Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Robert Paul D'Arruda
Citation: 2015 WI 62
Docket Number: 2014AP000340-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 25, 2015

2015 WI 62 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP340-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Robert Paul D'Arruda, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Robert Paul D'Arruda, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST D’ARRUDA 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 25, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 62
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2014AP340-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Robert Paul D'Arruda, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Robert Paul D'Arruda, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 25, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of Referee James J. Winiarski that Attorney Robert Paul D'Arruda 
be declared in default, that his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be suspended for a period of three years for 
professional misconduct, that he be required to pay restitution, 
and that he pay the full costs of this proceeding, which are 
$2,379.96 as of April 13, 2015.   
No. 
2014AP340-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We declare Attorney D'Arruda to be in default.  We 
agree with the referee that Attorney D'Arruda's professional 
misconduct warrants a three-year license suspension.  We further 
agree 
that 
Attorney 
D'Arruda 
should 
be 
ordered 
to 
make 
restitution and to pay the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney D'Arruda was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1993 and practiced in Milwaukee.  His license to 
practice law in Wisconsin was temporarily suspended on April 16, 
2014, as a result of his willful failure to cooperate in several 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) investigations concerning his 
conduct.  His law license is also administratively suspended for 
failure to pay State Bar dues, failure to comply with continuing 
legal education requirements, and failure to file a trust 
account certification.  
¶4 
Attorney D'Arruda's professional disciplinary history 
consists of a 2011 private reprimand for misconduct in two 
felony defense matters.  In one matter, Attorney D'Arruda failed 
to provide a written fee agreement or receipt to the client for 
a $5,000 payment he received.  In the second matter, Attorney 
D'Arruda failed to provide a written fee agreement when he knew 
the total cost of representation would exceed $1,000.  He also 
failed to respond to multiple OLR communications.  Private 
Reprimand No. 2011-09.  In 2013, Attorney D'Arruda was publicly 
reprimanded for misconduct in four client matters.  The 
misconduct at issue in that case included failure to communicate 
with a client, failure to provide a final accounting or refund 
unearned fees, failure to hold an advanced fee in trust or 
No. 
2014AP340-D   
 
3 
 
refund the unearned fee, failure to turn over a client's file to 
appellate counsel in a timely fashion, and failure to cooperate 
with the OLR.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against D'Arruda, 
2013 WI 90, 351 Wis. 2d 227, 839 N.W.2d 575.   
¶5 
On February 12, 2014, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging that Attorney D'Arruda had engaged in ten counts of 
misconduct.  An amended complaint alleging 17 counts of 
misconduct was filed on July 24, 2014.  A second amended 
complaint alleging 42 counts of misconduct was filed on 
October 22, 2014.  Attorney D'Arruda failed to file an answer to 
the complaint, amended complaint, or second amended complaint.  
He also failed to appear at multiple telephonic scheduling 
conferences.   
¶6 
On January 6, 2015, the OLR filed a motion for default 
judgment.  On January 20, 2015, the referee issued an order 
advising Attorney D'Arruda that if an answer to the second 
amended complaint was not filed by February 16, 2015, default 
judgment would be entered.  Attorney D'Arruda failed to file an 
answer to the second amended complaint or otherwise appear in 
the case.  On March 11, 2015, the referee issued an order 
recommending that default judgment be granted to the OLR.  The 
referee's report and recommendation followed on March 24, 2015. 
¶7 
The allegations in the OLR's second amended complaint, 
which are discussed in detail in the referee's report, will not 
be extensively repeated here.  We will briefly summarize the 
incidents giving rise to the misconduct.  
No. 
2014AP340-D   
 
