## Facts

- Carlos A. Gamino was a Wisconsin attorney who agreed to represent E.B. and N.B., a married couple seeking to finalize a divorce after nearly 25 years of marriage.
- On or about April 20, 2004, Gamino met with both spouses about finishing a divorce action that had been pending for about seven months.
- At the time Gamino took the matter, each spouse already had separate counsel, but the spouses wanted to save money by using one lawyer.
- Gamino did not file motions to substitute himself as counsel in the pending divorce action.
- Gamino did not obtain written confirmation that E.B. and N.B. had given informed consent to the conflict created by joint representation in the divorce.
- Neither spouse appeared for a scheduled divorce proceeding, and Gamino also failed to appear on their behalf.
- The circuit court set a dismissal hearing; again, no one appeared, and the court dismissed the divorce action.
- Months later, Gamino moved to reopen the case, but he did so representing only E.B.
- Gamino did not tell N.B. that he was no longer representing her until the date of the final divorce hearing.
- The referee found additional problems in Gamino’s handling of the divorce, including failing to obtain values for E.B.’s retirement accounts, failing to include all assets in financial disclosures, and failing to communicate adequately with N.B.
- The referee also found Gamino failed to make reasonable inquiry into matters bearing on N.B.’s interests, including her medical history and a history of domestic violence.
- The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint based on these events; after a hearing, the referee recommended an 18-month suspension, 24 ethics CLE credits, and full costs.
- Neither party appealed the referee’s report, so the matter went to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for review under SCR 22.17(2).

## Issues

1. Did Gamino commit professional misconduct by jointly representing divorcing spouses without informed written consent, later representing only one spouse in the same divorce without timely notice to the other, and failing to act with diligence, competence, and adequate communication?
2. What sanction was appropriate under the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules in light of the misconduct, the referee’s recommendations, and Gamino’s prior disciplinary record?

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the matter under SCR 22.17(2) because neither party appealed the referee’s report.
- The court concluded the referee’s findings of fact were supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence and accepted the referee’s conclusions that Gamino committed professional misconduct.
- The court suspended Gamino’s Wisconsin law license for 18 months.
- The court ordered Gamino to complete 24 continuing legal education credits approved for ethics.
- The court assessed the full costs of the disciplinary proceeding against Gamino, stated as $16,281.02 as of April 16, 2008.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may not represent clients with directly adverse interests in the same matter unless the lawyer satisfies conflict-of-interest requirements, including informed consent and appropriate documentation.
- A lawyer who changes from joint representation of both spouses to representation of only one spouse in the same divorce must address duties owed to the other spouse, including conflict limits and timely notice so the other spouse can seek separate counsel.
- Competent and diligent divorce representation includes reasonable investigation and use of financial information (including retirement-account values) and ensuring complete, accurate financial disclosures.
- A lawyer must keep clients reasonably informed and communicate material developments in the representation, including changes in whom the lawyer represents.
- When no appeal is filed from a referee’s report, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reviews the matter under SCR 22.17(2) and will accept factual findings supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.
- In setting discipline, the court considers protection of the public, the courts, and the legal profession; prior discipline and a pattern of misconduct may support a longer suspension and additional conditions such as ethics-focused CLE and costs.

## Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, reviewing the unappealed referee report under SCR 22.17(2), found that attorney Carlos A. Gamino committed multiple rule violations arising from a conflicted joint divorce representation, later acting for only the husband without timely notice to the wife, and failing to appear, investigate financial information, and communicate adequately; the court imposed an 18-month suspension, required 24 ethics CLE credits, and ordered Gamino to pay full costs.


Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gamino, 753 N.W.2d 521 (2008)