides:  Stipulation. 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee.  
No. 
03-1652-D   
 
2 
 
Armonda, and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  The 
stipulation consists of Attorney Armonda's admission of the 
facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR and his agreement to the 
level of discipline that the OLR is seeking. 
¶2 
We accept the stipulation and determine that the 
seriousness of Attorney 
Armonda's 
misconduct 
warrants the 
imposition of the recommended 60-day suspension. 
¶3 
Attorney Armonda was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1996.  He has had four prior administrative 
suspensions for failing to comply with mandatory CLE reporting 
requirements and for nonpayment of State Bar dues.   
¶4 
The complaint against him which is the subject of this 
stipulation covers nine counts and involves six clients.   
¶5 
Count One concerns a grievance filed against Attorney 
Armonda by a client.  Attorney Armonda failed to act on the 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. 
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint.  
No. 
03-1652-D   
 
3 
 
OLR's request that he respond to that grievance, a violation of 
SCR 22.03(6).2   
¶6 
Counts Two through Six concern Attorney Armonda's 
representation of a married couple.  When he agreed to represent 
them he was under an administrative suspension and did not 
inform them of this fact.  This constituted a violation of SCR 
31.10(1),3 SCR 20:8.4(f),4 and SCR 20:8.4(c).5  Once he did begin 
                                                 
2 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: "(6) In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, 
the 
respondent's wilful 
failure 
to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
3 SCR 31.10(1) provides: 
(1) 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 
state 
bar 
membership 
of 
the 
lawyer 
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 and to each judge of 
a court of record in this state. A lawyer shall not 
engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin while his 
or her state bar membership is suspended under this 
rule. 
4 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides: "Misconduct. It is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to: (f) violate a statute, supreme court 
rule, supreme court order or supreme court decision regulating 
the conduct of lawyers." 
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "Misconduct. It is professional 
misconduct for a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 
No. 
03-1652-D   
 
4 
 
to represent them, Attorney Armonda failed to take action on 
their claim, failed to communicate with them, and failed to 
return their documents and $750 retainer fee, all in violation 
of SCR 20:1.3,6 SCR 20:1.4(a),7 and SCR 20:1.16(d).8   
¶7 
Count 
Seven 
relates 
to 
Attorney 
Armonda's 
representation of a divorce client.  He failed to appear at a 
pretrial conference and also to comply with opposing counsel's 
discovery requests, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.   
¶8 
Counts Eight and Nine pertain to Attorney Armonda's 
representation of another married couple in a bankruptcy matter.  
They filed a grievance against him and he attempted to have them 
withdraw the grievance.  In addition, he failed to forward an 
$800 check to their mortgage company as they requested.  These 
actions were in violation of SCR 21.15(4),9 SCR 22.03(2),10 and 
SCR 20:1.15(a).11   
                                                 
6 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "Diligence. A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
7 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: "(a) A lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly 
comply with reasonable requests for information." 
8 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
(d) 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 that has not been earned. 
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law.  
9 SCR 21.15(4) provides: 
No. 
03-1652-D   
 
5 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
(4) Every 
attorney 
shall 
cooperate 
with 
the 
office of lawyer regulation in the investigation, 
prosecution and disposition of grievances, complaints 
filed with or by the director, and petitions for 
reinstatement. 
An 
attorney's 
wilful 
failure 
to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
office 
of 
lawyer 
regulation 
constitutes violation of the rules of professional 
conduct for attorneys.  
10 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
(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. 
11 SCR 20:1.15(a) provides: 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from 
the lawyer's own property, that property of clients 
and third persons that is in the lawyer's possession 
in connection with a representation or when acting in 
a fiduciary capacity. Funds held in connection with a 
representation or in a fiduciary capacity include 
funds held as trustee, agent, guardian, personal 
representative of an estate, or otherwise. All funds 
of clients and third persons paid to a lawyer or law 
firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable 
trust accounts as provided in paragraph (c). The trust 
account shall be maintained in a bank, savings bank, 
trust 
company, 
credit 
union, 
savings 
and 
loan 
association or other investment institution authorized 
to do business and located in Wisconsin. The trust 
account shall be clearly designated as "Client's 
Account" or "Trust Account" or words of similar 
import. No funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm, 
except funds reasonably sufficient to pay or avoid 
No. 
03-1652-D   
 
6 
 
¶9 
The parties advise the court that the terms of this 
stipulation were not bargained for or negotiated between the 
parties.  Attorney Armonda admits the facts and misconduct 
alleged by the OLR and agrees to the level of discipline that 
the OLR seeks.  He further indicates that he fully understands 
the misconduct allegations, the ramifications should the court 
impose the stipulated level of discipline, his right to contest 
the matter including consultation with retained counsel, and 
that his entry into the stipulation is knowing and voluntary.   
¶10 The 
OLR 
submits 
that 
an 
appropriate 
level 
of 
discipline is a 60-day suspension.  It notes that in similar 
cases, an example being In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Baehr, 2002 WI 17, 250 Wis. 2d 541, 639 N.W.2d 708, a longer 
suspension was ordered.  However, the OLR believes a shorter 
suspension is warranted in this case because Attorney Armonda 
does not have any prior substantive suspensions, it accepts his 
                                                                                                                                                             
imposition 
of 
account 
service 
charges, 
may 
be 
deposited in such an account. Unless the client 
otherwise directs in writing, securities in bearer 
form shall be kept by the attorney in a safe deposit 
box in a bank, savings bank, trust company, credit 
union, 
savings 
and 
loan 
association 
or 
other 
investment institution authorized to do business and 
located in Wisconsin. The safe deposit box shall be 
clearly designated as "Client's Account" or "Trust 
Account" or words of similar import. Other property of 
a client or third person shall be identified as such 
and 
appropriately 
safeguarded. If 
a 
lawyer 
also 
licensed in another state is entrusted with funds or 
property 
in 
connection 
with 
an 
out-of-state 
representation, this provision shall not supersede the 
trust account rules of the other state. 
No. 
03-1652-D   
 
7 
 
explanation that during the time of these violations he was 
suffering from health problems, he is remorseful for his 
conduct, and he has cooperated with the OLR except as otherwise 
noted.   
¶11 In conclusion, we accept the stipulation of the 
parties.  Attorney Armonda's misconduct represents a serious 
failure to comply with the specified Rules of Professional 
Conduct.  Furthermore, the level of discipline requested by the 
OLR is appropriate for this misconduct. 
¶12 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Armonda to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 
effective December 2, 2003. 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Armonda comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an 
attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended.  
 
No. 
03-1652-D   
 
 
 
1