4 
 
Representation of S.N. (Counts One through Three) 
¶8 
In 2011, S.N. hired Attorney D'Arruda to represent him 
in a criminal misdemeanor case in Waukesha County.  Attorney 
D'Arruda failed to promptly comply with S.N.'s reasonable 
requests for information, failed to sign a substitution request 
and promptly surrender S.N.'s file to successor counsel, and 
failed to provide the OLR with a written response to S.N.'s 
grievance. 
Representation of O.W. (Counts Four through Seven) 
¶9 
In October 2011, a probation agent took O.W. into 
custody on suspicion of manufacturing and delivering heroin and 
other parole violations.  O.W. hired Attorney D'Arruda to 
represent him in a probation revocation proceeding and against 
potential criminal charges.  Attorney D'Arruda failed to 
communicate 
with 
O.W. 
or 
respond 
to 
his 
requests 
for 
information, failed to provide final accountings, failed to 
notify O.W. that he wished to terminate the representation, 
failed to turn over O.W.'s file and refund unearned fees, and 
failed to provide the OLR with a written response to O.W.'s 
grievance. 
Grievance of W.C. (Count Eight) 
¶10 On March 2, 2012, the OLR received a written grievance 
from W.C. against Attorney D'Arruda.  Attorney D'Arruda failed 
to provide the OLR with his written response to the grievance in 
a timely fashion.  The OLR eventually determined that it had 
insufficient evidence to pursue misconduct counts directly 
related to Attorney D'Arruda's representation of W.C. 
No. 
2014AP340-D   
 
5 
 
Representation of A.M. and J.H. (Counts Nine and Ten) 
¶11 In 2012, A.M. hired Attorney D'Arruda to represent her 
son, J.H.  A.M. signed a fee agreement allowing Attorney 
D'Arruda to place his fees into his business account.  The 
agreement required Attorney D'Arruda to provide A.M. with a 
final accounting upon termination of his representation.  A.M. 
paid Attorney D'Arruda $1,600 in fees.  Attorney D'Arruda 
deposited those fees into his business account.  In April 2013, 
Attorney D'Arruda moved to withdraw from J.H.'s case because of 
a conflict.  The circuit court granted that request.  After 
withdrawal, Attorney D'Arruda failed to provide A.M. with a 
final 
accounting 
or 
notices, 
which 
Supreme 
Court 
Rule 
(SCR) 20:1.15(b)(4m) 
requires, 
regarding 
fee 
disputes 
and 
arbitration.  Attorney D'Arruda also failed to provide the OLR 
with a written response to A.M.'s grievance in a timely fashion. 
Representation of Y.L. (Counts 11-15) 
¶12 In November 2012, the state charged Y.L. with two 
felonies.  Y.L. was initially represented by a different 
attorney but, in March 2013, a friend of Y.L. contacted Attorney 
D'Arruda about representing Y.L.  The friend signed a fee 
agreement for Y.L. with Attorney D'Arruda.  The friend was not 
authorized to sign on Y.L.'s behalf.  Attorney D'Arruda never 
gave Y.L. a copy of the fee agreement.  The friend paid Attorney 
D'Arruda an advanced fee of $1,000 to represent Y.L., and later 
paid him an additional $500 in the matter.  Attorney D'Arruda 
did not appear at Y.L.'s trial, did not respond to voicemails 
and text messages from Y.L., and did not give Y.L. an accounting 
No. 
2014AP340-D   
 
6 
 
of fees, refund the $1,500, or provide Y.L. with information on 
disputing the fee.  He also failed to provide the OLR with a 
written response to Y.L.'s grievance. 
Grievance of A.A. Sr. and A.A. Jr. (Count 16) 
¶13 On April 5, 2013, the OLR received a grievance from 
A.A. Sr. 
and 
A.A. Jr. 
regarding 
Attorney 
D'Arruda's 
representation of A.A. Jr.  Attorney D'Arruda failed to file a 
timely response to the grievance.  The OLR eventually determined 
that it had insufficient evidence to prove misconduct directly 
related to Attorney D'Arruda's conduct in his representation of 
A.A. Jr.  
Grievance of S.O. (Count 17) 
¶14 On February 27, 2013, the OLR received a written 
grievance from S.O.  Attorney D'Arruda failed to file a timely 
response to the grievance.  The OLR subsequently determined that 
it had insufficient evidence to prove misconduct directly 
related to Attorney D'Arruda's conduct in his representation of 
S.O. 
Representation of D.P. (Counts 18-20) 
¶15 In December 2013, Attorney D'Arruda represented D.P. 
in a Milwaukee County case.  A jury trial was scheduled for 
December 2, 2013.  Attorney D'Arruda failed to appear for the 
scheduled jury trial.  Instead, another attorney appeared with a 
letter from Attorney D'Arruda addressed to the judge.  Attorney 
D'Arruda's letter represented that, as of November 26, 2013, the 
OLR had temporarily suspended Attorney D'Arruda's license to 
practice law.  Attorney D'Arruda requested that the court 
No. 
2014AP340-D   
 
