Court Opinion

ID: 9684013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:44:29.93353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:52.245907
License: Public Domain

LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J.
¶ 23. {concurring in part, dissenting in part). I join the court's decision and order as to the discipline imposed in this action. I write separately because I disagree with the court that full costs should be imposed in this case. For the reasons stated in my concurring in part, dissenting in part opinions in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Polich, 2005 WI 36, 279 Wis. 2d 266, 694 N.W.2d 367 and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Backes, 2005 WI 59, 281 Wis. 2d 1, 697 N.W.2d 49, because Attorney Gamino was absolved of any misconduct in the matters involving H.S. and R.S., see per curiam op., ¶ 13, and J.J., see per curiam op., ¶ 15, I would not assess any costs associated with the counts involving those matters. Until our new rule goes into effect,1 I would not assess costs against an attorney in unrelated, unsuccessful counts where no misconduct has been found concerning a particular client. Such an assessment is simply not supported by the purposes underlying the factors we currently consider in determining the appropriate level of discipline where the misconduct is rooted in unrelated matters.
¶ 24. I therefore respectfully dissent from that portion of the court's opinion that assesses full costs against Attorney Gamino. I concur with the remainder of the decision.
*11¶ 25. I am authorized to state that Justice PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK joins this concurring in part, dissenting in part opinion.

 1 recognize that this court recently adopted an amendment to the rules that establishes the criteria to be applied in situations such as this when assessing costs. That amendment has not yet taken effect.