Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Pablo Carranza
Citation: 2014 WI 121
Docket Number: 2014AP001242-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: November 13, 2014

2014 WI 121 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP1242-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Pablo Carranza, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Pablo Carranza, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CARRANZA 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 13, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
BRADLEY, J., concurs. (Opinion filed.) 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 121
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2014AP1242-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Pablo Carranza, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Pablo Carranza, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 13, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Pablo Carranza has filed a 
petition for voluntary revocation of his license to practice law 
in Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.19.1  
                                                 
1 SCR 22.19 provides:  
(1)  An attorney who is the subject of an 
investigation 
for 
possible 
misconduct 
or 
the 
respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme 
court a petition for the revocation by consent or his 
or her license to practice law.  
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
2 
 
Attorney Carranza is the subject of eleven Office of Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
grievance 
investigations 
in 
which 
the 
Preliminary Review Committee (PRC) found cause to proceed with a 
total of 38 counts of misconduct.  In addition, Attorney 
Carranza is the subject of two additional pending OLR grievance 
matters that have not yet been fully investigated by the OLR or 
brought to the PRC.  Attorney Carranza states in his petition 
that 
he 
cannot 
successfully 
defend 
against 
the 
multiple 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2)  The petition shall state that the petitioner 
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of 
misconduct. 
(3)  If a complaint has not been filed, the 
petition shall be filed in the supreme court and shall 
include the director's summary of the misconduct 
allegations being investigated.  Within 20 days after 
the date of filing of the petition, the director shall 
file in the supreme court a recommendation on the 
petition.  Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme 
court may extend the time for filing a recommendation. 
(4)  If a complaint has been filed, the petition 
shall be filed in the supreme court and served on the 
director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has 
been assigned.  Within 20 days after the filing of the 
petition, the director shall file in the supreme court 
a response in support of or in opposition to the 
petition and serve a copy on the referee.  Upon a 
showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend 
the time for filing a response.  The referee shall 
file a report and recommendation on the petition in 
the supreme court within 30 days after receipt of the 
director's response. 
(5)  The supreme court shall grant the petition 
and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or 
deny the petition and remand the matter to the 
director or to the referee for further proceedings. 
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
3 
 
allegations 
of 
misconduct 
that 
the 
OLR 
is 
currently 
investigating.   
¶2 
Attorney Carranza was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 2005.  He has no prior disciplinary violations.  
His license is, however, currently administratively suspended 
for failure to pay mandatory bar dues, failure to comply with 
reporting requirements for continuing legal education, and 
failure to cooperate with OLR investigations.   
¶3 
The OLR asks this court to order restitution in two 
matters.  Attorney Carranza acknowledges that restitution is 
appropriate.  The multiple allegations of misconduct will be 
briefly summarized. 
Matter of A.E. 
¶4 
In January 2012, A.E. hired Attorney Carranza to 
obtain a release of her boyfriend from Immigration Customs 
Enforcement.  A.E. paid Attorney Carranza a $500 advanced fee 
that was immediately deposited into Attorney Carranza's business 
account.  There was no written fee agreement.  Attorney Carranza 
thereafter failed to take any action on the immigration matter 
and failed to respond to several telephone calls requesting 
information.  A.E. terminated Attorney Carranza's services and 
requested a refund of her advanced fee.  Attorney Carranza did 
not refund the advanced fee. 
¶5 
In a subsequent investigative interview with the OLR, 
Attorney Carranza stated he had not yet prepared a final 
accounting but agreed A.E. was entitled to a refund.  Attorney 
Carranza repeatedly promised and failed to provide a final 
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
4 
 
accounting and failed to refund the $500 advanced fee to A.E.  
The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney Carranza for 
alleged violations of SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m),2 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)b., 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m) provides: 
A lawyer who accepts advanced payments of fees 
may deposit the funds in the lawyer's business 
account, provided that review of the lawyer’s fee by a 
court of competent jurisdiction is available in the 
proceeding to which the fee relates, or provided that 
the lawyer complies with each of the following 
requirements: 
a.  Upon accepting any advanced payment of fees 
pursuant to this subsection, the lawyer shall deliver 
to the client a notice in writing containing all of 
the following information: 
1.  the amount of the advanced payment; 
2.  the basis or rate of the lawyer's fee; 
3.  any expenses for which the client will be 
responsible; 
4.  that the lawyer has an obligation to refund 
any unearned advanced fee, along with an accounting, 
at the termination of the representation; 
5.  that the lawyer is required to submit any 
unresolved 
dispute 
about 
the 
fee 
to 
binding 
arbitration within 30 days of receiving written notice 
of such a dispute; and 
6.  the ability of the client to file a claim 
with the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection 
if the lawyer fails to provide a refund of unearned 
advanced fees. 
b.  Upon termination of the representation, the 
lawyer shall deliver to the client in writing all of 
the following: 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
5 
 
