Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Pablo Carranza , 358 Wis. 2d 522 ( 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, FILED
Complainant,
NOV 13, 2014
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Pablo Carranza,
Respondent.
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
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.
2
No. 2014AP1242-D
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
3
No. 2014AP1242-D
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)
4
No. 2014AP1242-D
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)
5
No. 2014AP1242-D
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)."
6
No. 2014AP1242-D
¶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)
7
No. 2014AP1242-D
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.
8
No. 2014AP1242-D
¶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."
9
No. 2014AP1242-D
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
10
No. 2014AP1242-D
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.
11
No. 2014AP1242-D
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
12
No. 2014AP1242-D
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
13
No. 2014AP1242-D
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
14
No. 2014AP1242-D
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.
15
No. 2014AP1242-D
¶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
16
No. 2014AP1242-D
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."
17
No. 2014AP1242-D
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."
18
No. 2014AP1242-D
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
19
No. 2014AP1242-D
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
20
No. 2014AP1242-D
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);
21
No. 2014AP1242-D
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.
22
No. 2014AP1242-D.awb
¶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.).
1
No. 2014AP1242-D.awb
¶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.
2
No. 2014AP1242-D.awb
1