|
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 matter, our
review proceeds pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule (SCR) 22.17(2).
¶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
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.
|
|
¶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.
¶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.
¶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.
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.
¶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),
enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f);
|
|
• Two counts (Counts 2 and 8) of
practicing law after his law license had been
suspended, contrary to SCR 22.26(2),
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);
|
|
• Seven counts (Counts 4-6, 9, 14-16) of
failing to cooperate with an OLR
investigation, contrary to SCR 22.03(2) and/or
SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR
20:8.4(h);
|
|
• 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), 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);
|
|
• One count (Count 11) of engaging in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation, contrary to SCR
20:8.4(c);
|
|
• 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) and SCR 20:1.5(b)
(2); and
|
|
• 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).
¶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 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.
¶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
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 SCR 22.26 pertaining to the
duties of a person whose license to practice
law in Wisconsin has been revoked.
|