The Respondent, Andrew Salentine, lives in San Francisco, California.

On September 18, 2007, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) received a submission from a circuit court judge regarding conduct by the Respondent that the judge believed violated Supreme Court Rules governing candor toward a tribunal. The conduct reported by the judge took place in the context of a civil action that, at the time, was pending in the judge’s court.

Respondent graduated from Marquette University Law School in 1992 and was admitted to practice in Wisconsin on May 18, 1992. After graduation from law school, Respondent moved to California and has lived there ever since. Respondent maintained his status as an active member of the Wisconsin bar until October 31, 2001, when he was suspended for non-payment of dues. Respondent was reinstated from his administrative suspension on February 15, 2006 and he has had an active Wisconsin law license since that time. Respondent is also licensed to practice law in California.

Respondent’s mother and his two sisters owned a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC). For several years, the LLC had employed a man as an independent contractor. The man was also a personal friend of the Respondent’s family. According to Respondent, the relationship between the man and some of his family members began to deteriorate in 2006, and the man started a competing travel business with some other LLC employees while still employed by the LLC. As a result, the LLC terminated the man and some other employees and commenced a lawsuit against them on November 3, 2006.

On November 3, 2006, Respondent signed a sworn affidavit in support of the LLC’s complaint. In the affidavit, Respondent stated, “I am the Business & Legal Advisor to [LLC], which does business under the name of [company name].” The LLC’s complaint also described Respondent as the LLC “Business and Legal Advisor.”

A series of emails in 2003 between or among Respondent and the man, his sisters and his mother illustrate Respondent’s involvement in advising the LLC with respect to business and legal matters. For example, a May 6, 2003 email from Respondent to the man transmits Respondent’s final draft of a new employee contract. In the email, Respondent states, in part:

Another example is a March 14, 2003 email from Respondent to the man and his family members on the subject of a specific contract. In the email, Respondent stated, “Here are my redlined changes for your review. Let me know if anything else needs to be changed.”

A number of 2006 emails further exemplify Respondent’s participation in the LLC’s business affairs and legal matters. For example, a series of emails in July 2006 refer to or contain advice from Respondent about possible drug use by an employee and how to deal with it. Another group of emails in July 2006 involve Respondent’s opinion and advice about an agreement having to do with the LLC’s liability for certain telephone charges.

Additionally, between July 2006 and October 2006, Respondent was included in numerous email exchanges involving various LL C business issues and decisions. One of many examples is a July 31, 2006 email from Respondent to the man with a subject line “RE: Profitability.” In the email, Respondent made several statements, including:

In an August 22, 2006 email to the man, Respondent talked about setting up weekly management meetings in which Respondent would be included. In an October 19, 2006 email to the man, Respondent again mentioned the money the LLC owed him. In the email, Respondent states, “At a minimum, my records are correct and show that the gross amount still owed to me is 88K taking into account the principle and interest owned to me per the note I have with [LLC].”

On February 27, 2007, the man and some of the other defendants in the lawsuit filed a third-party complaint against Respondent, his mother and his sisters.

On May 8, 2007, Respondent, through his attorney, filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint against him for lack of personal jurisdiction over him under §801.05 Wis. Stats.

On May 4, 2007, Respondent signed a sworn affidavit which was filed on May 8, 2007 in support of his motion to dismiss. In the affidavit, Respondent attested, among other things:

- - Emphasis added.

A hearing was held on Respondent’s motion to dismiss. The hearing commenced on June 15, 2007 and concluded on August 1, 2007. Respondent testified by telephone on August 1, 2007. The above-referenced emails, in addition to other emails, were introduced at the hearing. Most of the emails were adverse counsel’s exhibits, although a few were offered by Respondent’s attorney.

At the August 1, 2007 hearing, evidence was adduced that Respondent signed a July 2, 2002 mortgage note with his parents, secured by a mortgage on his parents’ Wisconsin home. A July 2, 2002 quit claim deed from his parents as grantors to his parents and Respondent as grantees was also introduced at the hearing. Both the mortgage and the quit claim deed were adverse counsel’s exhibits.

At the August 1, 2007 hearing, Respondent testified that he cosigned for his parents’ mortgage. During direct testimony, Respondent’s attorney asked him, “Do you pay any bills on that house?” Respondent responded “No.”

With respect to the quit claim deed, Respondent testified that while he knew he was a “cosigner” on his parents’ mortgage, “… I didn’t know I was on the deed, and the first time I had seen that was when the exhibits came back and I reviewed them.”

During questioning by adverse counsel about Respondent’s parents’ home, the following colloquy occurred:

In a letter to an OLR intake investigator, Respondent reiterated that he had not known he was on the deed to his parents’ home when he signed the May 4, 2007 affidavit and, referring to the transcript of his August 1, 2007 testimony, stated:

In his response to questions from OLR staff about whether Respondent deducted interest paid on his parents’ mortgage loan on his income tax returns, Respondent stated that in 2002, when Respondent’s parents were experiencing financial difficulties, he agreed to act as a guarantor for their mortgage loan. Upon request for more detailed information about any mortgage interest deductions, Respondent submitted Schedule A from his 2002, 2003 and 2004 federal tax returns. Those documents show that Respondent claimed itemized deductions on his federal tax returns for 2002, 2003 and 2004 of $12,018, $12,891, and $11,832, respectively, for interest he paid on his parent’s mortgage. Respondent said he had not made any mortgage payments on his parents’ home since 2004 and reiterated that he had not known he was on the deed to his parents’ home when he signed the May 4, 2007 affidavit.

Respondent states that his testimony on August 1, 2007 that he was “not paying” on his parents’ mortgage and that his response of “No” to the question, “[D]o you pay any bills on that house?” was truthful because he was not making payments on the home at the time he made the statements. Likewise, Respondent states that his statement to an OLR intake investigator that his parents “make all…payments regarding the home,” was truthful because he was not making mortgage payments for his parents at the time he made the statement and had not made any such payments since 2004.

In response to a request for a copy of the note executed in connection with the loan Respondent made to the LLC, which Respondent mentioned in his July 31, 2006 and October 19, 2006 emails, Respondent said he was unable to locate the note or documentation that one was prepared, so his email references to a note must have been in error.

Respondent did not disclose to the court that, at the time he made his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, he was a licensed and active member of the Wisconsin bar and that he had been admitted to practice in Wisconsin in 1992.

At the conclusion of the hearing on August 1, 2007, the judge denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss and stated that the motion was frivolous. The judge found that Respondent had substantial contacts with the state, including numerous connections to the LLC as an advisor and negotiator, ownership of real property, a mortgage obligation, and ownership of a note on which he was owed interest.

Based on the court’s ruling, adverse counsel made a motion for sanctions. Just prior to the hearing on the sanctions motion, the judge said he learned that Respondent was a licensed active member of the Wisconsin bar and had been admitted to practice in Wisconsin in 1992.

At the hearing on the motion for sanctions, the judge questioned Respondent’s attorney extensively about Respondent’s Wisconsin bar membership. The judge opined that Respondent’s Wisconsin bar membership was highly relevant, if not dispositive, to the question of whether the court had personal jurisdiction over Respondent.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge awarded sanctions against Respondent and his attorney, but found Respondent to be primarily at fault, and therefore apportioned the sanctions 75% and 25% between them, respectively. In ruling, the judge stated, in part:

The judge supplemented his oral decision and order regarding sanctions with a written decision explaining why he ordered that the adverse party be fully compensated for having to defend against Respondent’s motion to dismiss. In the written decision, the judge stated: