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

Citation: 2003 WI 115

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2003-07-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
2003 WI 115 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-1871-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: 
July 16, 2003   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2003 WI 115 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-1871-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 
 
JUL 16, 2003 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's recommendation 
that Attorney Elvis C. Banks' license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be revoked due to professional misconduct.  The 
referee also recommended that Attorney Banks be required to pay 
the costs of the proceeding.  Attorney Banks did not appeal this 
report and recommendation.  Indeed, Attorney Banks pled no 
contest to "each and every allegation" in the complaint filed 
against him, pursuant to SCR 22.14(2)1 and, subsequent to the 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.14(2) provides:  
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
2 
 
filing of the report and recommendation, he filed a Petition for 
Consensual License Revocation pursuant to SCR 22.19(1)2, which is 
also pending before this court. 
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and agree that the seriousness of Attorney 
Banks' professional misconduct warrants the revocation of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  We further agree that he 
should pay the costs of this proceeding.  In light of our 
acceptance of the report and recommendation and consequent 
revocation of Attorney Banks' license to practice law, we deem 
it unnecessary to rule on his Petition for Consensual License 
Revocation, which will be dismissed. 
¶3 
The referee, Michael Ash, made findings of fact based 
on Attorney Banks' no contest plea, the disciplinary complaint 
filed herein, the written submission of the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) filed on or about February 3, 2003, Attorney 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) The respondent may by answer plead no contest 
to allegations of misconduct in the complaint. The 
referee shall make a determination of misconduct in 
respect to each allegation to which no contest is 
pleaded and for which the referee finds an adequate 
factual 
basis 
in 
the 
record. 
In 
a 
subsequent 
disciplinary or reinstatement proceeding, it shall be 
conclusively presumed that the respondent engaged in 
the misconduct determined on the basis of a no contest 
plea. 
2 SCR 22.19(1) provides: "(1) An attorney who is the subject 
of an investigation for possible misconduct or the respondent in 
a proceeding may file with the supreme court a petition for the 
revocation by consent of his or her license to practice law." 
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
3 
 
Banks' written response thereto, and on testimony and evidence 
presented at the hearing on this matter.   
¶4 
Attorney 
Banks 
graduated 
from 
the 
Northeastern 
University School of Law in 1995.  He was admitted to practice 
in Wisconsin on September 30, 1997.   
¶5 
On July 18, 2002, the OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Banks alleging some 23 counts of misconduct committed 
in approximately 15 separate client matters.  A referee was 
appointed and scheduling matters were being considered when it 
became apparent that the OLR was investigating additional 
violations involving Attorney Banks. 
¶6 
On November 18, 2002, the OLR filed an amended 
complaint alleging 42 counts in some 20 separate client matters.  
The amended complaint re-alleged the counts in the original 
complaint, but also alleged numerous trust account violations, 
including a number of allegations of conversion of client 
account funds. 
¶7 
The specific allegations made by the OLR and the 
referee's findings and conclusions are summarized as follows. 
¶8 
Counts 1 and 2 involve a medical malpractice lawsuit 
in which Attorney Banks represented Shenique Williams.  The 
referee found that Attorney Banks failed to act in accordance 
with certain statutory requirements which required him to file 
for mediation in connection with this lawsuit.  Ms. Williams' 
lawsuit was ultimately dismissed because of this failure.  
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
4 
 
¶9 
The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Banks' conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:1.13 and  
SCR 20:1.3.4 
¶10 Counts 3 and 4 involve Attorney Banks' representation 
of Sheila Milton.  The OLR alleged and the referee found that 
Attorney Banks failed to appear at a scheduling conference and 
subsequently ignored a court order directing him to file a 
witness list and a pre-trial report.  Eventually, the court 
dismissed the case due to Attorney Banks' failure to comply with 
the court's orders, and assessed costs and attorney fees against 
Attorney Banks.   
¶11 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Banks' conduct in the Milton matter violated SCR 20:1.1 
and SCR 20:1.3.  
¶12 Counts 5 through 8 involved a matter in which Attorney 
Banks acted as guardian ad litem for three children.  The OLR 
alleged and the referee found that Attorney Banks filed three 
separate minor child settlement approval hearings related to the 
same accident.  In doing so Attorney Banks unnecessarily 
incurred two extra filing fees. 
¶13 During 
a 
hearing 
on 
these 
matters, 
the 
court 
discovered that Attorney Banks was asking the court to approve 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.1 provides:  "Competence.  A lawyer shall provide 
competent representation to a client. Competent representation 
requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." 
4 SCR 20:1.3 provides:  "Diligence.  A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
5 
 
settlements that would have provided one child with 20 cents, 
another with 10 cents, and the third with negative $457 after 
attorney fees and liens were paid.  The court found Attorney 
Banks' proposals to be contrary to the best interests of the 
children.  Attorney Banks claimed that he had not read the 
petitions prior to their filing.  The court ordered alterations 
in the proposed settlements, barred Attorney Banks from taking 
fees for the settlements, and ordered that all compensatory 
monies be paid to and held in trust by the clerk of courts, 
until the children turned 18 years old.   
¶14 Although the court ordered Attorney Banks to deposit 
the compensatory monies for the minors with the clerk of courts' 
office, the order that Attorney Banks submitted did not reflect 
that requirement. 
¶15 On May 17, 2001, Attorney Banks met with four judges 
regarding their concerns relating to Attorney Banks' practice of 
law.  The judges asked where the compensatory monies for the 
three minor child settlements was, whereupon Attorney Banks 
falsely stated it was invested in a mutual fund.  Attorney Banks 
was directed to forward the information where the compensatory 
monies had been placed, within ten days.   
¶16 In early June 2001 it was determined that the 
compensatory monies had not been filed as directed, and a notice 
of hearing was issued.  Two days later Attorney Banks placed the 
minors' compensatory monies in a certificate of deposit at a 
bank, thereby disobeying an order to deposit the minors' 
compensatory monies with the clerk of courts. 
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
6 
 
¶17 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Banks' conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:1.1, SCR 
20:1.3, SCR 20:8.4(c),5 and SCR 20:3.4(c).6   
¶18 Counts 9 and 10 involve Attorney Banks' representation 
of Ernest Schlegel.  The OLR alleged and the referee found that 
Attorney Banks failed to respond to discovery requests and 
failed to appear for a hearing, resulting in the case's 
dismissal with prejudice.  Attorney Banks filed a motion to 
reopen the matter but, by the time of the hearing, Attorney 
Banks still had not properly filed a Request for Mediation, as 
required by statute.  This was the same failing that was the 
basis for an October 1999 dismissal of a previous case before 
the same judge.  The court denied the motion to reopen.   
¶19 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Banks' conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:1.1 and 
SCR 20:1.3.   
¶20 Counts 
11 
and 
12 
involve 
Attorney 
Banks' 
representation of Andrew L. Jeff.  The OLR alleged and the 
referee found that Attorney Banks failed to appear at a status 
conference in circuit court.  Attorney Banks also failed to 
appear at depositions, and his discovery responses were late.  
                                                 
5 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 
6 SCR 
20:3.4(c) 
provides:  "A 
lawyer 
shall 
not: 
(c) 
knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal 
except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid 
obligation exists." 
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
7 
 
The court ordered the case dismissed for want of prosecution and 
failure to appear, with prejudice. 
¶21 On February 4, 2002, the court granted Attorney Banks' 
motion to reopen the case.  However, Attorney Banks failed to 
appear at a subsequent final pre-trial conference, and the court 
made the following observation:  "This case has a checkered 
career.  It was set this morning for a pre-trial conference.  A 
review of the docket sheet reflects that the absence of 
plaintiff's counsel was almost to be anticipated."  
¶22 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Banks' conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:1.1 and 
SCR 20:1.3.   
¶23 Counts 
13 
and 
14 
involve 
Attorney 
Banks' 
representation of Joe Donaldson.  On January 2, 2002, Attorney 
Banks failed to appear at a pre-trial conference and Donaldson's 
case was dismissed.  The dismissal was stayed until January 21, 
2002, pending appropriate filings by Attorney Banks prior to 
that date.  However, Attorney Banks failed to file anything and 
the case was dismissed.  On February 20, 2002, Attorney Banks 
filed a motion to reopen the case but failed to appear at the 
hearing on the motion to reopen.   
¶24 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Banks' conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:1.1 and 
SCR 20:1.3. 
¶25 Counts 
15 
and 
16 
involve 
Attorney 
Banks' 
representation of Alisa Zahn and Michelle Neary.  In this 
matter, Attorney Banks filed a poorly drafted and incomplete 
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
8 
 
