¶4 The OLR's formal complaint in this matter was personally served on Attorney Elliott on February 11, 2010. Attorney Elliott did not file an answer to the complaint. Despite multiple attempts by counsel for the OLR to contact Attorney Elliott, he did not appear for a scheduling conference on March 17, 2010. The referee subsequently granted the OLR's motion for the entry of a default.

¶5 Because of the default, the referee accepted all of the factual allegations of the complaint as his findings of fact. Based on those facts, the referee concluded that the OLR had established that Attorney Elliott had engaged in 51 separate acts of professional misconduct.

¶7 The 51 counts of professional misconduct arose out of 12 separate client representations and Attorney Elliott's handling of his client trust account and business account. Twelve of those counts involved Attorney Elliott's failure to hold funds belonging to clients or third parties in trust and his conversion of those funds for other purposes. See SCRs 20:8.4(b), 20:8.4(c), and 20:1.15(b)(1). Similarly, another ten counts involved Attorney Elliott's failure to promptly disburse funds to clients or to third parties who were legally entitled to receive them. See SCR 20:1.15(d)(1). Five counts involved Attorney Elliott's issuance of checks from his client trust account to himself or his law firm without identifying the client and matter or the reason for the disbursement. See SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)e.1. Three counts related to instances when Attorney Elliott either issued checks from his client trust account made payable to "cash" or made cash withdrawals from his client trust account. See SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a. Eight counts involved situations where Attorney Elliott either failed to provide required information to clients or failed to respond to a client's request for information or an accounting of funds. See SCRs 20:1.4(a) (1), 20:1.4(a)(3), 20:1.4(a)(4), 20:1.15(d) (2), and 20:1.15(g)(1). Finally, eight other counts related to Attorney Elliott's failure to respond to the OLR's investigations. SCRs 20:1.15(e)(7), 22.03 (2), and 22.03(6), enforceable through SCR 20:8.4(h).

¶8 A number of the client representations described in the OLR's complaint and the referee's report followed a similar pattern. Attorney Elliott would be hired by a buyer or seller in a real estate transaction or by the financial institution that was lending money to the buyer for the transaction. As a result of his being retained, he would receive substantial sums of money that he was to hold in trust and then distribute to various parties at the closing of the transaction. Attorney Elliott would often receive those funds days or even weeks in advance of the closing. Before the closing occurred, Attorney Elliott would improperly disburse some or all of those trust funds to himself or his law firm, or he would use some or all of those trust funds to cover payments in other real estate transactions. This would result in there being insufficient funds in Attorney Elliott's trust account to make the necessary payments at the time of closing. At times, Attorney Elliott would issue checks from his trust account for the required closing payments even though there were insufficient funds to cover those checks, but he would then stop payment on the checks or those checks would be returned for insufficient funds. Often, he then had to make excuses or misrepresentations in order to explain why he had stopped payment or failed to make a required payment. Ultimately, in order to cover the closing payments he was required to make, Attorney Elliott would often use client trust funds obtained from other clients that were supposed to be used for other, future transactions.

¶9 In September and October 2008 Attorney Elliott turned to a check-kiting scheme. He maintained a business account at Wells Fargo Bank and a client trust account at Associated Bank. From September 24, 2008, through October 31, 2008, Attorney Elliott routinely wrote checks out of his Wells Fargo business account for hundreds of thousands of dollars each, although he knew the business account did not contain sufficient funds to cover those checks. He would almost immediately deposit the checks or the proceeds from the checks into the Associated Bank client trust account. Before the check written against the business account would clear, Attorney Elliott would stop payment on the check. Because of the delay in processing the transactions, the balance in the trust account would remain inflated for some period of time.

¶10 On some days Attorney Elliott wrote checks or withdrew cash from his client trust account against the falsely inflated balance in that account. For example, on October 3, 2008, Attorney Elliott made two cash withdrawals from the trust account totaling $506,145.06, although the true balance in the trust account was far less. He used that cash to purchase four cashier's checks. One of those checks, in the amount of $350,000.00, was apparently used to repay a personal or business loan that Attorney Elliott had received from an individual.

¶11 Between October 6, 2008, and October 31, 2008, Attorney Elliott made 50 deposits into his trust account using checks drawn on his business account for which there were insufficient funds. Each of the business account checks (and therefore each of the trust account deposits) was subject to a stop payment order before the check cleared. The total amount of the 50 deposits over that span of 25 days was $31,236,500. Between October 3, 2008, and October 30, 2008, a total of 15 checks, in the total amount of $50,850, were written from the trust account payable either to Attorney Elliott or his law firm. None of those 15 checks had any discernible connection to a client matter. All but two of the checks were deposited into Attorney Elliott's business account, and the funds from those checks were used to pay various business expenses. Ultimately, the OLR calculated that Attorney Elliott used the falsely inflated balance in his trust account to improperly obtain a total of $942,792.70 from Associated Bank.

¶13 Because no appeal was filed from the referee's report and recommendation, our review proceeds pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). When reviewing a report and recommendation in an attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125. We review the referee's conclusions of law, however, on a de novo basis. Id. Finally, we determine the appropriate level of discipline given the particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's recommendation, but benefiting from it. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.

¶14 In light of Attorney Elliott's default, we accept the referee's findings of fact. We also agree with the referee that the facts set forth in the complaint support the legal conclusion that Attorney Elliott engaged in 51 counts of professional misconduct.

¶15 With respect to the level of discipline, we wholeheartedly agree with the referee's comment that Attorney Elliott is not fit to be licensed as a lawyer in the state of Wisconsin. He engaged in a lengthy pattern of converting for his own benefit client or third party funds that had been entrusted to him. He used trust account funds from one client to cover his misappropriation of funds from another client. He even resorted to a multi-million dollar check-kiting scheme to continue his theft of others' money. When asked for information by the OLR, Attorney Elliott merely stonewalled and never provided a response. Clearly, the only appropriate discipline for such misconduct is revocation.

¶17 Finally, we turn to the issue of restitution. The OLR's complaint requested and the referee recommended that Attorney Elliott be required to make restitution payments in the total amount of $1,334,804.26. We note that Attorney Elliott has never contested the OLR's assertion that he should pay restitution to the Fund, to two former clients, and to Associated Bank, nor has he disputed the requested amounts of restitution. Consequently, we determine that Attorney Elliott should be ordered to pay restitution to the Fund, to the former clients, and to Associated Bank in the amounts set forth in the referee's report.

¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Peter T. Elliott to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective as of the date of this order.

¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date of this order Peter T. Elliott shall pay restitution in the following amounts to the following individuals/entities:

¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date of this order, Peter T. Elliott shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.

¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer Regulation.