SCR 20:1.16(d),3 and SCR 22.03(6),4 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).5  
We direct Attorney Carranza to pay restitution to A.E. in the 
amount of $500. 
                                                                                                                                                             
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 
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. 
c.  Upon timely receipt of written notice of a 
dispute from the client, the lawyer shall attempt to 
resolve that dispute with the client, and if the 
dispute is not resolved, the lawyer shall submit the 
dispute to binding arbitration with the State Bar Fee 
Arbitration Program or a similar local bar association 
program within 30 days of the lawyer's receipt of the 
written notice of dispute from the client. 
d.  Upon 
receipt 
of 
an 
arbitration 
award 
requiring the lawyer to make a payment to the client, 
the lawyer shall pay the arbitration award within 30 
days, unless the client fails to agree to be bound by 
the award of the arbitrator. 
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 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
6 
 
Matter of C.S.S. 
¶6 
On January 21, 2013, C.S.S. retained Attorney Carranza 
to help him renew his visa.  C.S.S. paid Attorney Carranza a 
$300 advanced fee.  Attorney Carranza took copies of all of 
C.S.S.'s documents and told C.S.S. that he would contact him in 
about two weeks and "get things filed."  Attorney Carranza 
thereafter failed to either communicate with C.S.S. or take any 
action on C.S.S.'s behalf, despite C.S.S.'s numerous attempts to 
contact Attorney Carranza by telephone, text, and email.  He 
also failed to return C.S.S.'s documents.   
¶7 
On September 10, 2013, C.S.S. filed a grievance 
against Attorney Carranza.  Attorney Carranza then failed to 
respond to several letters from the OLR requesting information 
about the matter.   
                                                                                                                                                             
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(6) provides that, "[i]n 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." 
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)." 
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
7 
 
¶8 
The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney 
Carranza for alleged violations of SCR 20:1.3,6 SCR 20:1.4(a),7 
two counts of SCR 20:1.16(d), and SCR 22.03(2),8 enforced via 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
7 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: 
A lawyer shall: 
(1)  Promptly inform the client of any decision 
or circumstance with respect to which the client's 
informed consent, as defined in SCR 20:1.0(f), is 
required by these rules; 
(2)  reasonably consult with the client about the 
means by which the client's objectives are to be 
accomplished; 
(3)  keep the client reasonably informed about 
the status of the matter; 
(4)  promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information; and 
(5)  consult with the client about any relevant 
limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer 
knows that the client expects assistance not permitted 
by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. 
8 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
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 
(continued) 
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
8 
 
SCR 20:8.4(h).  On May 13, 2014, the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for 
Client Protection (Fund) approved payment of $300 to C.S.S.  The 
parties agreed that restitution to the Fund is appropriate, and 
we direct Attorney Carranza to pay restitution to the Fund in 
the amount of $300. 
¶9 
The PRC also found cause to proceed in six client 
matters in which restitution might be appropriate, but because 
Attorney Carranza failed to provide a final accounting, the 
amount potentially owed to each client cannot be determined.  
Those matters are summarized as follows. 
Matter of M.M. 
¶10 In January 2012, M.M. retained Attorney Carranza to 
represent her in a divorce.  She paid Attorney Carranza a $2,000 
advanced fee.  There was no written fee agreement.  Attorney 
Carranza attended three motion hearings between January and May 
2013, then his communication with M.M. ceased.  A pre-trial 
conference was scheduled for August 14, 2013.  Attorney Carranza 
failed to keep M.M. informed of the status of her case and 
failed to inform her that his license was suspended on August 1, 
2013, for failing to cooperate in other OLR investigations.   
¶11 Just 
prior 
to 
the 
August 
14, 
2013 
pre-trial 
conference, Attorney Carranza telephoned M.M. and informed her 
that he was running late but would be there.  He failed to 
appear at the conference.   
                                                                                                                                                             
