Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Christopher S. Petros ( 2021 )

2021 WI 55SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2020AP725-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Christopher S. Petros, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Christopher S. Petros,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETROS
OPINION FILED: June 9, 2021
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
Per Curiam.
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2021 WI 55NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2020AP725-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Christopher S. Petros,
Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
FILED
Complainant, JUN 9, 2021
v. Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Supreme Court
Christopher S. Petros,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report of the referee,
Reserve Judge William M. Gabler, Sr., recommending that this
court revoke Attorney Christopher S. Petros' license to practice
law in Wisconsin, require him to pay $5,000 in restitution to
the father of a former client, and require him to pay the full
costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which total $3,910.22 as
of February 3, 2021. Because no appeal has been filed in this
No. 2020AP725-D
matter, our review proceeds pursuant to Supreme Court Rule
(SCR) 22.17(2).1
¶2 Attorney Petros was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in June 2009. His address listed with the State Bar
of Wisconsin is Petros Law Firm LLC, in Hudson, WI. His
Wisconsin law license is suspended for both administrative and
disciplinary reasons.
¶3 Attorney Petros has a considerable disciplinary
history. In 2014, Attorney Petros received a 90-day suspension
of his Wisconsin law license as reciprocal discipline to that
imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2013. The Minnesota
suspension was based on misconduct that included submitting
false evidence and making false statements to the Director of
the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility;
failing to notify a client of a hearing; lying to the court
through an associate and failing to correct the
misrepresentations he caused to be made to the court; failing to
timely notify clients of their appeal rights and that he would
not file an appeal on their behalf; and failing to diligently
pursue a client's case, communicate with that client, and timely
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides:
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or
remand the matter to the referee for additional
findings; and determine and impose appropriate
discipline. The court, on its own motion, may order
the parties to file briefs in the matter.
2
No. 2020AP725-D
return the client's property. In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Petros, 2014 WI 1, 351 Wis. 2d 775, 841 N.W.2d 47.
¶4 In 2017, Attorney Petros received a consensual public
reprimand for failing to prepare a contract he was hired to
prepare; failing to provide advance notice of a withdrawal of
fees from trust; failing to materially advance a matter for a
different client; and failing to timely respond to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation's (OLR) investigations in both matters.
Public Reprimand of Christopher S. Petros, No. 2017-8
(electronic copy available at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/
app/raw/002974.html).
¶5 By our decision of July 22, 2020, Attorney Petros
received a two-year suspension for 24 counts of professional
misconduct, which included misappropriating client funds from a
vulnerable client, lying to clients about the status of their
cases, repeatedly failing to respond to clients, failing to
appear in court, and repeatedly failing to respond to inquiries
from the OLR. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Petros,
2020 WI 71, 393 Wis. 2d 411, 946 N.W.2d 126.
¶6 On April 8, 2020, the OLR filed a complaint against
Attorney Petros and an order to answer. Attorney Petros
admitted service of the documents by an Admission of Service.
The complaint alleged 16 counts of misconduct and spanned 80
numbered paragraphs, not including the OLR's unnumbered prayer
for relief, which requested license revocation, restitution, and
costs.
3
No. 2020AP725-D
¶7 On March 27, 2020, Attorney Petros filed a one-
sentence answer to the complaint, which stated, in its entirety:
"The Respondent, here by [sic] denies the allegations 1-16 in
the complaint of the Office of Lawyer Regulation."
¶8 On June 1, 2020, the OLR's counsel filed a "Motion For
A More Definite Statement." At a June 15, 2020 motion hearing,
held via Zoom, the parties advised the referee they had agreed
that Attorney Petros would file an amended answer by June 19,
2020.
¶9 According to the referee's report, on or about June
24, 2020, the OLR received an unsigned and undated letter from
Attorney Petros on June 24, 2020, which Attorney Petros referred
to as his "response to complaint." The OLR forwarded this
document to the referee via email on June 29, 2020. Contrary to
SCR 22.13(5), Attorney Petros did not file this document with
the court or serve a copy on the referee. The document does not
appear in the record.
¶10 On July 14, 2020, the referee conducted a telephone
scheduling conference at which the OLR's counsel and Attorney
Petros participated. The parties agreed upon dates and
deadlines that the referee formalized in a July 15, 2020
scheduling order sent to the parties. Among other things, the
scheduling order set a discovery deadline of October 2, 2020, a
witness list deadline of November 13, 2020, and an exhibit list
deadline of December 11, 2020, by which date the parties were
also required to exchange and file exhibits. The scheduling
order also set an evidentiary hearing date of January 12, 2021.