7 
 
adjourn the trial.  In fact, Attorney D'Arruda's law license was 
not suspended as of either November 26 or December 2, 2013.  
Attorney D'Arruda also failed to provide the OLR with a written 
response to D.P.'s grievance in a timely fashion. 
Representation of S.N. and R.M. (Counts 21-26) 
¶16 In July 2013, the state charged S.N. with two 
misdemeanors.  In February 2014, S.N. was charged with a felony.  
On February 27, 2014, this court ordered Attorney D'Arruda to 
show cause by March 19, 2014, why his license to practice law 
should not be suspended for failure to cooperate with the OLR's 
investigation of several matters.  Attorney D'Arruda failed to 
respond to the order to show cause. 
¶17 On March 29, 2014, S.N.'s mother, R.M., hired Attorney 
D'Arruda to represent S.N. in the two criminal cases.  R.M. 
signed a fee agreement and paid Attorney D'Arruda an advanced 
fee of $2,000.  On April 10, 2014, Attorney D'Arruda appeared in 
S.N.'s misdemeanor case and filed a request for substitution of 
attorneys.  He never appeared in S.N.'s felony case.   
¶18 On April 16, 2014, this court temporarily suspended 
Attorney 
D'Arruda's 
license 
for 
noncooperation 
in 
several 
matters.  Attorney D'Arruda never notified S.N. or the judges 
presiding in her cases of his suspension.  Attorney D'Arruda did 
not give S.N. or R.M. an accounting of fees, refund the $2,000, 
or provide information on disputing the fee.  Attorney D'Arruda 
failed to respond to S.N.'s grievance.  In August 2014, the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Fund) paid R.M. 
$2,000 for reimbursement of money given to Attorney D'Arruda. 
No. 
2014AP340-D   
 
8 
 
Representation of I.P. and D.M. (Counts 27-31) 
¶19 In June 2013, the state charged I.P. with multiple 
felonies.  On January 2, 2014, I.P.'s mother, D.M., hired 
Attorney D'Arruda to represent I.P.  D.M. signed a fee agreement 
and paid Attorney D'Arruda an advanced fee of $1,500.  On 
March 3, 2014, Attorney D'Arruda appeared with I.P. at a status 
conference.  A trial date was set for May 12, 2014.  By 
April 11, 2014, D.M. had paid Attorney D'Arruda an additional 
$1,600.  On April 16, 2014, Attorney D'Arruda's license was 
temporarily suspended.  Attorney D'Arruda never notified I.P. of 
his suspension.  He failed to provide an accounting of fees, 
failed to refund fees, and failed to respond to the OLR's 
grievance investigation. 
Representation of T.S. (Counts 32-36) 
¶20 On February 22, 2014, the state charged T.S. with 
multiple 
misdemeanors. 
 
T.S. 
hired 
Attorney 
D'Arruda 
to 
represent him on April 1, 2014.  T.S. signed a fee agreement and 
paid Attorney D'Arruda an advanced fee of $500.  Attorney 
D'Arruda appeared with T.S. at a status conference on April 11, 
2014.  Attorney D'Arruda never notified T.S. that his law 
license was temporarily suspended on April 16, 2014.  He did not 
give T.S. an accounting of fees, did not refund the $500, and 
did not provide T.S. with information about disputing the fee.  
In August 2014, the Fund paid T.S. $500 for reimbursement of 
money given to Attorney D'Arruda. 
No. 
2014AP340-D   
 