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
9 
 
¶12 On August 15, 2013, M.M. filed a grievance with the 
OLR against Attorney Carranza.  Attorney Carranza then failed to 
respond to several letters from the OLR seeking information.  
The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney Carranza for 
alleged 
violations 
of 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3), 
two 
counts 
of 
SCR 20:1.16(d), SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b),9 SCR 20:1.5(b)(2),10 
SCR 20:8.4(c),11 and SCR 22.03(2), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).  
To date, because Attorney Carranza has not submitted an 
accounting, the amount of a refund, if any, owed to M.M. is 
unknown. 
                                                 
9 SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b) 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. 
10 SCR 20:1.5(b)(2) provides that "[i]f 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." 
11 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. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
10 
 
Matter of C.S. 
¶13 In February 2013, C.S. retained Attorney Carranza to 
represent her in relation to pending charges of Operating While 
Intoxicated-Second and Operating with Prohibited Blood Alcohol 
Content-Second.  She paid Attorney Carranza a $1,000 advanced 
fee.  Attorney Carranza was present at C.S.'s initial appearance 
on February 28, 2013, and attended her status conferences on 
May 14, 2013, and June 26, 2013.  The next status conference was 
scheduled for August 20, 2013.  
¶14 Attorney Carranza failed to keep C.S. informed of the 
status of her case.  For the most part, he only contacted her on 
the day of her court appearances, despite the fact that C.S. 
called and left multiple messages with Attorney Carranza and 
sent him several emails.  Attorney Carranza also failed to 
inform C.S. that his license was suspended, effective August 1, 
2013.  
¶15 On August 20, 2013, Attorney Carranza sent an email to 
C.S. reminding her of a court date that afternoon.  Later that 
day, Attorney Carranza texted C.S. and told her he was late for 
her status conference because he was at a doctor's appointment.  
At the status conference, the court informed C.S. that Attorney 
Carranza could no longer represent her.  C.S. subsequently 
texted Attorney Carranza, who told her he would line up another 
attorney to represent her and that she would not have to "shell 
out any more money."  The next day, C.S. texted Attorney 
Carranza that she had discovered that his license was suspended 
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
11 
 
and asked for a refund.  Attorney Carranza never responded to 
this text message.  
¶16 On August 21, 2013, C.S. filed a grievance with the 
OLR against Attorney Carranza.  Attorney Carranza then failed to 
respond to multiple letters from the OLR seeking information.  
The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney Carranza for 
alleged violations of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4), two counts of 
SCR 20:1.16(d), SCR 22.26(1)(a) and (b), SCR 20:8.4(c), and 
SCR 22.03(2), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).  To date, because 
Attorney Carranza has not submitted an accounting, the amount of 
a refund, if any, owed to C.S. is unknown. 
Matter of R.A. 
¶17 In the spring of 2010, R.A. hired Attorney Carranza to 
advise him about options relating to his personal and business 
debts.  On June 25, 2010, R.A. paid Attorney Carranza a $1,000 
advanced fee.  Over the next nineteen months, Attorney Carranza 
and R.A. had several conversations about R.A.'s financial 
problems, including the option of filing bankruptcy.  In August 
2010, Attorney Carranza closed his office and moved, and failed 
to notify R.A.   
¶18 On December 22, 2011, R.A. contacted the OLR to file a 
grievance.  The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney 
Carranza on an alleged violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).  To date, 
Attorney Carranza has not submitted an accounting in this 
matter, so the amount of a refund, if any, owed to R.A. is 
unknown.  
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
12 
 
