Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Jeffrey L. Elverman

Citation: 2014 WI 15

Docket Number: 2011AP001400-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2014-03-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
2014 WI 15 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP1400-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Jeffrey L. Elverman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Jeffrey L. Elverman, 
          Respondent-Appellant.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ELVERMAN  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 25, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant, there were briefs by Jeffrey 
L. Elverman, Genoa City. 
 
For the Office of Lawyer Regulation, there was a brief by 
Anne MacArthur and Anne MacArthur Law, LLC, Madison.  
 
 
 
2014 WI 15
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP1400-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Jeffrey L. Elverman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Jeffrey L. Elverman, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 25, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Jeffrey L. Elverman appeals 
from that portion of a referee's report recommending that his 
license to practice law be revoked effective the date of this 
court's order rather than making revocation retroactive to the 
date that his prior nine-month license suspension ended.  He 
also appeals the amount of restitution recommended by the 
referee. 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Upon careful review of this matter, we agree with the 
referee that given the seriousness of Attorney Elverman's 
misconduct, the revocation of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin should not be retroactive.  We agree with Attorney 
Elverman and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) that 
restitution should be ordered in the same amount and upon the 
same terms as that ordered by the circuit court in Attorney 
Elverman's underlying criminal case.  Finally, we find it 
appropriate to assess the full costs of this proceeding, which 
are $19,558.08 as of September 5, 2013, against Attorney 
Elverman. 
¶3 
Attorney Elverman was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1986.  On May 12, 2008, Attorney Elverman's license 
was suspended for nine months for failure to report co-trustee 
fees he received as income in his state and federal income tax 
returns for the years 1999 to 2003.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Elverman, 2008 WI 28, 308 Wis. 2d 524, 746 
N.W.2d 793. 
 
The 
nine-month 
suspension 
would 
have 
ended 
February 13, 
2009. 
 
Attorney 
Elverman's 
license 
remains 
suspended. 
¶4 
The most serious counts of misconduct alleged in the 
OLR's amended complaint, which was filed on July 10, 2012, arose 
out of Attorney Elverman's representation of D.P.  Attorney 
Elverman was introduced to D.P., who was 82 years old, in 2000, 
when he was a partner at Quarles & Brady.  D.P.'s investment 
advisor introduced them.  D.P., a widow, wanted Attorney 
Elverman to prepare an estate plan for her.  She had assets of 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
3 
 
between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000, including substantial liquid 
assets. 
¶5 
In May 2000 D.P. signed various estate planning 
documents prepared by Attorney Elverman, including a durable 
financial power of attorney and a durable power of attorney for 
health care.  The financial advisor, Leonard Campbell, was 
D.P.'s agent under both powers of attorney, with Attorney 
Elverman designated as successor agent. 
¶6 
Attorney Elverman also drafted a will for D.P., along 
with a revocable trust.  The trust established terms for its 
administration during D.P.'s lifetime and provided for the 
creation of the D.P. Foundation (the Foundation) upon her death. 
¶7 
D.P. was the initial trustee of the revocable trust.  
Campbell was the successor trustee, and Attorney Elverman was 
the successor trustee if Campbell did not act or ceased to act.  
Campbell was the initial trustee for the Foundation, and 
Attorney Elverman was the successor trustee. 
¶8 
By late 2000, D.P.'s mental acuity began to decline as 
a result of Alzheimer's disease.  During 2001, Campbell resigned 
as D.P.'s agent under her powers of attorney, and Attorney 
Elverman became D.P.'s agent for both finances and health care. 
¶9 
In February 2001 one of D.P.'s physicians wrote to 
another of her doctors noting he had spoken with Attorney 
Elverman and that D.P.'s ability to think cognitively was 
substantially impaired.  Around this time, Attorney Elverman 
contracted with Professional Organizers Unlimited to assist D.P. 
with her activities of daily living.  The principal of 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
4 
 