4
No. 2020AP725-D
¶11 In a letter dated November 3, 2020 and sent to the
referee and Attorney Petros by U.S. mail and email, the OLR's
counsel advised that he had been unable to contact Attorney
Petros by telephone or in writing. The OLR's counsel asked the
referee to set the matter for a status conference.
¶12 The referee scheduled a status conference for November
10, 2020, to be held via Zoom. The referee sent an email to
both parties listing the date and time of the status conference,
and the OLR also sent Attorney Petros written notice of the
hearing by email and U.S. mail.
¶13 Attorney Petros did not appear at the November 10,
2020 status conference. At the hearing, the OLR's counsel
reported that, in addition to sending written notice to Attorney
Petros of the status conference, counsel had made numerous
attempts to contact Attorney Petros by mail, telephone, and
email in July, August, and September of 2020, with no response.
The OLR's counsel also reported that Attorney Petros had failed
to respond to discovery requests that the OLR sent him in August
2020.
¶14 By motion dated November 24, 2020, the OLR moved for
sanctions——namely, the striking of Attorney Petros' answer——and
for entry of default judgment.
¶15 On November 30, 2020, the referee issued an order
requiring Attorney Petros to file any objections to the OLR's
motion on or before December 11, 2020. The referee sent the
order to Attorney Petros via email and U.S. mail. Attorney
Petros did not respond.
5
No. 2020AP725-D
¶16 Attorney Petros disregarded other deadlines as well.
He filed nothing within the deadlines for the filing and service
of witness and exhibit lists and exhibits. He provided no
response to the OLR's discovery requests.
¶17 On January 6, 2021, the referee filed his report and
recommendation. Consistent with this court's precedent
instructing that a timely answer in a disciplinary case may be
stricken and default judgment entered when the responding
attorney has engaged in egregious or bad faith conduct, the
referee wrote:
Mr. Petros barely adequately answered the allegations
in OLR's complaint, he hasn't met any of the deadlines
in the Scheduling Order, he hasn't responded to OLR's
discovery requests, he hasn't responded to [the OLR's
counsel's] repeated attempts to contact him, he missed
the November 10, 2020 Zoom status conference, and he
hasn't responded to the Order To Show Cause. For an
experienced lawyer, like Mr. Petros, I find his
shortcomings constitute egregious non-action and bad
faith, and . . . [a] tacit concession that he has no
viable defense to any of the allegations in the OLR
complaint. Therefore, I recommend the Supreme Court
accept my findings and suggestion that Attorney
Petros's pleadings be stricken and that he be found in
default.
¶18 Although the referee's report does not expressly state
that the referee accepted as true all of the allegations of the
OLR's complaint, the report does state that Attorney Petros
committed each of the 16 counts of misconduct alleged in the
OLR's complaint. This conclusion indicates that the referee
accepted as true all of the allegations of the complaint.
¶19 The OLR's complaint describes Attorney Petros' conduct
in connection with his representation in several matters.
6
No. 2020AP725-D
Repeating all of the allegations of each separate matter here is
not necessary. The following summaries will suffice.
¶20 The first two matters consisted of a probate matter
and a related civil case. Attorney Petros practiced law with a
suspended law license; failed to tell the court, opposing
counsel, and his clients about his license suspension;
misrepresented to the court the status of his efforts to get his
license reinstated; and failed to cooperate with the OLR's
investigation into these matters.
¶21 The third matter consists of two criminal cases
involving the same client. In one of the criminal cases (a
probation revocation matter), Attorney Petros failed to deposit
a $2,500 advanced fee paid by the client's father (A.M., Jr.)
into his trust account. In the second criminal case (a felony
charge against the client), the State Public Defender appointed
Attorney Petros to represent the client due to the client's
indigency. Attorney Petros then accepted a $5,000 advanced fee
payment from A.M., Jr. without disclosing that he had been
appointed by the State Public Defender. Attorney Petros
withdrew the $5,000 advanced fee from his trust account without
providing the required advance notice to his client. In both
criminal cases, Attorney Petros failed to enter into a written
fee agreement communicating the scope of representation, the
basis or rate of the fee, and the purpose and effect of the
advanced fee. Attorney Petros also failed to cooperate with the
OLR's investigation into these matters.
