Public Discipline

The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, provides these summaries. The OLR assists the court in supervising the practice of law and protecting the public from misconduct by lawyers. The OLR has offices at 110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI 53703; toll-free (877) 315-6941. Find the full text of these summaries at www.wicourts.gov/olr.

Public Reprimand of Michael A. Verrilli

The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Michael A. Verrilli, New Berlin, entered into an agreement for imposition of a public reprimand, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A Wisconsin Supreme Court-appointed referee approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand on Jan. 17, 2024, in accordance with SCR 22.09(3).

Verrilli represented a defendant, who was charged with first-degree recklessly endangering safety as a party to a crime and carrying a concealed weapon, from May 2022 to April 2023.

The trial date was adjourned at Verrilli’s request because of discovery issues and Verrilli’s desire to file an evidentiary motion. The court scheduled a final pretrial hearing in late January 2023 and a trial in mid-February 2023. The deadline for defense motions was early January 2023. Verrilli did not file any motions.

The defendant filed a speedy trial demand in early January 2023. The final pretrial hearing was rescheduled to early February 2023, at which time Verrilli requested an extension of the motion deadline and an adjournment of the trial. The defendant agreed to waive his speedy trial demand and the matter was reset for a final pretrial hearing in late March 2023 and trial in early May 2023.

Verrilli failed to appear at the final pretrial hearing or contact the court in response to calls and emails. An adjourned final pretrial date was scheduled for mid-April 2023. Verrilli was notified by email. The court received no communication from Verrilli, and he failed to appear for the April pretrial hearing. The defendant believed he spoke to Verrilli once during the year he had been incarcerated on the case. The court removed Verrilli from the case.

In late April 2023, the judge emailed Verrilli requesting an explanation for his failure to appear. Verrilli responded he was having difficulty viewing some of the electronic video files he received in discovery, and at some point he began to avoid confronting the problem.

Verrilli said he did not have a good explanation for his failure to file a motion or failure to appear and admitted he got behind on the case.

By failing to appear in court for the March 2023 and April 2023 pretrial hearings even though the defendant made a speedy trial request, failing to contact the court in response to calls and emails due to his failure to appear, and failing to prepare any of the motions he said he should have prepared, Verrilli violated SCR 20:1.3, which states, “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”

In January 2020, Verrilli was privately reprimanded for violating SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a)(3), and SCR 20:3.4(c).

Public Reprimand of Patricia Arreazola

The OLR and Patricia Arreazola, Janesville, entered agreements, pursuant to SCR 22.09(1), for imposition of a public reprimand to address three grievances. On Feb. 20, 2024, a supreme court-appointed referee approved the agreements and imposed the reprimand.

In the first matter, Arreazola represented a client regarding postjudgment divorce issues. Arreazola charged the client an advanced fee. Arreazola notified the client in writing that the advance would be held in her business account and handled as allowed by SCR 20:1.5(g). After some of the client’s issues were resolved, the client requested an accounting of the advanced fee. Arreazola failed to respond for nearly one year, violating SCR 20:1.5(b)(3). Arreazola also failed to promptly refund the unearned portion of the advanced fee, violating SCR 20:1.16(d). Finally, the client applied for fee arbitration, but Arreazola failed to participate as obligated by her decision to use the alternative protection for advanced fees set forth in SCR 20:1.5(g)(3), thereby violating that rule.

In the second matter, Arreazola accepted an advanced fee to represent a client regarding a post-divorce contempt motion filed by the client’s ex-spouse. When the matter resolved soon after she was hired, Arreazola failed to promptly refund unearned fees to the client, violating SCR 20:1.16(d).

In the third matter, a divorce representation, Arreazola failed to comply with several court orders regarding discovery, violating SCR 20:3.4(c). Arreazola did not inform the client of a stipulation she entered to address one of the discovery orders, thereby violating SCR 20:1.4(a)(2). When the client terminated the representation and requested that Arreazola return the file and provide an accounting of the advanced fee, Arreazola did not do so for nearly 15 months, violating SCR 20:1.16(d).

Arreazola had a public reprimand in 2009.