Professional Organizers Unlimited, Marion Whelpley, continued to 
provide services to D.P. through 2008. 
¶10 By March of 2003, D.P.'s Alzheimer's disease had 
progressed to the stage that she was no longer competent to 
manage her personal or financial affairs.  On March 24, 2003, at 
Attorney Elverman's request, Dr. Brian Hirano, another of D.P.'s 
physicians, provided Attorney Elverman with a certification of 
D.P.'s incapacitation which was sent by facsimile to Attorney 
Elverman's office at Quarles & Brady.  In July and September 
2003, Dr. Hirano sent letters to D.P. explaining that her memory 
would continue to decline over time.  Attorney Elverman received 
copies of those letters. 
¶11 In or about August of 2003, Attorney Elverman drafted 
an amendment to D.P.'s revocable trust making him trustee of her 
trust and the Foundation.  This amendment gave him the power to 
appoint a successor trustee of each entity and gave him complete 
control over the disposition of D.P.'s estate during her life 
and after her death.  D.P. signed the amendment on August 14, 
2003, several months after Dr. Hirano had provided Attorney 
Elverman with a certification of D.P.'s incapacitation. 
¶12 In or about September of 2004, concerns were raised at 
Quarles & Brady as the result of allegations that Attorney 
Elverman's time records and billing were false.  Upon review of 
the firm's records, Quarles & Brady learned that Attorney 
Elverman had received $230,000 in co-trustee fees from the 
Donald W. Kastner Trusts that he had not turned over to Quarles 
& Brady.  Attorney Elverman also failed to originally report the 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
5 
 
receipt of the Kastner trustee income on his tax returns.  This 
failure formed the basis for the 2008 license suspension. 
¶13 After conducting an inquiry in the Kastner matter, 
Quarles & Brady asked that Attorney Elverman provide a sworn 
statement certifying all circumstances where he had acted or was 
acting as a trustee.  In the statement he submitted to Quarles & 
Brady in October 2004, Attorney Elverman failed to disclose that 
he was acting as D.P.'s trustee. 
¶14 Between December 12, 2001, and September 23, 2004, 
Attorney 
Elverman 
was 
paid 
at 
least 
$604,000 
by 
D.P., 
purportedly for performing 30 to 35 hours per week of personal 
services that he billed at $150 an hour. 
¶15 In November 2004, after leaving Quarles & Brady, 
Attorney Elverman joined Michael Best & Friedrich.  He failed to 
disclose his relationship with D.P. to Michael Best & Friedrich, 
even though the firm required new members to identify all 
existing client relationships.  Attorney Elverman's employment 
at Michael Best & Friedrich was terminated when the firm became 
aware of the disciplinary proceedings against him involving the 
Kastner trusts. 
¶16 In June 2008, following his suspension, Attorney 
Elverman filed his SCR 22.261 affidavit with the OLR, but he 
failed to list D.P. as one of his clients. 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.26 states, in relevant part:  
 
(1)  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: 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
6 
 
¶17 After his license was suspended, Attorney Elverman 
resigned as D.P.'s agent under her durable financial power of 
attorney and appointed Dwayne Johnson, an accountant he knew, as 
the new agent.  Attorney Elverman also resigned as trustee of 
D.P.'s revocable trust and of the Foundation and appointed 
Johnson trustee of each entity.  Attorney Elverman and Johnson 
had an agreement whereby Johnson would resign and reappoint 
Attorney Elverman to again be D.P.'s agent under the durable 
powers of attorney, and trustee of D.P.'s revocable trust and of 
the Foundation, when Attorney Elverman's license to practice law 
was reinstated. 
¶18 In July of 2008, while D.P. was living in an assisted 
living facility, a social worker raised concerns about the 
enforceability of D.P.'s durable power of attorney for health 
care because both Campbell and Attorney Elverman had witnessed 
the document, making it invalid under Wisconsin law.  In 
September 2008 the social worker filed a petition for the 
appointment of a guardian of D.P.'s person and estate. 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
. . . . 
 
(e)  Within 25 days after the effective date of 
suspension or revocation, file with the director an 
affidavit showing . . . : 
 
. . . . 
 