witness list and failed to serve a copy of it upon opposing 
counsel.  Attorney Banks also failed to file permanency reports 
on behalf of his clients. 
¶26 At a January 22, 2001, hearing, the circuit court 
asked Attorney Banks if he could provide an excuse for his 
neglect.  Attorney Banks blamed people working in his office for 
not doing things properly.  When the court pointed out that 
Attorney Banks' signature appeared on the witness list, Attorney 
Banks responded:  "Yes ma'am.  And no doubt someone may have put 
it in my face and had me sign it . . . ."  The court ordered 
Attorney Banks to file his pre-trial report within ten days.  
Attorney Banks failed to file the pre-trial report and the case 
was dismissed on the merits.   
¶27 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Banks' conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:1.1 and 
SCR 20:1.3.   
¶28 Count 17 involves Attorney Banks' representation of 
Kennya S., a 
minor, in 
connection 
with 
a 
petition for 
appointment of a guardian ad litem relating to an accident 
settlement.  Attorney Banks filed the petition with the court, 
but 
failed 
to 
have 
certain 
signatures 
notarized, 
so 
no 
appointment was made.  Indeed, no further action was taken on 
the case, and the court issued a Notice of Dismissal, notifying 
Attorney Banks that the case would be dismissed on March 19, 
2002, at 10:00 a.m.  Attorney Banks failed to contact the court 
and failed to appear at the dismissal hearing.   
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
9 
 
¶29 Due to the nature of the case, rather than merely 
dismiss the matter, the court contacted the insurance company 
involved in the settlement negotiations.  A senior claims' 
representative informed the court that Attorney Banks had 
already handled the matter and had obtained a settlement, 
without court oversight or review.   
¶30 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Banks' conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:1.1. 
¶31 Count 18 involves Attorney Banks' representation of 
Karen Kolp.  Ms. Kolp retained Attorney Banks to assist her with 
a personal injury action but thereafter, Attorney Banks failed 
to return her telephone calls.  Eventually, she wrote to 
Attorney Banks requesting him to settle her case so that her 
medical bills could be paid.  She reminded Attorney Banks that 
he had assured her that the other side would be "more than 
willing to settle this claim out of court."  On that same date, 
February 19, 2001, without advising Ms. Kolp or otherwise 
securing her consent, Attorney Banks filed a lawsuit on Ms. 
Kolp's behalf. 
¶32 The next day Attorney Banks drafted a letter to Ms. 
Kolp informing her that he had filed a lawsuit and that the 
insurance 
company 
had 
offered 
$6000 
for 
full 
and 
final 
settlement of her claim, but stated that it would constitute 
"legal malpractice" to settle her case for such a pittance.  He 
stated that if she wanted him to settle for the offered amount 
to let him know.   
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
10 
 
¶33 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Banks' conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:1.4(a).7 
¶34 Counts 
19 
and 
20 
involve 
Attorney 
Banks' 
representation of Lorraine Miller-Yegger.  Ms. Miller-Yegger 
retained Attorney Banks to represent her in connection with an 
injury she sustained.  Attorney Banks failed to follow certain 
statutory requirements relating to this claim and, indeed, 
during the two years Attorney Banks represented Ms. Miller-
Yegger, the only contact he had with her was apparently one 
letter that his law clerk sent to her.   
¶35 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Banks' conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:1.1 and   
SCR 20:1.4(a).   
¶36 Counts 
21 
and 
22 
involve 
Attorney 
Banks' 
representation of a Mr. Guerra.   Attorney Banks agreed to file 
a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on Mr. Guerra's behalf but 
never did so.  A letter, dated August 8, 2002, was sent to Mr. 
Guerra on Attorney Banks' letterhead, stating that Attorney 
Banks would represent Mr. Guerra for $500.  Shortly thereafter, 
in response to the letter, Mr. Guerra sent a $500 check to 
Attorney Banks' office.   
¶37 During an OLR investigation into the matter Attorney 
Banks indicated that he thought one of his employees, who was 
described as a former "jailhouse lawyer," sent the August 8, 
                                                 