Matter of A.A.  
¶19 On June 2, 2009, A.A. hired Attorney Carranza to 
represent his brother in connection with a criminal sexual 
assault case filed in Jefferson County.  Because a jury trial 
was scheduled within nine days, Attorney Carranza informed A.A. 
that he would only represent the brother if the judge agreed to 
reschedule the trial date.  A.A. paid Attorney Carranza an 
advanced fee of $2,500.  The trial court declined to reschedule 
the trial.  Attorney Carranza then agreed to act in a 
consultation capacity.  After the brother entered a no contest 
plea, Attorney Carranza agreed to represent him in a subsequent 
immigration deportation case.  
¶20 Attorney Carranza apparently did some legal research 
into the possibility of getting the brother deported before 
finishing his prison sentence, but found out this was unlikely.  
Attorney Carranza advised A.A. that pursuing such a strategy 
would probably not result in a sentence modification.  A.A. 
asked if there would be any money refunded.  Attorney Carranza 
informed him that he would do a final bill and refund any 
leftover money.  In August 2010, Attorney Carranza closed his 
law office and moved.  Attorney Carranza failed to notify A.A. 
of his move.  
¶21 On March 26, 2012, A.A. filed a grievance with the OLR 
against Attorney Carranza.  The PRC found cause to proceed 
against 
Attorney 
Carranza 
for 
alleged 
violations 
of 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4), SCR 20:1.l5(b)(4m)b, and SCR 22.03(6), 
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).  Attorney Carranza promised and 
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
13 
 
failed to prepare a final accounting, so the amount of 
restitution owed, if any, to A.A. is unknown.   
Matter of G.S. 
¶22 In January 2012, G.S. and his wife (collectively, 
G.S.) retained Attorney Carranza to prepare and file a Chapter 7 
bankruptcy on their behalf.  G.S. paid Attorney Carranza an 
advanced fee of $1,200.  In late May or early June 2012, G.S. 
informed Attorney Carranza that he wanted the bankruptcy filed 
immediately.  Attorney Carranza informed G.S. that there were 
information and documents still needed before the bankruptcy 
could be filed.  
¶23 On June 15, 2012, G.S. contacted the OLR to file a 
grievance against Attorney Carranza, complaining that Attorney 
Carranza had taken no action on the bankruptcy and had failed to 
respond to requests for information during the representation.  
On June 21, 2012, Attorney Carranza filed the Chapter 7 
bankruptcy.  However, Attorney Carranza then failed to respond 
to several requests for information from the OLR, resulting in 
this court issuing an order directing Attorney Carranza to 
respond or face temporary license suspension for willful failure 
to cooperate in an OLR investigation.  
¶24 Attorney Carranza then emailed a response to the OLR.  
At a subsequent investigative interview, Attorney Carranza 
admitted that G.S. had problems contacting him and that "[t]here 
were various stretches where I just wasn't returning their 
calls."  Attorney Carranza then failed to provide a promised 
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
14 
 
final accounting despite numerous written reminders from the 
OLR.  
¶25 The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney 
Carranza 
for 
alleged 
violations 
of 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(4), 
SCR 22.03(2), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h), and SCR 22.03(6), 
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).  To date, because Attorney Carranza 
has not submitted an accounting, the amount of a refund, if any, 
owed to G.S. is unknown.  
Matter of K.M. 
¶26 On January 16, 2012, K.M. retained Attorney Carranza 
to prepare and file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  K.M. paid Attorney 
Carranza a $600 advanced fee.  Attorney Carranza represented 
K.M. for about six months.  On June 20, 2012, K.M. left a 
voicemail message informing Attorney Carranza that she was 
discharging him and requesting that Attorney Carranza forward 
her $600 advanced fee to her new attorney.  
¶27 K.M. then contacted the OLR on June 26, 2012, to file 
a grievance complaining that Attorney Carranza had taken no 
action on her bankruptcy, had failed to respond to her requests 
for information, and had failed to refund any unearned advanced 
fee.  Attorney Carranza then failed to respond to several 
letters from the OLR, resulting in this court issuing an order 
to show cause directing Attorney Carranza to respond within 20 
days of the order or face suspension of his license to practice 
law.  Attorney Carranza then sent an email response to OLR.  
¶28 At a subsequent investigative interview, Attorney 
Carranza admitted that K.M. was entitled to a refund, but also 
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
15 
 