(iii)  A list of clients in all pending matters 
and a list of all matters pending before any court or 
administrative agency, together with the case number 
of each matter. 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
7 
 
¶19 In October 2008 in response to the guardianship 
petition, Attorney Elverman executed a document attempting to 
withdraw his resignation as D.P.'s financial power of attorney.  
He also filed an objection to the guardianship petition and 
filed his own guardianship petition asking that he be named the 
guardian of D.P.'s person and estate. 
¶20 On November 13, 2008, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge 
John DiMotto issued an order appointing Supportive Community 
Services (SCS) as D.P.'s temporary guardian.  Judge DiMotto held 
that Attorney Elverman was not an interested person in the 
guardianship proceeding and thus had no standing in the matter 
since he had resigned as D.P.'s financial power of attorney and 
because D.P.'s health care power of attorney was invalid.  Judge 
DiMotto held that Attorney Elverman's attempt to withdraw his 
resignation as D.P.'s financial power of attorney was improper, 
as was Attorney Elverman's attempt to appoint Johnson as D.P.'s 
agent under her durable financial power of attorney, because 
Attorney Elverman lost the power to appoint a successor agent 
when he resigned as D.P.'s agent. 
¶21 On December 3, 2008, upon SCS's petition, Milwaukee 
County Probate Court Commissioner Patrice A. Baker determined 
that Attorney Elverman's attempt to resign as trustee of D.P.'s 
trust and appoint Johnson in his place was ineffective because 
Attorney Elverman's resignation only referred to the trustee 
appointment under the article of the trust creating the 
Foundation upon D.P.'s death and did not refer to the article 
governing appointment of the trustee of the trust administered 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
8 
 
during D.P.'s lifetime.  The court commissioner ordered that 
Attorney Elverman be removed as trustee of the trust, vacated 
his appointment of Johnson as trustee of the Foundation, and 
appointed SCS the trustee of each entity. 
¶22 On December 5, 2008, Judge DiMotto issued an order 
appointing SCS as D.P.'s permanent guardian, after finding that 
Attorney Elverman had "engaged in questionable conduct as it 
relates to the ward, including not making her a client of 
Michael Best & Friedrich when he became a partner in the firm."  
Judge DiMotto ordered SCS, as D.P.'s guardian, to obtain 
accountings from Attorney Elverman and Johnson, finding it was 
"essential that Jeffrey L. Elverman account to a third party for 
his actions as trustee/agent for the ward."  At Judge DiMotto's 
direction, SCS began an investigation into Attorney Elverman's 
conduct in relation to D.P. 
¶23 A 
forensic 
accountant 
retained 
by 
SCS 
reviewed 
Attorney Elverman's billing records at Quarles & Brady from 
January 2002 through September 2004, the last month he billed 
time at Quarles & Brady before his departure.  During all of the 
time Attorney Elverman was allegedly performing services for 
D.P., he was employed on a full-time basis as an equity partner 
at Quarles & Brady.  Attorney Elverman never disclosed to 
Quarles & Brady that he was performing services for D.P., nor 
did he report his receipt of income from her to the firm. 
¶24 Adding the hours he billed at Quarles & Brady to the 
hours he claimed to have worked for D.P., Attorney Elverman 
would have worked 75 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, in 2002; 74 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
9 
 
hours a week, 52 weeks a year, in 2003; and 54 hours a week in 
2004.  While at Quarles & Brady, Attorney Elverman prepared, or 
had prepared at his direction, four fake invoices purportedly on 
behalf of Quarles & Brady, representing legal work he had done 
on D.P.'s behalf, which D.P. paid.  The fake invoices were 
generated on Quarles & Brady computers but were prepared outside 
of the usual billing system employed by the firm.  Two checks 
drawn on D.P.'s account correspond to the dates and amounts of 
the fake invoices and were made payable to, and endorsed by, 
Attorney Elverman.  Two other checks drawn on D.P.'s account 
correspond to the dates and amounts of the fake invoices, but 
the payee is unknown.  One of the two checks is in the exact 
amount of a deposit into Attorney Elverman's checking account 
that occurred within two weeks of the date of one of the fake 
invoices. 
¶25 As a result of Quarles & Brady's inquiry into Attorney 
Elverman's billing practices, Quarles & Brady determined it had 
not received any payment regarding the fake invoices, nor were 
there any time entries in its billing system matching them.  
Quarles & Brady's further review of Attorney Elverman's time 
entries in the firm's billing system indicated that for certain 
days, the aggregate of the hours logged on the system for 
Attorney Elverman's work for the firm, plus the hours indicated 
in the fake invoices, totaled more than 20 hours in a day and in 
one case more than 24 hours in a day. 
¶26 Attorney Elverman did not include any of the income he 
received from D.P. on the state and federal tax returns he 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
10 
 