7 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: "Communication. (a) A lawyer shall 
keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter 
and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information." 
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
11 
 
2002, letter and pocketed Mr. Guerra's money.  Attorney Banks 
stated that he learned that the employee "often sent out letters 
like this" and, Attorney Banks believed, kept retainers like the 
one from Mr. Guerra.  Attorney Banks did reimburse Mr. Guerra 
his $500.   
¶38 The OLR alleged and the referee found that Attorney 
Banks' conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:1.3 and SCR 
20:5.3(a).8 
¶39 Count 23 involves Attorney Banks' representation of 
Sonji Williams-Currin. She filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition 
with Attorney Banks as her counsel.  The petition listed her 
vehicle as an asset and indicated that a financing company had a 
lien on the vehicle.  Attorney Banks agreed to prepare and 
process a reaffirmation agreement for the vehicle, but failed to 
do so. 
¶40 When Ms. Williams-Currin attempted to make payments to 
the financing company she was advised that the reaffirmation 
agreement first needed to be executed.  Attorney Banks' office 
then told Ms. Williams-Currin that it was the responsibility of 
the finance company to accomplish this.  As a result of the 
reaffirmation 
agreement not 
being 
properly 
processed, Ms. 
                                                 
8 SCR 20:5.3(a) provides: "With respect to a nonlawyer 
employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer: A partner 
in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the 
firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the 
person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations 
of the lawyer." 
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
12 
 
Williams-Currin had to file a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy to maintain 
possession of her vehicle. 
¶41 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Banks' conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:1.1. 
¶42 Counts 
24 
and 
25 
involve 
Attorney 
Banks' 
representation of Donald McAffee. The referee found that 
Attorney Banks transferred settlement monies paid on behalf of 
Mr. McAffee from his trust account to his business account and 
ultimately converted $113.33 of McAffee's settlement. 
¶43 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Banks' conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:8.4(c) 
and SCR 20:1.15(a).9 
                                                 
9 SCR 20:1.15(a) provides:  
[a] A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from 
the lawyer's own property, that property of clients 
and third persons that is in the lawyer's possession 
in connection with a representation or when acting in 
a fiduciary capacity. Funds held in connection with a 
representation or in a fiduciary capacity include 
funds held as trustee, agent, guardian, personal 
representative of an estate, or otherwise. All funds 
of clients and third persons paid to a lawyer or law 
firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable 
trust accounts as provided in paragraph (c). The trust 
account shall be maintained in a bank, savings bank, 
trust 
company, 
credit 
union, 
savings 
and 
loan 
association or other investment institution authorized 
to do business and located in Wisconsin. The trust 
account shall be clearly designated as "Client's 
Account" or "Trust Account" or words of similar 
import. No funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm, 
except funds reasonably sufficient to pay or avoid 
imposition 
of 
account 
service 
charges, 
may 
be 
deposited in such an account. Unless the client 
otherwise directs in writing, securities in bearer 
form shall be kept by the attorney in a safe deposit 
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
13 
 
¶44 Counts 
26 
and 
27 
involve 
Attorney 
Banks' 
representation of Brandon Brand.  Attorney Banks deposited a 
$5500 settlement check paid on behalf of Mr. Brand into his 
trust account.  He then transferred these monies into his 
business account.  The referee detailed the ensuing financial 
transactions and concluded that Attorney Banks converted at 
least $3665 of the Brand settlement proceeds, not including 
$1485 in attorneys' fees, $150 in undescribed loans and $200 of 
unitemized other expenses. 
¶45 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Banks' conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:8.4(c) 
and SCR 20:1.15(a). 
¶46 Counts 
28, 
29, 
and 
30 
involve 
Attorney 
Banks' 
representation of Cherry M., a minor, for whom Attorney Banks 
served as guardian ad litem, and Cherry's mother.  Attorney 
Banks deposited a $7000 settlement check issued in connection 
with this matter into his trust account.  The referee detailed 
the ensuing financial transactions and concluded that Attorney 
Banks transferred the monies to his business account, converted 
                                                                                                                                                             