9 
 
Representation of L.S. and L.L. (Counts 37-42) 
¶21 On December 4, 2013, the state charged L.S. with a 
felony.  On January 20, 2014, the state charged L.S. with 
additional felonies.  On March 5, 2014, L.S.'s friend, L.L., 
hired Attorney D'Arruda to represent L.S. in the criminal cases.  
L.L. signed a fee agreement on L.S.'s behalf and paid Attorney 
D'Arruda an advanced fee of $2,500.  Attorney D'Arruda appeared 
at a status conference on March 27, 2014.  A pretrial was 
scheduled for May and a trial date was set for June.  Attorney 
D'Arruda failed to notify L.S. or the circuit court that his law 
license was temporarily suspended on April 16, 2014.  Attorney 
D'Arruda failed to provide L.S. or L.L. with an accounting of 
fees, failed to refund the $2,500, and failed to provide 
information on disputing the fee.  Attorney D'Arruda also failed 
to respond to the OLR's request for information about L.L.'s 
grievance. 
¶22 The referee said that, although Attorney D'Arruda was 
given several extensions and was encouraged to file an answer to 
the second amended complaint, he instead chose to default.  The 
referee commented that, by failing to appear and explain his 
misconduct, Attorney D'Arruda put the referee in a most 
difficult position.  Given Attorney D'Arruda's failure to appear 
and respond to the allegations in the case, the referee found 
that the OLR met its burden of proof with respect to all 
allegations in the second amended complaint. 
¶23 With respect to the appropriate sanction, the referee 
noted that this case includes many instances where Attorney 
No. 
2014AP340-D   
 
10 
 
D'Arruda accepted monetary payments from clients for legal 
services he was to render.  In many instances, those initial 
payments by clients were placed into Attorney D'Arruda's 
business account rather than into his trust account.  Attorney 
D'Arruda repeatedly failed to provide an itemized statement to 
his clients or otherwise account for the disposition of payments 
received from his clients.  The referee said that this conduct 
was similar to that for which Attorney D'Arruda was both 
privately and publicly reprimanded in the past.  The referee 
said: 
I am most bothered by the fact that in numerous 
instances, when Attorney D'Arruda knew his license to 
practice law was going to be temporarily suspended, he 
continued to accept new cases and payments from new 
clients, knowing he was about to have his license 
temporarily suspended.  Without the benefit of an 
explanation 
from 
Attorney 
D'Arruda, 
I 
can 
only 
conclude that Attorney D'Arruda knowingly accepted 
monetary payments from new clients and that he had no 
intention of fulfilling his duties to represent the 
clients or return the money once his license was 
temporarily suspended.  In other words, Attorney 
D'Arruda intentionally took money from new clients 
with no intention of providing legal services to them 
and with no intention of refunding the money paid by 
these clients.  This is intentional misconduct of a 
most serious nature. 
¶24 The referee said that Attorney D'Arruda's misconduct 
was most serious and repetitive in nature.  The referee opined 
that a high level of discipline is needed to protect the public 
and the legal professional against such misconduct and that a 
high level of discipline is also needed to impress upon Attorney 
D'Arruda the seriousness of his misconduct and deter similar 
No. 
2014AP340-D   
 
11 
 
misconduct by other lawyers.  While the referee commented that 
Attorney D'Arruda's misconduct could justify revocation of his 
law license, the referee ultimately agreed with the level of 
discipline sought by the OLR, a three-year suspension of 
Attorney 
D'Arruda's 
license. 
 
In 
addition, 
the 
referee 
recommended that Attorney D'Arruda be ordered to pay restitution 
of $1,500 to Y.L., $2,500 to L.L., and $2,500 to the Fund 
($2,000 for S.N. and R.M.; $500 for T.S.).  Finally, the referee 
recommended that Attorney D'Arruda be required to pay the full 
costs of the proceeding. 
¶25 Attorney D'Arruda has not filed an appeal from the 
referee's report and recommendation. 
¶26 We agree with the referee that Attorney D'Arruda 
should be declared in default.  Although Attorney D'Arruda was 
personally served with the second amended 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.  
¶27 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  We 
review the referee's conclusions of law de novo.  Id.  We 
determine the appropriate level of discipline independent 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.   
¶28 We agree with the referee that the allegations in the 
OLR's second amended complaint have been established and that 
No. 
2014AP340-D   
 
12 
 
Attorney D'Arruda engaged in the 42 counts of misconduct alleged 
in the complaint.  Attorney D'Arruda violated the following 
supreme court rules, some in multiple instances:  20:1.4(a)(3) 
and (4);1 20:1.4(b);2 20:1.5(a);3 20:1.5(b);4 20:1.15(b)(4m)b.;5 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) provide that a lawyer shall "keep 
the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter" 
and "promptly comply with reasonable requests by the client for 
information." 
2 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides that "[a] lawyer shall explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding the representation." 
3 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 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP340-D   
 