originally filed in 2001, 2002, or 2003.  He underreported 
income he received from D.P. on his original state and federal 
tax returns filed in 2004. 
¶27 In 
September 
of 
2009, 
the 
OLR's 
investigative 
committee asked that Attorney Elverman provide copies of his 
income tax returns for 2001 through 2004, or provide an 
authorization for the OLR to obtain the returns from the 
Department of Revenue.  Attorney Elverman failed to respond to 
this request until March of 2010, and then claimed there was no 
Department of Revenue form authorizing release of tax returns.  
The OLR ultimately obtained copies of the returns by subpoenaing 
Attorney Elverman's accountant. 
¶28 On December 6, 2010, Attorney Elverman was charged 
with violating Wis. Stat. § 943.20(1)(a), theft of movable 
property in excess of $10,000, a Class G felony, in Milwaukee 
County circuit court as a result of his conduct regarding D.P. 
¶29 The OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Elverman on 
June 17, 2011.  Attorney Elverman filed a motion asking that the 
OLR proceedings be stayed pending disposition of the criminal 
case.  This court granted the motion on October 25, 2011.  On 
December 15, 2011, a jury found Attorney Elverman guilty of 
theft of movable property in excess of $10,000.  A judgment of 
conviction was entered against him on March 13, 2012.  A 
sentence consisting of five years of initial confinement and 
five years of extended supervision was imposed and stayed and 
Attorney Elverman was placed on probation for five years, with 
seven months in the House of Corrections with work release 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
11 
 
privileges.  Attorney Elverman was ordered to make restitution 
in 
the 
amount 
of 
$325,000, 
less 
payments 
already 
made.  
Specifically, the Department of Corrections was ordered to 
facilitate payment to the victim2 in the amount of $1,500 per 
month during 2012, $2,000 per month during 2013, and $3,000 per 
month during 2014, until paid in full. 
¶30 James J. Winiarski was appointed referee in the 
matter.  On July 10, 2012, the OLR filed an amended complaint.  
The amended complaint alleged the following counts of misconduct 
with respect to Attorney Elverman's dealings with D.P.: 
 
[COUNT ONE]  By using his position of trust as 
[D.P.'s] lawyer, trustee, and financial power of 
attorney to take at least $604,000 from her between 
December 
2001 
through 
September 
2004, 
[Attorney] 
Elverman engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(c).3  
 
[COUNT TWO]  By collecting fees totaling at least 
$604,000 from [D.P.] from December 2001 to September 
2004, for which he has inadequate substantiating 
records, [Attorney] Elverman charged an unreasonable 
fee, in violation of former SCR 20:1.5(a), effective 
prior to July 1, 2007.4  
                                                 
2 The record indicates that D.P. is now deceased. 
3 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
4 Former SCR 20:1.5(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided as follows: 
 
A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable.  The factors 
to be considered in determining the reasonableness of 
a fee include the following: 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
12 
 
 
[COUNT THREE]  By concealing from [Quarles & 
Brady (Q&B)] the fees he earned from [D.P.], and by 
concealing from Q&B and [Michael Best & Friedrich] his 
position as trustee for [D.P.'s] Trust, [Attorney] 
Elverman violated a standard of conduct set forth by 
the 
Wisconsin 
Supreme 
Court 
in 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Shea, 
190 
Wis. 2d 560, 
527 
N.W.2d 314 (1995), actionable via SCR 20:8.4(f).5 
 
[COUNT FOUR]  By failing to report on his federal 
and state income tax returns for 2001, 2002, and 2003 
any of the income he received from [D.P.], and by 
underreporting the income he received from [D.P.] on 
his original federal and state income tax returns for 
2004, [Attorney] Elverman violated a standard of 
conduct set forth by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Owens, 
172 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(1)  the time and labor required, the novelty and 
difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill 
requisite to perform the legal service properly; 
 
(2)  the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 
that the acceptance of the particular employment will 
preclude other employment by the lawyer; 
 
(3)  the fee customarily charged in the locality 
for similar legal services; 
 
(4)  the 
amount 
involved 
and 
the 
results 
obtained; 
 
(5)  the time limitations imposed by the client 
or by the circumstances; 
 
(6)  the nature and length of the professional 
relationship with the client; 
 
(7)  the experience, reputation, and ability of 
the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and 
 
(8)  whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 
5 SCR 20:8.4(f) states 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. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
13 
 
Wis. 2d 54, 56-57, 492 N.W.2d 157 (1992), actionable 
via SCR 20:8.4(f). 
 