box in a bank, savings bank, trust company, credit 
union, 
savings 
and 
loan 
association 
or 
other 
investment institution authorized to do business and 
located in Wisconsin. The safe deposit box shall be 
clearly designated as "Client's Account" or "Trust 
Account" or words of similar import. Other property of 
a client or third person shall be identified as such 
and 
appropriately 
safeguarded. If 
a lawyer 
also 
licensed in another state is entrusted with funds or 
property 
in 
connection 
with 
an 
out-of-state 
representation, this provision shall not supersede the 
trust account rules of the other state. 
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
14 
 
funds from the settlement, and later failed to provide the OLR 
with any financial records pertaining to a restricted account he 
had been directed to establish on the client's behalf. 
¶47 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Banks' conduct in this matter violated SCR 20:8.4(c), 
SCR 20:1.15(a), and SCR 20:1.15(f).10 
¶48 Counts 
31 
and 
32 
involve 
Attorney 
Banks' 
representation of Bobby Burton.  The referee found that Attorney 
Banks converted $1605.14 from Mr. Burton.  The OLR alleged and 
the referee concluded that Attorney Banks' conduct in this 
matter violated, SCR 20:8.4(c) and SCR 20:1.15(a). 
¶49 Counts 
33 
and 
34 
involve 
Attorney 
Banks' 
representation of Jerri Jones-Jenkins.  The referee found that 
Attorney Banks converted $2666.67 from Jones-Jenkins.  The OLR 
alleged and the referee concluded that Attorney Banks' conduct 
in this matter violated SCR 20:8.4(c) and SCR 20:1.15(a).   
¶50 Counts 
35 
and 
36 
involve 
Attorney 
Banks' 
representation of Glenell Johnson.  The referee found that 
Attorney Banks converted funds from this client as well.  The 
                                                 
10 SCR 20:1.15(f) provides:  
(f) Upon 
request 
of 
the 
office 
of 
lawyer 
regulation, or upon direction of the Supreme Court, 
the records shall be submitted to the office for its 
inspection, audit, use, 
and 
evidence 
under 
such 
conditions to protect the privilege of clients as the 
court may provide. The records, or an audit thereof, 
shall be produced at any disciplinary proceeding 
involving the attorney wherever material. Failure to 
produce the records shall constitute unprofessional 
conduct and grounds for disciplinary action. 
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
15 
 
OLR alleged and the referee concluded that Attorney Banks' 
conduct 
in 
this 
matter 
violated 
SCR 
20:8.4(c) 
and 
SCR 
20:1.15(a). 
¶51 Counts 
37 
and 
38 
involve 
Attorney 
Banks' 
representation of Barbara Magee.  The referee found that 
Attorney Banks converted $1136.93 from Ms. Magee.  The OLR 
alleged and the referee concluded that Attorney Banks' conduct 
in this matter violated SCR 20:8.4(c) and SCR 20:1.15(a).   
¶52 Count 39 involves Attorney Banks' representation of 
Caleb 
Taharka. 
 
The 
referee 
found 
that 
Attorney 
Banks 
transferred settlement monies from his trust account to his 
business account.  The OLR alleged and the referee concluded 
that Attorney Banks' conduct in this matter violated SCR 
20:1.15(a). 
¶53 Counts 40 and 41 involve Attorney Banks' trust account 
record keeping practices.  For at least four consecutive years, 
from 1999 through 2002, Attorney Banks signed a certification to 
the State Bar of Wisconsin that: "I have a Wisconsin trust 
account and have complied with each of the record-keeping 
requirements set forth in SCR 20.1.15(e)."  In fact, Attorney 
Banks 
did 
not 
then, 
and 
never 
did, 
comply 
with 
those 
requirements.  Although he maintained a trust account for some 
time during the period 1999 through 2002, he did not do so 
continuously, and he rarely, if ever, used it for its intended 
purposes. 
¶54 The OLR's initial audit of Attorney Banks' bank record 
covered only eight to ten client matters; in each of those 
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
16 
 
