|
First Matter
On May 6, 2016, a woman hired Attorney
Christopher Stephen Petros to draft a
contract for rights to eggs and embryos
donated to the woman by a family member for
fertility treatments. On that day, the
client paid Petros $750.00. The funds,
which were described in the fee agreement
signed by Petros and the client as a flat
fee, were deposited into Petros’ trust
account on May 13, 2016, and withdrawn on
May 18, 2016.
Prior to withdrawing the fees from his trust
account, Petros did not provide the notices
required by former SCR 20:1.15(g) (effective
until July 1, 2016).
On May 26, 2016, the client texted Petros
and inquired as to the status of the
contract. He responded on May 31, 2016,
stating, “Done when can you meet (sic)?”
Although there was an attempt at that time
to plan a meeting between the client and
Petros, no meeting took place.
Between May 31 and September 30, 2016,
Petros and his client exchanged numerous
text messages attempting to plan a meeting.
No meeting occurred in that period, with
Petros often stating he was in court and
court was running behind. On July 27, 2016,
the client asked Petros to mail the contract
to her. He failed to do so. On September
23, 2016, Petros e-mailed his client a
document purported to be the contract. The
client told Petros she was unable to open
the document. Petros again said they could
meet and he would give her the document.
Again, no meeting occurred. On September 30
2016, the client sent a text asking, “Where
is my paperwork?”
On October 24, 2016, a Monday, Petros
texted his client to tell her he was
checking to see if any changes needed to be
made to the paperwork and suggested they
meet on Thursday (October 27, 2016). That
meeting did not occur.
By way of explanation as to why he had never
sent the contract to his client, Petros
stated, “The next set (sic) was to make sure
the clinic needed anything else in the
document and then send the final document to
[the client].”
Petros never provided his client with a
draft or final contract. After the client
filed a grievance with OLR, Petros refunded
the $750 fee he received in the matter.
On November 30, 2016, OLR sent Petros a
letter, via first class U.S. mail, informing
him of the nature of the investigation of
this matter. OLR informed Petros that,
pursuant to SCR 22.03(2), he was required to
provide a written response by December 27,
2016. The letter further advised Petros of
his duty to cooperate with OLR’s
investigation under SCR 21.15(4) and SCR
22.03(6).
On December 28, 2016, Petros called OLR and
stated that he would be mailing his response
to OLR’s letter of November 30, 2016 that
day.
Having not received Petros’ response, on
January 10, 2017, OLR called Petros and left
a message asking that he call.
On January 11, 2017, a Wednesday, Petros
called OLR and stated he would be mailing
his response that weekend.
Petros failed to submit his response.
On January 30, 2017, OLR sent Petros a
second letter, via first class U.S. mail and
personal service, reminding him of his duty
to cooperate with OLR and requesting a
response to OLR’s November 30, 2016 letter
by February 10, 2017.
On February 2, 2017, The St. Croix County
Sheriff’s Department obtained personal
service of OLR’s January 30, 2017 letter on
Petros.
On February 10, 2017, Petros submitted a
response to OLR’s letter of November 30,
2016.
|
|
By failing to provide his client with the
contract he was hired to prepare, either in
draft or final form, Petros violated SCR
20:1.3, which states, “A lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client.”
|
|
By failing to provide required notices prior
to withdrawing the fees paid to him by S.M.
from his trust account, Petros violated
former SCR 20:1.15(g) (effective prior to
July 1, 2016), which states, “At least 5
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, the 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; and
c. a statement of the balance
of the
client's funds in the lawyer trust account
after the withdrawal.”
|
|
By failing to timely respond to OLR’s
November 30, 2016 investigative letter,
Petros violated SCR 22.03(2), which states
in relevant part, “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.” SCR
22.03(2) is enforced under the Rules of
Professional Conduct via SCR 20:8.4(h),
which states in relevant part, “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 22.03(2)….”
Second Matter
In February of 2015, a man hired Petros to
assist him in securing a name change for his
son. His son had his mother’s last name,
although the son had not seen his mother for
11 years. The man also hired Petros to
draft a will for him. Altogether, the
client paid Petros $900 in fees.
At some point, Petros discovered that a
custody and child support agreement with
regard to the son had been issued by a
county in Minnesota. Petros traveled to
Minnesota and obtained documents related to
the custody and child support case. He also
hired an attorney to handle any hearing on
the name change matter that might occur in
Minnesota. Petros later learned that
because his client and the client’s son had
resided in Wisconsin for quite some time,
Wisconsin would have jurisdiction over the
name change.
Between April of 2015 and August of 2016,
the client, his sister, and his mother
contacted Petros numerous times about the
name change. Although Petros did return
calls, Petros in several instances canceled
meetings he had scheduled with the client.
On August 15, 2016, Petros and his client
met at the Pierce County Courthouse. Petros
and his client differ in their accounts of
what happened at that meeting. However, by
that date Petros had still not filed a name
change petition. The client was eager to
get the matter finalized by the start of the
school year and, over the course of the
following, attempted to obtain from Petros
what the client believed was going to be the
finalized paperwork. Petros finally faxed
his client some documents, but they
contained no case number and no judge’s
signature.
On August 26, 2016, Petros contacted the
court by e-mail in order to secure a date
for a hearing on the name change. He
obtained a September 29, 2016 court date.
At that time, Petros had still not filed a
petition for name change. By way of
explanation as to why he had not done so,
Petros stated that he needed a court date
prior to publishing notice of the petition
(service by publication being necessary
because the mother’s whereabouts was
unknown), and because he was still working
on the documents when he was terminated.
Shortly after obtaining a court date in the
name change matter, the client and Petros
met at the courthouse, and Petros returned
to his client the fees paid for both the
name change petition and the will, along
with his client file. Petros had produced a
draft will, although it was never executed
as the client was waiting for the name
change matter to conclude prior to doing so.
On December 28, 2016, OLR sent Petros a
letter, via first class U.S. mail, informing
him of the nature of the investigation of
this matter. OLR informed Petros that,
pursuant to SCR 22.03(2), he was required to
provide a written response by January 20,
2017. The letter further advised Petros of
his duty to cooperate with OLR’s
investigation under SCR 21.15(4) and SCR
22.03(6).
During a phone call on January 11, 2017, a
Wednesday, Petros stated he would be mailing
his response that weekend.
Petros failed to submit his response.
On January 30, 2017, OLR sent Petros a
second letter, via first class U.S. mail and
personal service, reminding him of his duty
to cooperate with OLR and requesting a
response to OLR’s December 28, 2016 letter
by February 10, 2017.
On February 2, 2017, The St. Croix County
Sheriff’s Department obtained personal
service of OLR’s January 30, 2017 letter on
Petros.
On February 10, 2017, Petros submitted a
response to OLR’s letter of December 28,
2016.
|
|
By failing, between April 2015 and August
2016, to meaningfully advance the name change
matter he had been hired to complete, Petros
violated SCR 20:1.3, which states, “A lawyer
shall act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client.”
|
|
By failing to timely respond to OLR’s
December 28, 2016 investigative letter,
Petros violated SCR 22.03(2), which states
in relevant part, “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.” SCR
22.03(2) is enforced under the Rules of
Professional Conduct via SCR 20:8.4(h),
which states in relevant part, “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 22.03(2)….”
|
|
In 2014, Petros received a 90-day license
suspension as discipline reciprocal to that
imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Christopher Stephen Petros is hereby publicly
reprimanded.
Dated this 27th day of October, 2017.
|