stated that he had not yet prepared a final billing.  Attorney 
Carranza then failed to provide the promised final accounting to 
the OLR despite receiving several written reminders from the 
OLR.  The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney Carranza 
for alleged violations of SCR 20:1.16(d), SCR 22.03(2), enforced 
via SCR 20:8.4(h), and SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).  
To date, because Attorney Carranza has not submitted an 
accounting, the amount of a refund, if any, owed to K.M. is 
unknown.  
¶29 The PRC also found cause to proceed in three matters 
in which restitution is not an issue. 
Matter of J.S. 
¶30 In December 2006, Attorney Carranza was appointed by 
the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) to represent J.S. 
in a Dane County criminal case and probation revocation 
proceedings.  On May 7, 2007, pursuant to a plea agreement, J.S. 
was convicted.  His probation was revoked.  On May 26, 2012, 
J.S. filed a grievance with the OLR complaining that Attorney 
Carranza had failed to respond to requests from himself and the 
SPD to send copies of his case file to J.S.  
¶31 Attorney Carranza then failed to respond to several 
letters from the OLR, ultimately resulting in this court issuing 
an order directing Attorney Carranza to respond within 20 days 
of the order or face temporary license suspension.  Attorney 
Carranza then emailed a response to the OLR indicating that he 
had forwarded the requested documents to J.S.   
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
16 
 
¶32 In a subsequent investigative interview, Attorney 
Carranza agreed to provide the OLR with copies of relevant 
documents, but failed to do so despite numerous written 
reminders from the OLR.  Attorney Carranza did not submit the 
requested documents nor did he contact the OLR to explain his 
failure to submit the documents.   
¶33 The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney 
Carranza for alleged violations of SCR 20:1.16(d), SCR 22.03(2), 
enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h), and SCR 22.03(6), enforced via 
SCR 20:8.4(h).  Restitution is not sought in this matter. 
Matter of V.G. 
¶34 In April 2009, Attorney Carranza was appointed by the 
SPD to represent V.G. on several charges, including felony armed 
robbery.  On March 9, 2010, V.G. was found guilty on all counts.  
On July 25, 2012, V.G. filed an appeal, and shortly thereafter 
he asked Attorney Carranza to send him a copy of his case file.  
After not receiving a response, on August 12, 2012, V.G. sent 
Attorney Carranza another letter requesting his case file.  
¶35 On September 11, 2012, V.G. filed a grievance with the 
OLR because Attorney Carranza had failed to respond to his 
letters or send him a copy of his file.  
¶36 Meanwhile, in V.G.'s pending criminal appeal, the 
court of appeals ordered Attorney Carranza to advise the court 
of the status of V.G.'s request for his court file.  Attorney 
Carranza failed to respond.  The court of appeals again ordered 
Attorney Carranza to advise the court of the status of V.G.'s 
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
17 
 
request for his case file, and Attorney Carranza again failed to 
respond.  
¶37 Attorney Carranza finally emailed a response to the 
OLR, including an electronic copy of V.G.'s file.  The court of 
appeals again directed Attorney Carranza to advise the court of 
the status of the file request.  Attorney Carranza later sent a 
letter to the clerk of the court of appeals indicating that he 
had sent V.G. the file as part of his correspondence to the OLR.  
¶38 The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney 
Carranza 
for 
alleged 
violations 
of 
SCR 20:1.16(d) 
and 
SCR 20:3.4(c).12  Restitution is not an issue in this matter. 
Matter of Attorney Carranza 
¶39 In April 2013, Attorney Carranza was convicted, 
following entry of a no contest plea, to misdemeanor Operating 
While Under Influence-Second.  Attorney Carranza did not report 
his conviction to the OLR or to the clerk of the supreme court 
and, when the OLR learned of the conviction, failed to respond 
to several notices from the OLR directing him to respond.  The 
PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney Carranza for alleged 
violations 
of 
SCR 20:8.4(b),13 
SCR 21.15(5),14 
enforced 
via 
                                                 
12 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." 
13 SCR 20:8.4(b) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely 
on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer 
in other respects." 
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
18 
 
SCR 20:8.4(f),15 and SCR 22.03(2), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).  
Restitution is not an issue in this matter. 
¶40 There are also two matters in which the OLR's 
investigation is still pending; one may warrant restitution.   
Matter of M.F. 
¶41 In July 2012, M.F. retained Attorney Carranza to 
represent her husband, G.F., regarding his immigration status 
after he was convicted of misappropriating identification 
information. 
¶42 M.F. paid Attorney Carranza a $2,500 advanced fee, and 
Attorney Carranza prepared a notice of retainer for both the 
state criminal case and the immigration matter.  Attorney 
Carranza did not appear at G.F.'s initial immigration hearing on 
August 23, 2012.  After Attorney Carranza failed to appear at 
the immigration hearing, M.F. attempted to contact him to ask 
                                                                                                                                                             