matters "problems," which included conversion of client funds, 
were found.  The referee detailed Attorney Banks' failure to 
maintain 
trust 
account 
records, 
notwithstanding 
his 
certifications to the State Bar of Wisconsin.  According to an 
OLR's trust account overdraft investigator, whose testimony the 
referee found to be credible: 
There were multiple conversions of trust funds and we 
saw it, I saw it in virtually every transaction that I 
reviewed.  I think only in one instance of the cases I 
examined 
was 
there 
not 
a 
conversion 
of 
trust 
funds. . . .  And we have not even touched the volume 
of misconduct involved.  We've reviewed and prosecuted 
so far only the first eight, nine or ten transactions.  
From what I can see there's other problems in the 
following years that have not even been addressed.   
¶55 The OLR alleged and the referee concluded that 
Attorney Banks failed to maintain complete records of trust 
accounts in violation of SCR 20:1.15(e),11 and filed false 
                                                 
11 SCR 20:1.15(e) provides: 
(e) Complete records of trust account funds and 
other trust property shall be kept by the lawyer and 
shall be preserved for a period of at least six years 
after termination of the representation. Complete 
records shall include: (i) a cash receipts journal, 
listing the sources and date of each receipt, (ii) a 
disbursements journal, listing the date and payee of 
each disbursement, with all disbursements being paid 
by check, (iii) a subsidiary ledger containing a 
separate page for each person or company for whom 
funds have been received in trust, showing the date 
and amount of each receipt, the date and amount of 
each disbursement, and any unexpended balance, (iv) a 
monthly schedule of the subsidiary ledger, indicating 
the balance of each client's account at the end of 
each month, (v) a determination of the cash balance 
(checkbook balance) at the end of each month, taken 
from the cash receipts and cash disbursement journals 
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
17 
 
certifications with the State Bar of Wisconsin in violation of 
SCR 20:1.15(g).12 
                                                                                                                                                             
and a reconciliation of the cash balance (checkbook 
balance) with the balance indicated in the bank 
statement, and (vi) monthly statements, including 
canceled 
checks, 
vouchers 
or 
share 
drafts, 
and 
duplicate deposit slips. A record of all property 
other than cash which is held in trust for clients or 
third persons, as required by paragraph (a) hereof, 
shall also be maintained. All trust account records 
shall be deemed to have public aspects as related to 
the lawyer's fitness to practice. 
12 SCR 20:1.15(g) provides:  
(g) A member of the State Bar of Wisconsin shall 
file with the State Bar annually, with payment of the 
member's State Bar dues or upon such other date as 
approved by the Supreme Court, a certificate stating 
whether the member is engaged in the private practice 
of law in Wisconsin and, if so, the name of each bank, 
trust company, credit union or savings and loan 
association in which the member maintains a trust 
account, safe deposit box, or both, as required by 
this section. Each member shall explicitly certify 
therein that he or she has complied with each of the 
record-keeping requirements set forth in paragraph (e) 
hereof. 
A 
partnership 
or 
professional 
legal 
corporation may file one certificate on behalf of its 
partners, associates, or officers who are required to 
file under this section. The failure of a member to 
file the certificate required by this section is 
grounds for automatic suspension of the member's 
membership in the State Bar in the same manner as 
provided in SCR 10.03(6) for nonpayment of dues. The 
filing of 
a 
false 
certificate 
is unprofessional 
conduct and is grounds for disciplinary action. The 
State Bar shall supply to each member, with the annual 
dues statement or at such other time as directed by 
the Supreme Court, a form on which the certification 
must be made and a copy of this rule. 
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
18 
 
¶56 Count 42 relates to Attorney Banks' handling of 
contingency fee cases.  Attorney Banks admitted that he did not 
have written retainer agreements with his clients in contingency 
fee cases.  The referee thus concluded that Attorney Banks 
failed to put contingent fee agreements in writing, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.5(c).13 
¶57 Attorney Banks ultimately pled no contest to these 
charges pursuant to SCR 22.14(2).  Such a plea requires the 
referee to make a determination of misconduct with respect to 
each allegation, which the referee did, adopting as adequate a 
detailed factual submission submitted by the OLR.   
¶58 Evaluating the appropriate discipline for Attorney 
Banks, the referee noted that Attorney Banks did not contest any 
of the OLR's legal or factual allegations.  Indeed, Attorney 
Banks acknowledged: "the information submitted by the OLR I 
                                                 
13 SCR 20:1.5(c) provides: 
(c) A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the 
matter for which the service is rendered, except in a 
matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by 
paragraph (d) or other law.  A contingent fee 
agreement shall be in writing and shall state the 
method by which the fee is to be determined, including 
the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the 
lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal, 
litigation and other expenses to be deducted from the 
recovery, and whether such expenses are to be deducted 
before or after the contingent fee is calculated. Upon 
conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer 
shall provide the client with a written statement 
stating the outcome of the matter and if there is a 
recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the 
method of its determination. 
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
19 
 
believe is pretty much accurate in terms of the trust accounts, 
overdraft, my failure to appear in court on time and things of 
that nature."  
¶59 However, the referee noted that Attorney Banks tended 
to cast the blame for his misconduct on others and the referee 
concluded that Attorney Banks "did not at all appreciate or even 
fully understand the gravity of his misconduct."  The referee 
opined that Attorney Banks "cannot presently be trusted to 
refrain from repeating his misconduct, including the conversion 
of client funds entrusted to him."  The referee recommended that 
Attorney Banks' license to practice law in Wisconsin be revoked 
and that he be ordered to pay the costs of the OLR disciplinary 
proceeding.  He explained: 
Banks committed multiple offenses; he displayed a 
pattern of misconduct spanning several years; he has 
exhibited 
no 
real 
remorse; 
he 
shows 
no 
real 
understanding of the wrongful nature of his conduct.  
These circumstances are all aggravating factors that 
justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be 
imposed. . . .  
to impress Banks himself with the seriousness of his 
own misconduct, to deter other attorneys from similar 
types of misconduct, and to protect the public, the 
courts and the legal system from repetition of such 
misconduct, revocation 
of 
Banks' 
license, 
in my 
opinion, is proper and appropriate.  So too, it is 
appropriate 
that 
he 
pay 
the 
costs 
of 
these 
proceedings. 
¶60 On May 23, 2003, shortly after the period for 
appealing the report and recommendation had expired, Attorney 
Banks filed a Petition for Consensual License Revocation. The 
petition explains that, in addition to the numerous allegations 
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
20 
 
recited in Referee Ash's report, Attorney Banks is being 
investigated 
for 
misconduct 
in 
several 
additional 
client 
matters.  The OLR filed a memorandum, agreeing that revocation 
is warranted here. 
¶61 We adopt the referee's report and recommendation.  In 
the report and recommendation alone Attorney Banks was found to 
have committed ten violations of SCR 20:1.1; eight violations of 
SCR 20:1.3; eight violations of SCR 20:8.4(c); one violation of 
SCR 20:3.4(c); two violations of SCR 20:1.4(a); one violation of 
SCR 20:5.3(a); eight violations of SCR 20:1.15(a); one violation 
of SCR 20:1.5(c); one violation of SCR 20:1.15(e); one violation 
of SCR 20:1.15(f); and one violation of SCR 20:1.15(g).  
¶62 In addition, the Petition for Consensual License 
Revocation filed by Attorney Banks indicates that the OLR has 
found cause to proceed with the investigation of some 17 
disciplinary violations in 7 additional client matters, and 
Attorney Banks concedes that he cannot successfully defend 
against these claims.14   
¶63 The 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Banks' 
egregious 
misconduct with respect to his mishandling of numerous client 
matters cannot be overstated and clearly warrants the revocation 
of his license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
                                                 
14 In light of our acceptance of the referee's report and 
recommendation to revoke Attorney Banks' license to practice law 
we deem it unnecessary to address the pending Petition for 
Consensual License Revocation. 
 
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
21 
 
¶64 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Attorney Elvis C. 
Banks to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the 
date of this order. 
¶65 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Elvis C. Banks 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
revoked. 
¶66 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Elvis C. Banks pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶67 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Consensual 
License Revocation is dismissed.   
No. 
02-1871-D   
 
 
 
1