Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Felipe N. Gomez
This text of 2023 WI 74 (Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Felipe N. Gomez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
2023 WI 74
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2023AP1034-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Felipe N. Gomez, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Felipe N. Gomez, Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GOMEZ
OPINION FILED: November 2, 2023 SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE:
JUSTICES: Per curiam.
ATTORNEYS: 2023 WI 74
NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2023AP1034-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Felipe N. Gomez, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED Complainant, NOV 2, 2023 v. Samuel A. Christensen Clerk of Supreme Court Felipe N. Gomez,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. This is a reciprocal discipline matter.
On June 12, 2023, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a
complaint and motion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22,
requesting this court suspend Attorney Felipe N. Gomez's license
to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of three years, as
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois. Attorney Gomez admitted service of OLR's complaint No. 2023AP1034-D
and motion on August 2, 2023. Upon review of the matter, we
agree that it is appropriate to impose a three year suspension,
identical to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Illinois.
¶2 Attorney Gomez was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1999. He was admitted to practice law in Illinois
in 1988. The most recent address furnished to the State Bar of
Wisconsin is in Northbrook, Illinois. Attorney Gomez's
Wisconsin law license has been administratively suspended since
June 3, 2002 for failure to comply with Wisconsin continuing
legal education requirements, and since October 31, 2003 for
failure to pay state bar dues and file a trust account
certification.
¶3 On September 21, 2022, the Supreme Court of Illinois
suspended Attorney Gomez's Illinois law license for three years.
The Illinois court found that Attorney Gomez committed
professional misconduct by sending numerous threatening and
harassing emails to other attorneys. Attorney Gomez did not
notify OLR of the Illinois suspension within 20 days of its effective date.
¶4 On August 21, 2023, this court directed Attorney Gomez
to inform the court in writing within 20 days of any claim by
him, predicated upon the grounds set forth in SCR 22.22(3), 1 that
1 SCR 22.22(3) provides:
The supreme court shall impose the identical discipline or license suspension unless one or more of the following is present:
(Continued)
2 No. 2023AP1034-D
the imposition of discipline reciprocal to that imposed in
Illinois would be unwarranted, and of the factual basis for any
such claim. No response was received.
¶5 The OLR's complaint alleges that by virtue of the
Illinois suspension, Attorney Gomez is subject to reciprocal
discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22, and by failing to
notify OLR of his suspension in Illinois, he violated SCR
22.22(1).2 The OLR asks this court to suspend Attorney Gomez's
Wisconsin law license for three years as discipline reciprocal
to that imposed in Illinois.
¶6 Under SCR 22.22(3), in reciprocal discipline matters,
this court shall impose the identical discipline unless one of
the exceptions enumerated in that rule is shown. There is no
indication that any of those exceptions apply in this case.
(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.
2SCR 22.22(1) provides: "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. Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the effective date of the order or judgment of the other jurisdiction constitutes misconduct."
3 No. 2023AP1034-D
Accordingly, we impose discipline identical to that imposed by
the Supreme Court of Illinois.
¶7 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Felipe N. Gomez to
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of three
years, effective the date of this order.
¶8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not
already done so, Felipe N. Gomez 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.
¶9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See SCR
22.29(4)(c).
¶10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative
suspensions of Felipe N. Gomez's license to practice law in
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues, his
failure to complete his trust account certification, and his
failure to comply with CLE reporting requirements, will remain
in effect until each reason for the administrative suspension has been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).
4 No. 2023AP1034-D
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2023 WI 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-lawyer-regulation-v-felipe-n-gomez-wis-2023.