14 SCR 21.15(5) provides: 
An attorney found guilty or convicted of any 
crime on or after July 1, 2002, shall notify in 
writing the office of lawyer regulation and the clerk 
of the Supreme Court within 5 days after the finding 
or conviction, whichever first occurs.  The notice 
shall include the identity of the attorney, the date 
of finding or conviction, the offenses, and the 
jurisdiction.  An attorney’s failure to notify the 
office of lawyer regulation and clerk of the supreme 
court of being found guilty or his or her conviction 
is misconduct. 
15 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. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
19 
 
for a refund of at least part of the advanced fee.  Attorney 
Carranza failed to respond.  
¶43 On October 10, 2013, M.F. filed a grievance with the 
OLR complaining that Attorney Carranza failed to take any action 
on her husband's immigration matter, failed to respond to 
requests for information, and failed to respond to her requests 
for a return of unearned fees.  Attorney Carranza then failed to 
respond to the OLR's requests for information.  
¶44 The OLR is investigating allegations that Attorney 
Carranza's conduct may have violated SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a), 
SCR 20:1.16(d), and SCR 22.03(2).  To date, because Attorney 
Carranza has not submitted an accounting, the amount of a 
refund, if any, owed to M.F. is unknown. 
Matter of L.W. 
¶45 In July 2012, Attorney Carranza retained L.W. to 
provide expert witness testimony.  L.W. initially requested a 
$1,000 retainer.  Attorney Carranza told L.W. that because his 
client was a Mexican citizen, the Mexican Consulate would pay 
the fee.  L.W. agreed to handle the case with the expectation 
that his fees would be paid by the Mexican authorities.  
Beginning in February 2013, L.W. submitted bills to Attorney 
Carranza via email.  When L.W. did not receive payment, he 
inquired if Attorney Carranza had received any payments from the 
Mexican Consulate.  Attorney Carranza did not respond nor has 
L.W. ever received any payment for his work.   
¶46 On October 3, 2013, L.W. filed a grievance with the 
OLR against Attorney Carranza.  Attorney Carranza then failed to 
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
20 
 
respond to the OLR's requests for information.  The OLR is 
investigating allegations that Attorney Carranza's conduct may 
have violated SCR 20:1.15(b), SCR 20:8.4(c), and SCR 22.03(2).  
¶47 To date, Attorney Carranza has failed to pay L.W.'s 
$1,000 fee.  However, the OLR explains that "[b]ecause the fee 
was 
never 
under 
Carranza's 
control, 
OLR 
is 
not 
seeking 
restitution." 
¶48 Attorney Carranza's petition for consensual revocation 
states 
that 
he 
cannot 
successfully 
defend 
against 
the 
allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the OLR's 
summary of the matters being investigated.  His petition asserts 
that he is seeking consensual revocation freely, voluntarily, 
and knowingly.  He states that he understands he is giving up 
his right to contest the OLR's allegations.  He states that he 
knows he has the right to counsel in this matter but has opted 
to proceed pro se.  The OLR supports Attorney Carranza's 
petition for consensual license revocation.  See SCR 22.19(3).  
The OLR asks this court to order restitution in the matter of 
A.E. and C.S.S.  
¶49 Having reviewed Attorney Carranza's petition, the 
OLR's summary of the matters it is investigating, and the OLR's 
recommendation, we accept Attorney Carranza's petition for the 
revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  See 
SCR 22.19(1), (2), and (5).  The seriousness of Attorney 
Carranza's misconduct demonstrates the need to revoke his law 
license to protect the public, the courts, and the legal system 
from the repetition of misconduct; to impress upon Attorney 
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
21 
 
