Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Ismael Gonzalez , 372 Wis. 2d 27 ( 2016 )

2016 WI 87
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2016AP971-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Ismael Gonzalez, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Ismael Gonzalez,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GONZALEZ
OPINION FILED: October 20, 2016
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2016 WI 87
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2016AP971-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Ismael Gonzalez, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
OCT 20, 2016
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Ismael Gonzalez,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. This is a reciprocal discipline matter.
On May 16, 2016, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a
complaint and motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22,1
1
SCR 22.22 provides: Reciprocal discipline.
(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for
misconduct or a license suspension for medical
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.
(continued)
No. 2016AP971-D
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the
effective date of the order or judgment of the other
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a judgment
or order of another jurisdiction imposing discipline
for misconduct or a license suspension for medical
incapacity of an attorney admitted to the practice of
law or engaged in the practice of law in this state,
the director may file a complaint in the supreme court
containing all of the following:
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order from the
other jurisdiction.
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the
grounds set forth in sub.(3) that the imposition of
the identical discipline or license suspension by the
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual
basis for the claim.
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of
the following is present:
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was so
lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to
constitute a deprivation of due process.
(b) There was such an infirmity of proof establishing
the misconduct or medical incapacity that the supreme
court could not accept as final the conclusion in
respect to the misconduct or medical incapacity,
(c) The misconduct justifies substantially different
discipline in this state.
(4) Except as provided in sub.(3), a final
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity
shall be conclusive evidence of the attorney's
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a
proceeding under this rule.
(continued)
2
No. 2016AP971-D
requesting this court suspend Attorney Ismael Gonzalez's license
to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of one year, as
reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the Supreme
Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First
Judicial Department, and impose costs. Upon our review, we
agree that it is appropriate to impose the same one year
suspension imposed by the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division, First Judicial Department. We decline to
award costs.
¶2 Attorney Gonzalez was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1981. Attorney Gonzalez's Wisconsin law license is
currently suspended for failure to pay annual bar dues. He was
admitted to practice law in New York in 1990 and resides in New
York.
(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint filed
under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a report
and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16. At the
hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the
imposition of discipline or license suspension
different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction
to demonstrate that the imposition of identical
discipline or license suspension by the supreme court
is unwarranted.
(6) If the discipline or license suspension imposed in
the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any reciprocal
discipline or license suspension imposed by the
supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the stay
expires.
3
No. 2016AP971-D
¶3 The following facts are taken from the documents
attached to the OLR's complaint relating to the New York
disciplinary proceedings. On August 11, 2015, the New York
Appellate Division Supreme Court First Judicial Department
suspended Gonzalez's law license for one year, effective
September 10, 2015, based upon 12 counts of misconduct involving
five clients, violation of escrow rules, and failure to file
income tax returns for specific years. Gonzalez's misconduct
included: belligerent and verbal abuse towards his client's
wife; threatening his client's wife that he would have his
client arrested and deported; communicating information to the
immigration authorities that he wanted his client arrested and
deported; falsely telling the immigration authorities that his
client would not appear for his deferred inspection appointment;
and intentionally damaging his client during the course of the
professional relationship. He also entered into several written
retainer agreements that contained a nonrefundable clause,
delayed filing a bankruptcy petition for 21 months, and failed
to file federal and state personal income tax returns for 2002
through 2007.
¶4 The Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate
Division, First Judicial Department found that Gonzalez violated
the Code of Professional Responsibility by: "conduct adversely
reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer, in violation of Code of
Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(a)(7) (22 NYCRR
1200.3[a][7]"); "engaging in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit and misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-
4
No. 2016AP971-D
102(a)(4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][4]"); "intentionally prejudicing
or damaging his client, during the course of the professional
relationship, in violation of DR 7-101(a)(3) (22 NYCRR
1200.32[a][3]"); entering into a written retainer agreement with
clients that contained a non-refundable fee clause, in violation
of Rule 1.5(d)(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR
1200.0); neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, in
violation of Rule 1.3(b); causing a cash withdrawal in the
amount of $1,400.00 from his master escrow account, not to a
named payee, thereby violating Rule 1.15(e); and engaging in
conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer by
failing to file federal and state personal income tax returns
for the years 2002 through 2007, in violation of DR 1-102(a)(7).
¶5 In addition, Gonzalez did not notify the OLR of the
New York suspension within 20 days of its effective date.
¶6 The OLR complaint alleged that, by virtue of the New
York disciplinary one year suspension, Gonzalez is subject to
reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22 and
that, by failing to notify the OLR of his suspension in New York
for professional misconduct within 20 days of the effective date
of its imposition, Gonzalez violated SCR 22.22(1).
¶7 The OLR asks this court to suspend Attorney Gonzalez's
Wisconsin law license for one year as discipline reciprocal to
that imposed in New York and to impose costs.
¶8 On August 10, 2016, this court directed Attorney
Gonzalez to inform the court in writing within 20 days of any
claim by him, predicated upon the grounds set forth in SCR
5
No. 2016AP971-D
22.22(3), that the imposition of discipline reciprocal to that
imposed in New York would be unwarranted, and of the factual
basis for any such claim. No response was received.
¶9 Under SCR 22.22(3), in reciprocal discipline matters,
this court shall impose the identical discipline unless one of
the exceptions enumerated in the rule is shown. There is no
indication that any of those exceptions apply in this case.
Therefore, we impose discipline identical to that imposed by the
Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First
Judicial Department.
¶10 We decline to impose the costs of this proceeding on
Attorney Gonzalez. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Hooker, 2012 WI 100, ¶26, 343 Wis. 2d 397, 816 N.W.2d 310
(noting that in reciprocal discipline cases where a referee is
not appointed, costs are generally not imposed as there are no
referee expenses and the proceedings are less involved).
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Ismael Gonzalez to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year,
effective the date of this order.
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not
already done so, Ismael Gonzalez shall comply with the
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order, as well as compliance with all
conditions of the disciplinary orders imposed on him by the
Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First
6
No. 2016AP971-D
Judicial Department, is required for reinstatement. See SCR
22.29(4)(c).
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative
suspension of Ismael Gonzalez's license to practice law in
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues, will
remain in effect until the administrative suspension has been
rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).
7
No. 2016AP971-D
1