Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Carlos Gamino
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2007 WI 115 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2003AP2422-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carlos Gamino, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant-Respondent, v. Carlos Gamino, Respondent-Appellant. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GAMINO OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: September 5, 2007 SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: ZIEGLER, J., did not participate. 2007 WI 115 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2003AP2422-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carlos Gamino, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant-Respondent, SEP 5, 2007 v. David R. Schanker Clerk of Supreme Court Carlos Gamino, Respondent-Appellant. ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted. ¶1 a PER CURIAM. We review referee's report recommending that Carlos Gamino's license to practice law in Wisconsin be reinstated. We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and conclude that Attorney Gamino's license to practice law should be reinstated. Attorney Gamino to pay the costs of We further direct the reinstatement proceeding, which are $4429.13, as of March 14, 2007. ¶2 Attorney Wisconsin in 1997. Gamino was licensed to practice law in His license was suspended for a period of No. 2003AP2422-D six months commencing January 24, 2006, for misconduct committed in two client matters. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gamino, 2005 WI 168, 286 Wis. 2d 558, 707 N.W.2d 132. In one matter, Attorney Gamino was found to have engaged in a sexual relationship 20:1.8(k)(2). with a client in violation of SCR In the other matter, Attorney Gamino was found to have violated SCR 20:1.7(b) for engaging in sexual relations with a client's mother. He was also found to have violated SCR 20:3.3(a)(1), SCR 20:8.4(f), and SCR 22.03(6) for making certain misrepresentations about his conduct Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). Gamino was publicly reprimanded for to a court and Subsequently, misconduct to the Attorney consisting of 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 See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gamino, violation. 2006 WI 32, 290 Wis. 2d 1, 712 N.W.2d 873. ¶3 On May 19, 2006, Attorney Gamino filed a petition for reinstatement of his license to practice law. Curry First was appointed referee. A hearing was held before the referee on November 17, 2006. Following submission of post-hearing briefs, on 2007, February 26, the referee filed a report and recommendation recommending that Attorney Gamino's reinstatement petition be granted. ¶4 convincing The referee evidence found supported that clear, Attorney satisfactory Gamino's petition and for reinstatement, and he recommended that Attorney Gamino's license 2 No. to practice law be reinstated. that Attorney Gamino be 2003AP2422-D The referee also recommended required to pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding. ¶5 The standard to be met for license is provided in SCR 22.31(1). reinstatement of a law The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating "by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence" that the lawyer has the moral character to practice law, that the lawyer's resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental justice or lawyer has complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of the suspension. In subversive of the to public the administration interest, and of that the addition, SCR 22.29(4) sets forth related requirements that a petition for reinstatement must show. All of these additional requirements are effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1). ¶6 unless This court will adopt a referee's findings of fact they are clearly reviewed de novo. erroneous. Conclusions of law are See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718. ¶7 The referee found that Attorney Gamino practiced law during his period of suspension. has not He spent his time during suspension caring for his two young children and managing his rental properties. The referee found further that Attorney Gamino has complied fully with the terms of the order of suspension, and that he has maintained competence and learning in the law, as evidenced by a memorandum from the Board of Bar Examiners. 3 No. ¶8 2003AP2422-D Attorney Gamino's wife, Attorney Tedia Gamino, and his father-in-law, William Smoler, testified in support of Attorney Gamino's petition for reinstatement. The referee stated that this testimony "established positively Gamino's post-suspension moral character and exemplary conduct." ¶9 The regarding failed referee evidence to noted suggesting disclose applications he that made that certain to the OLR expressed Attorney known refinance Gamino may have on liabilities property. concern loan However, the referee noted that the dates of the relevant loan applications preceded Attorney discussion of Gamino's the suspension and, after evidence presented, stated that further the OLR "failed in convincing this referee" that the evidence should adversely affect the petition for reinstatement. ¶10 The referee noted further that Attorney Gamino has made arrangements to pay the costs of his suspension proceeding, and is currently making monthly payments toward those costs. Ultimately, the referee found that Attorney Gamino "has substantiated each element of the Petition for Reinstatement." ¶11 referee After careful review of the record we agree with the that Attorney Gamino has established by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that he has satisfied all of the criteria necessary for reinstatement. Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and we accept Gamino's the referee's license to recommendation practice law 4 in to reinstate Wisconsin. We Attorney further No. 2003AP2422-D direct Attorney Gamino to pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding. ¶12 the IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of license of Attorney Carlos Gamino to practice law in Wisconsin is granted, effective the date of this order. ¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Gamino pay the costs of the reinstatement proceeding. If Attorney Gamino fails to pay the costs of this proceeding as required by this order, and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay, the license of Attorney Carlos Gamino to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of the court. ¶14 ANNETTE K. ZIEGLER, J., did not participate. 5 No. 1 2003AP2422-D
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