Carranza the seriousness of his misconduct; and to deter other 
attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.  See In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Arthur, 
2005 WI 40, 
¶78, 
279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910.  Because Attorney Carranza 
petitioned for the consensual revocation of his Wisconsin law 
license before the appointment of a referee, and because the OLR 
has not requested the imposition of costs, we do not assess the 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding against Attorney Carranza.  
¶50 Concerning restitution, we determine that Attorney 
Carranza should be required to pay $300 to the Fund in 
connection with the losses caused by his actions as counsel for 
C.S.S.  We further determine that Attorney Carranza should be 
required to pay restitution to A.E. in the amount of $500.  
¶51 Finally, we note that there are several matters in 
which the OLR has advised the court that because Attorney 
Carranza failed to provide a final accounting, the appropriate 
amount of restitution owed, if any, cannot be determined.  We 
will proceed with this revocation.  Should Attorney Carranza 
ever seek reinstatement, we order that, as a condition of 
reinstatement of Attorney Carranza's license, Attorney Carranza 
shall furnish a complete accounting and prove that he has 
settled all claims related to funds potentially owed to his 
former clients, specifically including M.M., C.S., R.A., A.A., 
G.S., K.M., and M.F.  See SCR 22.29(4m) (a lawyer petitioning 
for reinstatement must prove that he or she has made restitution 
to or settled all claims of persons harmed by the lawyer's 
misconduct, or must explain the failure or inability to do so); 
No. 
2014AP1242-D   
 
22 
 
see also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mularski, 
2010 WI 113, ¶¶35, 37, 329 Wis. 2d 273, 787 N.W.2d 834 (revoking 
attorney's license and requiring attorney to show he made full 
restitution to his clients at such time as he would seek 
reinstatement).  
¶52 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Pablo Carranza's petition 
for consensual license revocation is granted.  
¶53 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Pablo 
Carranza to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the 
date of this order.  
¶54 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Pablo Carranza shall pay restitution in the 
amount of $300 to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection and in the amount of $500 to A.E. 
¶55 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of 
reinstatement of Pablo Carranza's license, Pablo Carranza shall 
furnish a complete accounting and prove that he has settled all 
claims related to funds potentially owed to his former clients, 
specifically including M.M., C.S., R.A., A.A., G.S., K.M., and 
M.F.  
¶56 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Pablo Carranza shall comply with the provisions 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.    
 
No.  2014AP1242-D.awb 
 
1 
 
¶57 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   (concurring).  I agree that 
the license of Attorney Pablo Carranza should be revoked.  I 
also agree that appropriate restitution should be ordered.  I 
write separately because I part ways with the majority on the 
issue of restitution.   
¶58 The majority in essence is simply following the 
recommendation of the OLR on the issue of restitution.  The 
recommendation, however, makes little sense to me.  I think that 
restitution should be ordered to all of Attorney Carranza's 
victims and not merely to two. 
¶59 The OLR recommends and the majority orders restitution 
in the Matter of A.E.  The majority notes that A.E. paid $500 in 
advanced fees.  It appropriately orders $500 in restitution, 
even though Attorney Carranza has not yet prepared a final 
accounting and there was no written fee agreement.   
¶60 In the second case, Matter of C.S.S., the majority 
appropriately orders $300 in restitution paid to the Wisconsin 
Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection because the Fund has already 
approved payment of $300 to the victim. 
¶61 So far, so good.  It is the majority's failure to 
order restitution in some of the remaining cases that causes me 
to pause.  And what is the reason for the majority's denial of 
the requested restitution?  "[B]ecause Attorney Carranza failed 
to prepare a final accounting."  Per curiam, ¶9; see also ¶16 
(Matter of C.S.); ¶18 (Matter of R.A.); ¶21 (Matter of A.A.); 
¶25 (Matter of G.S.); and ¶28 (Matter of K.M.). 
No.  2014AP1242-D.awb 
 
2 
 
¶62 It appears inconsistent to me that in the first case, 
Matter of A.E., restitution is ordered even though no final 
accounting has been submitted.  Yet in other cases restitution 
is denied because no final accounting has been submitted.  
¶63 In the first case Attorney Carranza apparently has 
agreed that restitution should be paid.  Yet, a policy that 
rests a restitution decision on the acquiescence of the 
disciplined lawyer is flawed.  Further, a policy that rests a 
restitution decision on whether the disciplined lawyer has yet 
prepared a final accounting is subject to all sorts of mischief.  
There is little incentive to do so, where, as here, the 
discipline is revocation. 
¶64 I would order restitution to all of the above victims 
of Attorney Carranza's unethical behavior.  To refrain from 
doing so puts the disciplined lawyer in the driver's seat.  It 
depends on the disciplined attorney's acquiescence or his 
inclination to get around to preparing a final accounting.  
Accordingly, I respectfully concur. 
 
 
No.  2014AP1242-D.awb 
 
 
 
1