Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Elvis C. Banks

Citation: 2010 WI 105

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2010-08-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
2010 WI 105 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2002AP1871-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Elvis C. Banks, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Elvis C. Banks, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BANKS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 24, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 105
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2002AP1871-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Elvis C. Banks, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Elvis C. Banks, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
AUG 24, 2010 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.    Reinstatement denied. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, Reserve Judge Timothy Vocke, that Attorney 
Elvis C. Banks' petition for the reinstatement of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be denied.1  After fully reviewing the 
matter, we agree that Attorney Banks has not satisfied the 
                                                 
1 Because neither party appealed from the referee's report 
and recommendation, our review proceeds under SCR 22.33(3), 
which provides that "[i]f no appeal is timely filed, the supreme 
court shall review the referee's report, order reinstatement, 
with or without conditions, deny reinstatement, or order the 
parties to file briefs in the matter." 
No. 
2002AP1871-D   
 
2 
 
requirements for reinstatement, and we therefore deny the 
reinstatement petition.  We further determine that Attorney 
Banks should be required to pay the costs of the reinstatement 
proceeding, which were $7,760.44 as of February 16, 2010. 
¶2 
The standards that apply to all petitions seeking 
reinstatement after a disciplinary suspension or revocation are 
set forth in SCR 22.31(1).2  In particular, the petitioning 
attorney must demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 
evidence that he or she has the moral character necessary to 
practice law in this state, that his or her resumption of the 
practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest, and that the 
attorney has complied fully with the terms of the suspension 
order and SCR 22.26.  In addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c) incorporates 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.31(1) states: 
The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all 
of the following: 
(a) That he or she has the moral character to 
practice law in Wisconsin. 
(b) That his or her resumption of the practice of 
law will not be detrimental to the administration of 
justice or subversive of the public interest. 
(c) That his or her representations in the 
petition, including the representations required by 
SCR 
22.29(4)(a) 
to 
[(4m)] 
and 
22.29(5), 
are 
substantiated. 
(d) That he or she has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
with the requirements of SCR 22.26. 
No. 
2002AP1871-D   
 
3 
 
the statements that a petition for reinstatement must contain 
pursuant to SCR 22.29(4)(a)-[(4m)].3  Thus, the petitioning 
                                                 
3 SCR 22.29(4)(a) through (4m) provides that a petition for 
reinstatement shall show all of the following: 
(a) 
The 
petitioner 
desires 
to 
have 
the 
petitioner's license reinstated. 
(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during 
the period of suspension or revocation. 
(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the 
terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 
will 
continue 
to 
comply 
with 
them 
until 
the 
petitioner's license is reinstated. 
(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and 
learning in the law by attendance at identified 
educational activities. 
(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension 
or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach. 
(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of 
and attitude toward the standards that are imposed 
upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 
with the standards. 
(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to 
the legal profession, the courts and the public as a 
person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 
them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 
confidence and in general to aid in the administration 
of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 
the courts. 
(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the 
requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. 
(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license 
if reinstated. 
(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 
business activities during the period of suspension or 
revocation. 
No. 
2002AP1871-D   
 
4 
 
attorney must demonstrate that the required representations in 
the reinstatement petition are substantiated. 
¶3 
Attorney Banks was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in September 1997.  This court revoked his license to 
practice law in this state on July 16, 2003.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Banks, 2003 WI 115, 265 Wis. 2d 45, 665 
N.W.2d 827.  In that disciplinary proceeding the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed an amended complaint that charged 
Attorney 
Banks 
with 
42 
separate 
counts 
of 
professional 
misconduct arising out of 20 separate representations.  Attorney 
Banks pled no contest to "each and every allegation" in the 
amended complaint.  The counts of professional misconduct 
included eight violations involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation; eleven violations for failure to follow 
client trust account rules; ten violations for failing to 
provide competent representation; eight violations for failing 
to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing 
a client; and one violation for knowingly disobeying an 
                                                                                                                                                             
(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 
settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 
petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to 
the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection for 
all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the 
petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability 
to do so. 
No. 
2002AP1871-D   
 
