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

393 Wis.2d 411

946 N.W.2d 126

2020 WI 71

In the MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Christopher S. PETROS, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant,

v.Christopher S. Petros, Respondent.

No. 2019AP565-D

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Opinion Filed: July 22, 2020

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 We review the recommendation of the referee, Allan Beatty, recommending that Attorney Christopher S. Petros' license to practice law be suspended for two years due to his professional misconduct. The referee also recommended that Attorney Petros be ordered to pay restitution to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection ("the Fund") in the amount of $24,000, and pay the full costs of this proceeding, which are $4,387.44 as of April 10, 2020. The referee's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations derive from two stipulations filed by the parties.

¶2 We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law. We agree that the seriousness of Attorney Petros' professional misconduct warrants a two-year suspension of his law license. We further agree that Attorney Petros should pay restitution as recommended by the referee and that he should pay the full costs of this proceeding.

¶3 Attorney Petros was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 2009. His license is administratively suspended for noncompliance with continuing legal education requirements. He was also licensed to practice law in Minnesota in 2002, and his Minnesota law license is suspended. On August 6, 2013, the Minnesota Supreme Court suspended Attorney Petros' Minnesota law license for 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 Action Against Petros, 834 N.W.2d 714 (Minn. 2013). 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 re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Petros, 2014 WI 1, 351 Wis. 2d 775, 841 N.W.2d 47.

¶4 In 2017, this court imposed a public reprimand on Attorney Petros 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, 2017-8 (electronic copy available at https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002974.html ).

¶5 This disciplinary proceeding commenced on March 21, 2019, when the OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Petros alleging 17 counts of professional misconduct. Referee Beatty was appointed. On June 27, 2019, the OLR amended its complaint to allege 24 counts of misconduct relating to seven client matters.

¶6 On November 18, 2019, the parties executed a stipulation in which Attorney Petros pled no contest to each of the 24 counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's amended disciplinary complaint. He further stipulated that he owes restitution in the amount of $24,000 to the Fund in connection with one client matter. The parties agreed that the amended disciplinary complaint and the terms of the stipulation could serve as the factual basis for the referee's factual findings and determination of misconduct. Subsequently, the parties executed a second stipulation agreeing that a two-year license suspension is an appropriate sanction for Attorney Petros' admitted misconduct.

¶7 In each stipulation, the parties confirmed that the stipulation was not the result of plea bargaining but reflects Attorney Petros' voluntary decision not to contest the matter. Attorney Petros represents and verifies that he fully understands the allegations to which he stipulated in this disciplinary matter; he fully understands his right to contest this matter; he fully understands the ramifications of his entry into the stipulation; he fully understands that he has the right to consult counsel; and that his entry into the stipulation was made knowingly and voluntarily.

¶8 On March 16, 2020, Referee Beatty filed a report, stating that based on the record he found by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Attorney Petros violated the rules of professional conduct, as alleged. We summarize that professional misconduct here.

Representation of J.O. (Counts 1-3)

¶9 In November 2016, the State Public Defender's Office (SPD) appointed Attorney Petros as counsel for J.O., who faced criminal charges in Barron County. At J.O.'s sentencing hearing, Attorney Petros obtained permission from the court to have a second presentencing investigation report (PSI) prepared and J.O.'s sentencing hearing was adjourned. Then, J.O. was charged with driving under the influence, 2nd offense, in Polk County. Attorney Petros later told the OLR that there was some discussion about whether the second PSI should be done, because the new charges might negatively affect the sentence recommendation. However, at the adjourned sentencing hearing on August 14, 2017, court records reflect that an "Alternative PSI has been ordered by defense" and the sentencing hearing was adjourned again. By late November 2017, the OLR was investigating Attorney Petros, who told the OLR that he and J.O. decided against obtaining a second PSI. J.O. asserts no such decision was ever made but rather, "the second PSI was always the plan." Attorney Petros never ordered a second PSI. He also failed to appear at J.O.'s sentencing hearing on October 30, 2017.

¶10 Meanwhile, in April 2017, J.O. had paid Attorney Petros $750 to commence a paternity case. Between April and October, 2017, Attorney Petros took no steps to initiate the paternity case. On November 27, 2017, Attorney Petros told the OLR via email that he had sent J.O. a full refund check. The client, however, did not receive a refund check, despite repeated requests, until February 2018, and then, it was refused due to insufficient funds. Attorney Petros later told the OLR that he had ensured there were sufficient funds in the account for the check to be cashed. The OLR provided this information to J.O. and did not hear from J.O. again.

¶11 The parties stipulated and the referee concluded that:

• By failing to arrange for a second PSI; by failing to appear in court at the October 30, 2017, sentencing hearing; and by failing to advance the paternity case, in each instance, Attorney Petros violated SCR 20:1.3 (Count One).¹

• By failing to timely refund the unearned advanced fee in the paternity case, Attorney Petros violated SCR 20:1.16(d) (Count Two).²

• By twice willfully misrepresenting to the OLR that he returned J.O.'s advanced fees when he had not, Attorney Petros violated SCR 22.03(6),³ enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count Three).⁴

Representation of J.T. (Counts 4-6)

¶12 In the fall of 2017, the SPD appointed Attorney Petros to represent J.T. at a sentencing hearing following the revocation of J.T.'s probation in Sawyer County. In short, Attorney Petros failed to make contact with J.T. and failed to respond to J.T.'s repeated efforts to contact him. J.T., who was being held in the Sawyer County jail, sent correspondence to Attorney Petros on September 27, November 23, and December 22, 2017. At J.T.'s request, jail staff left voice mail messages for Attorney Petros on October 9, November 1 and 20, December 12, 19, and 20, 2017, and February 1, 2018, requesting Attorney Petros to contact J.T. Attorney Petros did not respond to any of these attempts to reach him. Later, Attorney Petros falsely told the OLR that he visited J.T. in jail on October 16, 2017.

¶13 Attorney Petros then failed to respond to the OLR's request for information, and this court issued an order directing Attorney Petros to show cause why his law license should not be suspended for failure to cooperate with the OLR. Attorney Petros responded with a letter advising the court that he had provided the OLR with the requested information. However, the OLR had not received the requested information.

¶14 On June 4, 2018, the OLR received a response from Attorney Petros that was sufficient to allow it to continue its investigation. The OLR did not withdraw its motion to temporarily suspend Attorney Petros' law license, due to his continued non-cooperation in two other OLR investigations. On August 15, 2018, Attorney Petros' law license was temporarily suspended. He then cooperated with the OLR and his law license was reinstated on August 29, 2018.

¶15 The parties stipulated and the referee concluded that:

• By failing to respond to J.T.'s requests to contact him for information regarding his case, Attorney Petros violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) (Count 4).⁵

• By misrepresenting to the OLR that he visited J.T. in jail on October 16, 2017, Attorney Petros violated SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count 5).

• By willfully failing to provide the OLR with a timely response to J.T.'s grievance, Attorney Petros violated SCR 22.03(2)⁶ and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count 6).

Representation of A.H. (Counts 7-11)

¶16 In December 2016, A.H. received $30,012.77 from the proceeds of her mother's life insurance policy. A.H. hired Attorney Petros to prepare a special needs trust for her. Due to a disability, A.H. required such a trust so payments could be made to her that would not jeopardize her receipt of disability benefits. Attorney Petros charged A.H. $2,000 to create the trust but failed...