13 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 
4 SCR 20:1.5(b) provides: 
(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. 
(3) A lawyer shall promptly respond to a client's 
request for information concerning fees and expenses. 
5 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)b. provides: 
Upon 
termination 
of 
the 
representation, 
the 
lawyer shall deliver to the client in writing all of 
the following: 
1. a final accounting, or an accounting from the 
date of the lawyer's most recent statement to the end 
of the representation, regarding the client's advanced 
fee payment with a refund of any unearned advanced 
fees; 
2. notice that, if the client disputes the amount 
of the fee and wants that dispute to be submitted to 
binding arbitration, the client must provide written 
notice of the dispute to the lawyer within 30 days of 
the mailing of the accounting; and 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP340-D   
 
14 
 
20:1.16(d);6 
20:3.3(a)(1);7 
20:8.4(c);8 
22.03(2) 
and 
(6),9 
enforced via 20:8.4(h);10 and 22.26,11 enforced via 20:8.4(f).12 
                                                                                                                                                             
3. notice that, if the lawyer is unable to 
resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the client 
within 30 days after receiving notice of the dispute 
from the client, the lawyer shall submit the dispute 
to binding arbitration. 
6 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. 
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 
or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law 
previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer." 
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." 
9 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 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP340-D   
 
15 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
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 
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 
the matters asserted in the grievance. 
10 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)." 
11 SCR 22.26 provides: 
(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.  
(d) Within the first 15 days after the effective 
date 
of 
suspension 
or 
revocation, 
make 
all 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP340-D   
 
16 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
arrangements for the temporary or permanent closing or 
winding up of the attorney's practice.  The attorney 
may assist in having others take over clients' work in 
progress. 
(e) Within 25 days after the effective date of 
suspension or revocation, file with the director an 
affidavit showing all of the following: 
(i) Full compliance with the provisions of the 
suspension or revocation order and with the rules and 
procedures regarding the closing of the attorney's 
practice. 
(ii) A list of all jurisdictions, including 
state, federal and administrative bodies, before which 
the attorney is admitted to practice. 
(iii) A list of clients in all pending matters 
and a list of all matters pending before any court or 
administrative agency, together with the case number 
of each matter.  
(f) Maintain records of the various steps taken 
under this rule in order that, in any subsequent 
proceeding instituted by or against the attorney, 
proof of compliance with the rule and with the 
suspension or revocation order is available.  
(2) 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.  
(3) Proof of compliance with this rule is a 
condition precedent to reinstatement of the attorney's 
license to practice law. 
No. 
2014AP340-D   
 
17 
 
¶29 We further agree with the referee that a three-year 
suspension of Attorney D'Arruda's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct.  
Although no two fact situations are identical, we find the 
misconduct at issue here somewhat analogous to the conduct at 
issue 
in 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Cooper, 
2007 WI 37, 300 Wis. 2d 61, 729 N.W.2d 206, and In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bryant, 2015 WI 7, 360 Wis. 2d 
625, 858 N.W.2d 681, in which three-year suspensions were also 
imposed.  Cooper involved 35 counts of misconduct affecting 
seven clients.  This case involves 42 counts of misconduct 
affecting 12 clients.  In all three cases, the attorneys failed 
to comply with clients' requests for information, failed to 
explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit 
clients 
to 
make 
informed 
decisions 
regarding 
the 
representations, and failed to timely respond to the OLR's 
requests for information.  Although Attorney D'Arruda's prior 
disciplinary history is not extensive, the misconduct at issue 
here is very serious and warrants a significant sanction.  We 
also agree that Attorney D'Arruda should make restitution as 
recommended by the referee and that he should be required to 
bear the full costs of this proceeding. 
                                                                                                                                                             
12 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. 
2014AP340-D   
 
18 
 
¶30 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Robert Paul D'Arruda 
to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of three 
years, effective the date of this order. 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Robert Paul D'Arruda shall make restitution as 
follows:  $1,500 to Y.L.; $2,500 to L.L.; and $2,500 to the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection. 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Robert Paul D'Arruda shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$2,379.96. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Robert Paul D'Arruda shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney 
whose license to practice law has been suspended. 
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c). 
 
 
No. 
2014AP340-D   
 
 
 
1