5 
 
obligation under the rules of a tribunal.4  In that proceeding, 
the referee commented that Attorney Banks tended to cast blame 
for his misconduct on others and did not appreciate or even 
understand the gravity of his misconduct. 
¶4 
On May 8, 2009, Attorney Banks filed a petition for 
reinstatement.  In his petition he alleged, among other things, 
that he had complied fully with the terms of the order of 
revocation, that he had maintained competence and learning in 
the law, that his conduct since the revocation had been 
exemplary and above reproach, and that he had fully complied 
with the requirements set forth in SCR 22.26.  Attorney Banks 
stated that during the period of his revocation he had worked as 
a substitute teacher and a security guard. 
¶5 
Both the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) and the OLR 
opposed Attorney Banks' reinstatement petition.  The BBE stated 
that Attorney Banks had not provided evidence of attendance for 
the required number of continuing legal education (CLE) hours.  
The OLR contended that Attorney Banks could not meet the 
required standard of proof on a number of the requirements for 
reinstatement. 
                                                 
4 In addition to pleading no contest to the 42 counts in the 
OLR's amended complaint, Attorney Banks also filed a petition 
for consensual license revocation, in which he admitted that he 
could not defend against 17 additional counts of misconduct in 
another seven client matters.  Because we revoked his license on 
the basis of the 42 counts in the then-pending disciplinary 
proceeding, we deemed it unnecessary to rule on the additional 
misconduct disclosed in the petition for consensual license 
revocation. 
No. 
2002AP1871-D   
 
6 
 
¶6 
After conducting a public hearing as required by 
SCR 22.31, the referee issued a report recommending that 
Attorney Banks' reinstatement petition be denied.  The referee 
found that Attorney Banks was not prepared for the hearing and 
did not have documentation to support many of the allegations in 
his reinstatement petition.  Indeed, the referee found that on 
many issues Attorney Banks had no recollection of events and had 
no documents with which he could refresh his recollection. 
¶7 
The referee found that Attorney Banks had failed to 
satisfy the requirements for reinstatement in a host of ways.  
First, the referee noted that the BBE had filed a report 
indicating that Attorney Banks had failed to report attendance 
for a sufficient number of CLE hours.  See SCR 31.06 (BBE shall 
determine the attendance and reporting requirements for a person 
seeking 
reinstatement 
after 
disciplinary 
suspension 
or 
revocation); CLE 11.03 (lawyer seeking reinstatement must show 
30 hours of CLE attendance per reporting period up to a maximum 
of 60 hours).  Attorney Banks appeared at the reinstatement 
hearing without even verifying with the BBE that he had obtained 
the necessary CLE credits.  Thus, Attorney Banks had not 
demonstrated that he had maintained learning and competence in 
the law. 
¶8 
Second, the referee found that Attorney Banks had not 
complied with the requirements of SCR 22.26 following his 
revocation.  He failed to notify his clients that his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin had been revoked and failed to make 
arrangements for the winding up of his practice, including the 
No. 
2002AP1871-D   
 
7 
 
return of client files to the clients.  See SCR 22.26(1)(a) and 
(d).  Attorney Banks also failed to notify the courts in which 
he had pending matters at the time of the revocation.  See SCR 
22.26(1)(c).  Indeed, in at least one instance, both the client 
and the circuit court learned of the revocation when Attorney 
Banks simply failed to appear in court to represent the client 
at a plea and sentencing hearing.  Attorney Banks also failed to 
file his post-revocation affidavit showing compliance with the 
requirements of SCR 22.26 until March 2006, more than two and 
one-half years after his revocation.  See SCR 22.26(1)(e) 
(affidavit to be filed within 25 days after suspension or 
revocation).  Further, the referee found that the affidavit, 
when it was finally filed, was not accurate. 
¶9 
The referee further found that Attorney Banks had not 
complied with this court's revocation order, which required 
Attorney Banks to pay the full costs of his disciplinary 
proceeding.  Although the referee found that Attorney Banks had 
paid 
nearly 
$3,000 
toward 
the 
original 
cost 
amount 
of 
approximately $6,800, the referee also found that Attorney Banks 
had failed to comply with the several payment schedules he had 
negotiated with the OLR. 
¶10 The referee also found that Attorney Banks' conduct 
since his revocation had not been exemplary and above reproach.  
For example, Attorney Banks failed to file a tax return for 2003 
and failed to file amended tax returns as needed for the years 
1997 through 2002. 
No. 
2002AP1871-D   
 
