Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Petros (In re Petros)

• Citation: 960 N.W.2d 426,2021 WI 55
• Decision Date: 09 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. 2020AP725-D,2020AP725-D
• Parties: In the MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Christopher S. PETROS, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Christopher S. Petros, Respondent.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

960 N.W.2d 426

2021 WI 55

In the MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Christopher S. PETROS, Attorney at Law:Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant,

v.Christopher S. Petros, Respondent.

No. 2020AP725-D

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Opinion Filed: June 9, 2021

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license revoked.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 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).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 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...