7
No. 2020AP725-D
¶22 In the fourth and fifth matters, Attorney Petros'
clients filed grievances against him that prompted
investigations by the OLR, with which Attorney Petros failed to
fully cooperate. The OLR ultimately determined that the
evidence did not support a rule violation other than Attorney
Petros' failure to cooperate with the OLR's investigations.
¶23 Attorney Petros' misconduct, as determined by the
referee, consisted of the following:
 One count (Count 1) of failing to promptly provide
written notification to the court and opposing counsel
of his law license suspension, contrary to
SCR 22.26(1)(c),2 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f);3
2 SCR 22.26(1)(c) provides that, on or before the effective
date of a license suspension, an attorney whose license is
suspended shall:
Promptly provide written notification to the
court or administrative agency and the attorney for
each party in a matter pending before a court or
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as
an attorney following the effective date of the
suspension or revocation. The notice shall identify
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state
the client's place of residence.
3 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides: "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of
lawyers."
8
No. 2020AP725-D
 Two counts (Counts 2 and 8) of practicing law after
his law license had been suspended, contrary to
SCR 22.26(2),4 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f);
 One count (Count 3) of knowingly making a false
statement of fact or law to a tribunal, contrary to
SCR 20:3.3(a)(1);5
 Seven counts (Counts 4-6, 9, 14-16) of failing to
cooperate with an OLR investigation, contrary to
SCR 22.03(2)6 and/or SCR 22.03(6),7 enforceable via
SCR 20:8.4(h);8
4 SCR 22.26(2) provides:
An attorney whose license to practice law is
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the
practice of law may not engage in this state in the
practice of law or in any law work activity
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may
engage in law related work in this state for a
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice
of law.
5 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides: "A lawyer shall not knowingly
make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously
made to the tribunal by the lawyer."
6 SCR 22.03(2) provides:
Upon commencing an investigation, the director
shall notify the respondent of the matter being
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the
investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a
request for a written response. The director may
allow additional time to respond. Following receipt
(continued)
9
No. 2020AP725-D
 One count (Count 7) of failing to notify his clients
by certified mail of his law license suspension,
contrary to SCR 22.26(1)(a),9 enforceable via
SCR 20:8.4(f);
 One count (Count 10) of failing to place advanced fees
into his trust account, contrary to SCR 20:1.5(f);10
of the response, the director may conduct further
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer
questions, furnish documents, and present any
information deemed relevant to the investigation.
7 SCR 22.03(6) provides: "In the course of the
investigation, the respondent's willful failure to provide
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted
in the grievance."
8 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides: "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6),
or SCR 22.04(1)."
9 SCR 22.26(1)(a) provides:
On or before the effective date of license
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following:
Notify by certified mail all clients being represented
in pending matters of the suspension or revocation and
of the attorney's consequent inability to act as an
attorney following the effective date of the
suspension or revocation.
10 SCR 20:1.5(f) provides:
Except as provided in SCR 20:1.5(g), unearned
fees and funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for
payment of fees shall be held in trust until earned by
the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to SCR 20:1.5(h).
(continued)
10
No. 2020AP725-D
 One count (Count 11) of engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c);11
 One count (Count 12) of failing to have a written fee
agreement memorializing the terms, scope, and fees for
representation, and the purpose and effect of the
advanced fee, contrary to SCR 20:1.5(b)(1)12 and
SCR 20:1.5(b)(2);13 and
Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for payment of
costs shall be held in trust until the costs are
incurred.
11 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation."
12 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) provides:
The scope of the representation and the basis or
rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will
be responsible shall be communicated to the client in
writing, before or within a reasonable time after
commencing the representation, except when the lawyer
will charge a regularly represented client on the same
basis or rate as in the past. If it is reasonably
foreseeable that the total cost of representation to
the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000
or less, the communication may be oral or in writing.
Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or
expenses shall also be communicated in writing to the
client.
13 SCR 20:1.5(b)(2) provides: "If the total cost of
representation to the client, including attorney's fees, is more
than $1000, the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance
fee that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in
writing."
11
No. 2020AP725-D
 One count (Count 13) of withdrawing an advanced fee
from his trust account without providing the required
advance notice to his client in violation of
SCR 20:1.5(h)(1).14
¶24 Consistent with the OLR's request, the referee
recommended that this court revoke Attorney Petros' Wisconsin
law license as discipline for his misconduct. The referee
further recommended that this court order Attorney Petros to pay
restitution to A.M., Jr. for the $5,000 advanced fee that he
paid Attorney Petros to represent his son without knowledge that
Attorney Petros had been appointed for that task by the State
Public Defender. The referee also recommended that this court
order Attorney Petros to pay the full costs of this proceeding.