[COUNT FIVE]  By failing to promptly comply with 
OLR's Investigative District Committee's request for 
his tax returns or an authorization to obtain copies 
of them, [Attorney] Elverman failed to cooperate with 
OLR's investigation, in violation of SCR [22.03(6)],6 
actionable via SCR 20:8.4(h).7 
¶31 The amended complaint also alleged that on May 30, 
2011, Attorney Elverman was arrested as the result of a domestic 
violence incident that occurred at the home of H.H., where 
Attorney Elverman was living with H.H. and her two minor 
children, who were both home at the time of the incident.  On 
July 7, 2011, Attorney Elverman was charged with disorderly 
conduct, a Class B misdemeanor.  He entered a guilty plea to 
that charge on July 15, 2011. 
¶32 Attorney Elverman failed to report his conviction to 
the OLR and the clerk of this court within five days of the 
entry of judgment of conviction.  On July 26, 2011, after 
learning of Attorney Elverman's disorderly conduct conviction, 
the OLR notified Attorney Elverman by first-class mail to his 
last known address that the OLR was investigating his criminal 
                                                 
6 SCR 22.03(6) provides as follows:  "In the course of the 
investigation, the respondent's wilful 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." 
7 SCR 20:8.4(h) states 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); . . . ." 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
14 
 
conduct in the disorderly conduct case and Attorney Elverman's 
failure to report the conviction, and that his response to the 
OLR's investigation was required by August 18, 2011.  Attorney 
Elverman failed to respond to the OLR's letter. 
¶33 On August 23, 2011, the OLR sent Attorney Elverman a 
second letter informing him that failure to timely respond to 
its investigation constituted misconduct and giving him until 
September 2, 2011, to respond.  Attorney Elverman finally 
responded on September 7, 2011, but the OLR concluded that his 
response failed to fully and fairly disclose all facts and 
circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct. 
¶34 The OLR's amended complaint alleged the following 
counts of misconduct with respect to the disorderly conduct 
conviction: 
 
[COUNT SIX]  By engaging in conduct resulting in 
his conviction for disorderly conduct in a domestic 
violence situation, [Attorney] Elverman engaged in 
criminal conduct that reflects adversely on his 
fitness as a lawyer in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).8 
 
[COUNT SEVEN]  By failing to notify OLR and the 
Clerk of the Supreme Court of his conviction for 
disorderly conduct within five (5) days of its entry, 
[Attorney] Elverman violated SCR 21.15,9 enforced via 
SCR 20:8.4(f). 
                                                 
8 SCR 20:8.4(b) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects; . . . ." 
9 SCR 21.15 provides, in relevant part, as follows: 
 
(5)  An attorney found guilty or convicted of any 
crime on or after July 1, 2002, shall notify in 
writing the office of lawyer regulation and the clerk 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
15 
 
 
[COUNT EIGHT]  By failing to timely respond to 
OLR's 
investigation 
in 
the 
criminal 
[disorderly 
conduct] matter within 20 days of receiving notice of 
the investigation, and by failing to fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to it 
when he did respond, [Attorney] Elverman violated 
SCR 22.03(2),10 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶35 On February 12, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation 
whereby Attorney Elverman withdrew his answer to the amended 
complaint and pled no contest to all eight counts alleged in the 
OLR's amended complaint.  Attorney Elverman and the OLR jointly 
recommended that the sanction in this matter be a license 
revocation imposed retroactively to February 13, 2009, so as to 
run consecutive to the prior nine-month suspension.  The 
stipulation says, "The disciplinary conduct at issue in this 
                                                                                                                                                             
of the Supreme Court within 5 days after the finding 
or conviction, whichever first occurs.  The notice 
shall include the identity of the attorney, the date 
of finding or conviction, the offenses, and the 
jurisdiction.  An attorney's failure to notify the 
office of lawyer regulation and clerk of the supreme 
court of being found guilty or his or her conviction 
is misconduct. 
10 SCR 22.03(2) states: 
 