8 
 
¶11 In addition, the referee concluded that Attorney Banks 
had not demonstrated that he has a proper understanding of and 
attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of 
the bar of this state.  On the reinstatement questionnaire that 
Attorney Banks submitted to the OLR, he stated that he had been 
denied an opportunity to earn a living practicing law and that 
this court's revocation order had caused him to lose an 
estimated $1 million in income.  The referee indicated that 
these comments demonstrated an attitude that practicing law is a 
right rather than the privilege it truly is.   
¶12 Moreover, the referee found that Attorney Banks had 
attempted to shift the blame for or minimize the misconduct that 
led to the revocation of his license, "forgetting that he was 
disbarred for dishonesty, incompetence, conversion of funds, and 
lying to a court, among other things."  
¶13 The referee was particularly troubled by a number of 
reference letters submitted on Attorney Banks' behalf.  The 
reference letters came from individuals without knowledge of the 
law or of Attorney Banks' legal abilities, and they consistently 
claimed that the misconduct claims against Attorney Banks had 
been spurious or unproven.  Despite this court having found 
multiple violations of SCR 20:8.4(c), one such letter stated 
that there had been "no evidence of fraud" in the prior 
disciplinary proceeding.  The referee questioned where these 
individuals would have gotten such false beliefs if not from 
Attorney Banks' statements to them.  The referee concluded that 
the inaccurate statements in the letters, which must have 
No. 
2002AP1871-D   
 
9 
 
resulted 
from 
communications 
with 
Attorney 
Banks, 
showed 
deliberate misinformation or at least a failure to take 
responsibility. 
¶14 In 
addition, 
during 
the 
reinstatement 
proceeding 
Attorney Banks attempted to downplay the process that led to the 
revocation of his license to practice law in 2003.  He described 
it as only a summary process, falsely insinuating that he did 
not have a full opportunity to contest the allegations of 
misconduct.  The referee further stated that Attorney Banks had 
attempted 
during 
the 
reinstatement 
proceeding, 
albeit 
unsuccessfully, to revisit the question of his professional 
misconduct already decided by this court in 2003.  The referee 
commented that Attorney Banks' conduct during the reinstatement 
proceeding was "the definition of denial" and showed a lack of 
insight and remorse about his past misconduct. 
¶15 Finally, the referee concluded that Attorney Banks had 
failed to show that his resumption of the practice of law would 
not 
be 
detrimental 
to 
the 
administration 
of 
justice 
or 
subversive of the public interest.  The referee pointed to the 
fact 
that 
Attorney 
Banks 
claimed 
that 
he 
had 
committed 
misconduct because he had insufficient experience, too much 
work, and too many clients.  The referee noted that Attorney 
Banks has no more experience now.  Moreover, the referee 
commented that Attorney Banks had described this court's 
revocation of his license as an "injustice," implying that he 
does not grasp the serious nature of his prior misconduct and 
the need to comply with all of the rules of professional conduct 
No. 
2002AP1871-D   
 
10 
 
in order to ensure the proper administration of justice and the 
protection of the public. 
¶16 As in disciplinary proceedings, this court will affirm 
a referee's findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly 
erroneous.  Conclusions of law, however, are subject to de novo 
review.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Davison, 2010 WI 
1, ¶19, 322 Wis. 2d 67, 777 N.W.2d 82. 
¶17 After our review of the matter, we find nothing to 
indicate that the referee's findings of fact are clearly 
erroneous.  We therefore conclude, as did the referee, that 
Attorney 
Banks 
has 
failed 
to 
meet 
the 
requirements 
for 
reinstatement to the practice of law in Wisconsin in multiple 
ways.  Moreover, the shortcomings in his reinstatement petition 
are not mere technicalities; they go to the heart of whether 
Attorney Banks understands and would be able to conduct himself 
according 
to 
the 
rules 
of 
professional 
conduct 
and 
the 
obligations of a licensed attorney. 
¶18 We further determine, consistent with our general 
practice, that Attorney Banks should be required to pay the full 
costs of this reinstatement proceeding.  We note that Attorney 
Banks did not object to the reasonableness of the amount of 
costs requested in the OLR's statement of costs.  As before, in 
the event that Attorney Banks is unable to pay the full amount 
of costs within the prescribed time, he should enter into and 
comply with a payment agreement with the OLR. 
No. 
2002AP1871-D   
 
11 
 
¶19 IT IS ORDERED that Elvis C. Banks' petition for 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin is 
denied. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Elvis C. Banks shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this reinstatement proceeding. 
 
No. 
2002AP1871-D   
 
 
 
1