Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gamino

753 N.W.2d 521 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was licensed to practice law in Wisconsin in 1997. His law license was suspended for six months effective January 24, 2006, because he was found to have engaged in a sexual relationship with a client in one matter and a sexual relationship with a juvenile client's mother in another matter. D was publicly reprimanded on April 28, 2006, for failure to act with reasonable diligence, failure to immediately refund unearned fees, contacting a client after receiving notice that successor counsel had been retained in one matter, and for a trust account violation. D's petition for reinstatement was granted by on September 5, 2007. The misconduct at issue in this proceeding occurred in 2004, about the same time as the incidents giving rise to his prior discipline for professional misconduct. D met with N.B. and E.B. to discuss helping them finalize their divorce action that had then been pending for about seven months. The couple had been married since February 1979. Both N.B. and E.B. had separate attorneys. E.B., suggested they find one attorney to represent them both in order to save money. D agreed to represent both N.B. and E.B. D did not obtain either party's written consent to the dual representation and he failed to file the stipulations with the court. A court trial in the divorce proceeding was scheduled for June 22, 2004. On June 21, 2004, D's office contacted the court requesting an adjournment of the court trial. D was not counsel of record and it was denied. The case was placed on the dismissal calendar because neither party appeared. A notice of dismissal was sent to the parties advising them that the action was set for the July 6, 2004, dismissal calendar. No one appeared in court on July 6, 2004, and the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. D did not inform N.B. that the divorce action had been dismissed. D filed a motion to reopen the divorce case. D appeared at the hearing on behalf of E.B. N.B. did not appear at this hearing; she alleged that D failed to tell her about it. The court granted the motion to reopen the matter, and the divorce hearing was scheduled for February 3, 2005. At the final divorce hearing, D told the court that N.B. was appearing pro se and that he was representing E.B. N.B. believed that D was representing her as well as E.B. D disputes this claim but could produce no written documentation to support this assertion. D prepared the joint financial disclosure statement, but the value of E.B.'s retirement accounts was never listed, and certain monies the parties had agreed would go to N.B. were not mentioned in the marital settlement agreement. The court commissioner granted the divorce judgment and directed the marital settlement agreement be part of that judgment. The Bar complaint was filed on October 6, 2006, and alleged seven counts of professional misconduct. It is recommended that D be suspended for 18 months and required to complete 24 credits for legal ethics. The matter is now before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin,