Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Christopher S. Petros

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2020AP000725-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2021-06-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
2021 WI 55 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2020AP725-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Christopher S. Petros, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Christopher S. Petros, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETROS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 9, 2021   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
2021 WI 55 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2020AP725-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Christopher S. Petros, 
Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Christopher S. Petros, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
JUN 9, 2021 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
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 
No. 
2020AP725-D   
 
2 
 
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 
                     
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2020AP725-D   
 
3 
 
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. 
No. 
2020AP725-D   
 
4 
 
¶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. 
No. 
2020AP725-D   
 
5 
 
¶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.   
No. 
2020AP725-D   
 
6 
 
¶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.  
No. 
2020AP725-D   
 
7 
 
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. 
No. 
2020AP725-D   
 
8 
 
¶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),2 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f);3 
                     
2 SCR 22.26(1)(c) provides that, on or before the effective 
date of a license suspension, an attorney whose license is 
suspended shall: 
Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation. The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence. 
3 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers." 
No. 
2020AP725-D   
 
9 
 
 Two counts (Counts 2 and 8) of practicing law after 
his law license had been suspended, contrary to 
SCR 22.26(2),4 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);5  
 Seven counts (Counts 4-6, 9, 14-16) of failing to 
cooperate with an OLR investigation, contrary to 
SCR 22.03(2)6 and/or SCR 22.03(6),7 enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(h);8  
                     
4 SCR 22.26(2) provides: 
An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
5 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) provides:  "A lawyer shall not knowingly 
make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to 
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously 
made to the tribunal by the lawyer." 
6 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the respondent of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise.  The 
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 
request for a written response.  The director may 
allow additional time to respond.  Following receipt 
(continued) 
No. 
2020AP725-D   
 
10 
 
 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),9 
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);10  
                                                                  
of the response, the director may conduct further 
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation.   
7 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's willful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
8 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 
or SCR 22.04(1)." 
9 SCR 22.26(1)(a) provides: 
On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
Notify by certified mail all clients being represented 
in pending matters of the suspension or revocation and 
of the attorney's consequent inability to act as an 
attorney 
following 
the 
effective 
date 
of 
the 
suspension or revocation. 
10 SCR 20:1.5(f) provides: 
Except as provided in SCR 20:1.5(g), unearned 
fees and funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 
payment of fees shall be held in trust until earned by 
the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to SCR 20:1.5(h). 
(continued) 
No. 
2020AP725-D   
 
11 
 
 One count (Count 11) of engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation, 
contrary to SCR 20:8.4(c);11  
 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)12 
and 
SCR 20:1.5(b)(2);13 and  
                                                                  
Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for payment of 
costs shall be held in trust until the costs are 
incurred. 
11 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
12 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) provides:   
The scope of the representation and the basis or 
rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will 
be responsible shall be communicated to the client in 
writing, before or within a reasonable time after 
commencing the representation, except when the lawyer 
will charge a regularly represented client on the same 
basis or rate as in the past.  If it is reasonably 
foreseeable that the total cost of representation to 
the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000 
or less, the communication may be oral or in writing.  
Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or 
expenses shall also be communicated in writing to the 
client.   
13 SCR 20:1.5(b)(2) provides:  "If the total cost of 
representation to the client, including attorney's fees, is more 
than $1000, the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance 
fee that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 
writing." 
No. 
2020AP725-D   
 
12 
 
 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).14 
¶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 
                     
14 SCR 20:1.5(h)(1) provides:   
At least five business days before the date on 
which a disbursement is made from a trust account for 
the purpose of paying fees, with the exception of 
contingent fees or fees paid pursuant to court order, 
a lawyer shall transmit to the client in writing all 
of the following: 
a. An itemized bill or other accounting showing 
the services rendered. 
b. Notice of the amount owed and the anticipated 
date of the withdrawal. 
c. A statement of the balance of the client's 
funds 
in 
the 
lawyer's 
trust 
account 
after 
the 
withdrawal. 
No. 
2020AP725-D   
 
13 
 
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.     
No. 
2020AP725-D   
 
14 
 
¶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 
No. 
2020AP725-D   
 
15 
 
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 
No. 
2020AP725-D   
 
16 
 
SCR 22.26 pertaining to the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
 
No. 
2020AP725-D   
 
 
 
1