¶25 Attorney Petros did not appeal from the referee's
report and recommendation. Thus, we proceed with our review of
14 SCR 20:1.5(h)(1) provides:
At least five business days before the date on
which a disbursement is made from a trust account for
the purpose of paying fees, with the exception of
contingent fees or fees paid pursuant to court order,
a lawyer shall transmit to the client in writing all
of the following:
a. An itemized bill or other accounting showing
the services rendered.
b. Notice of the amount owed and the anticipated
date of the withdrawal.
c. A statement of the balance of the client's
funds in the lawyer's trust account after the
withdrawal.
12
No. 2020AP725-D
the matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). We review a referee's
findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard. See
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14,
¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. We review the referee's
conclusions of law de novo. Id. We determine the appropriate
level of discipline independent of the referee's recommendation.
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34,
¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.
¶26 In light of Attorney Petros' noncompliance with the
scheduling order deadlines, failure to cooperate with discovery
requests, failure to appear for the November 10, 2020 status
conference, and failure to respond to the OLR's motion for
sanctions and default judgment, we deem it appropriate to strike
his answer to the OLR's complaint and declare him in default.
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kelly, 2012 WI 55,
¶24, 341 Wis. 2d 104, 814 N.W.2d 844 (holding that respondent-
lawyer's repeated refusals to engage in the disciplinary process
constituted egregious conduct that merited the striking of his
answer and proceeding on the allegations of the OLR's
complaint).
¶27 We further agree with the referee that license
revocation is the appropriate sanction. "Revocation of an
attorney's license to practice law is the most severe sanction
this court can impose. It is reserved for the most egregious
cases." In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cooper, 2013 WI
97, ¶34, 351 Wis. 2d 350, 839 N.W.2d 857.
13
No. 2020AP725-D
¶28 This case fits that description. The referee
correctly pointed out in his report that we have imposed
revocation when the respondent-lawyer has engaged in a clear
pattern of substantial, repeated violations of disciplinary
rules. See Kelly, 341 Wis. 2d 104 (revocation where respondent-
lawyer committed 51 counts of misconduct, including failure to
communicate with clients, failure to refund advanced fees when
work not completed, and failure to respond to OLR requests for
information); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Runyon,
2020 WI 74, 393 Wis. 2d 612, 948 N.W.2d 62 (revocation imposed
where respondent-lawyer with lengthy disciplinary history
committed 23 counts of professional misconduct in four client
matters, including converting thousands of dollars that belonged
to several clients and failing to cooperate with the OLR's
investigations into these matters).
¶29 Such a clear pattern of misconduct is present here.
Since Attorney Petros' licensure in Wisconsin in 2009, he has
consistently been in ethical trouble, with discipline imposed
against him 2013 (in Minnesota), 2014 (as discipline reciprocal
to that imposed by Minnesota), 2017, 2020, and again now, in
2021. There are common themes to his misbehavior: lack of
candor, both by omission and by direct misrepresentation; money
mishandling; failure to diligently pursue cases; and a
persistent failure to cooperate with the OLR. Attorney Petros
appears uninterested in honest, responsible advocacy, and tends
to dodge or disappear altogether when called to account for his
actions. Our profession has no place for persons who cannot be
14
No. 2020AP725-D
counted on to follow the basic standards and procedures set
forth in our ethical rules. Attorney Petros' law license must,
therefore, be revoked.
¶30 We further agree with the referee that Attorney Petros
must repay A.M., Jr. the $5,000 advanced fee he paid for
Attorney Petros to represent his son without knowledge that
Attorney Petros had been appointed for that task by the State
Public Defender.
¶31 We further conclude that Attorney Petros shall bear
the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding, which total
$3,910.22 as of February 3, 2021.
¶32 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Christopher S.
Petros to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the
date of this order.
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Christopher S. Petros shall pay restitution of
$5,000 to A.M., Jr.
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Christopher S. Petros shall pay to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are
$3,910.22 as of February 3, 2021.
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that payment of restitution is
to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation.
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Christopher S. Petros shall
comply, if he has not already done so, with the requirements of
15
No. 2020AP725-D
SCR 22.26 pertaining to the duties of a person whose license to
practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.
16
No. 2020AP725-D
1