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 
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. 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
16 
 
case occurred during roughly the same period of time as the 
matters addressed in the prior disciplinary matter, and occurred 
prior 
to 
the 
imposition 
of 
discipline 
in 
the 
previous 
disciplinary case."  The parties also jointly recommended that 
restitution be imposed "as ordered by the Milwaukee County 
Criminal Court . . . ." 
¶36 The referee filed his report and recommendation on 
April 3, 2013.  The referee found that Attorney Elverman engaged 
in the eight counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's amended 
complaint.  While both the OLR and Attorney Elverman recommended 
license revocation retroactive to February 13, 2009, the referee 
found the misconduct serious enough to recommend that the 
starting date for the revocation be the date this court enters 
the order of revocation.  The referee explained: 
 
In this case, [Attorney] Elverman stole money 
from a client.  His attempts to cover up his thefts 
were well planned and occurred over a significant 
period of time.  He deceived two law firms by failing 
to report income and by using fake invoices.  He 
failed to report taxable income. 
 
Most of the misconduct in this case occurred 
after the misconduct in the previous disciplinary 
case.  . . .  While Q&B was investigating [Attorney] 
Elverman's 
conduct 
in 
the 
Kastner 
case . . . [Attorney] Elverman was actively involved 
in covering up his conduct in this disciplinary case. 
 
I realize the Wisconsin Supreme Court customarily 
considers retroactive commencement of the date for 
license revocation if the attorney has not been 
licensed to practice since an earlier date.  However, 
given the extreme seriousness and the distinctly 
separate and consecutive misconduct in this case, I do 
not believe [Attorney] Elverman should be given any 
credit for the time since his license suspension of 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
17 
 
nine months which commenced May 12, 2008, nor do I 
believe [Attorney] Elverman should be given credit for 
the fact that he has not practiced law for an extended 
period of time. 
¶37 Turning to the issue of restitution, the referee said: 
 
The pleadings and filings in this case do not 
disclose to me what, if any, restitution was ordered 
by the criminal court upon [Attorney] Elverman's 
convictions.  In any case, the factual agreement 
between the parties shows that [Attorney] Elverman was 
paid at least $604,000 by [D.P.]  He should be ordered 
to make restitution of that full amount. 
¶38 Attorney Elverman appeals, arguing that there are 
compelling reasons to retroactively revoke his license to 
practice law so that the revocation runs consecutive to his 
prior license suspension.  Attorney Elverman argues that his 
license has already remained suspended well beyond the period of 
the nine-month suspension previously imposed.  He notes that he 
filed a petition for reinstatement from the nine-month license 
suspension before the OLR filed its complaint in this case, but 
once the complaint was filed he withdrew the reinstatement 
petition pending resolution of all issues presented in this 
matter. 
¶39 Attorney Elverman says that during the period of his 
suspension he has engaged in numerous professional, civic, and 
charitable events; he has taught numerous seminars on behalf of 
the State Bar of Wisconsin; and he participated on numerous 
charitable boards.  He says: 
[I]t is fair to say that becoming an equity partner at 
two major law firms requires not only intellectual 
capacity, but also sound ethical and moral character.  
Many 
smart 
and 
worthy 
attorneys 
saw 
[Attorney] 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
18 
 
Elverman fit to become one of their partners.  This 
was not a mistake.  Moreover, [Attorney] Elverman has 
represented some of the most influential and wealthy 
individuals and families of this State, including CEOs 
of major private and publicly traded companies.  This 
did not happen by accident——it resulted from an 
exceptional reputation and character. 
 
Unfortunately, the time period between 2001-2004 
did not reflect [Attorney] Elverman's true character.  
A retroactive sanction will assure that [Attorney] 
Elverman's second chance will be successful and that 
he will prove once again that he is worthy of being a 
member of the legal profession and is a productive and 
valuable member of society. 
¶40 Attorney Elverman also argues that there is no factual 
basis for the referee requiring him to pay restitution of 
$604,000.  He notes that the stipulation he entered into with 
the OLR provided that the restitution obligation be as ordered 
by the Milwaukee County criminal court. 
¶41 The OLR agrees with Attorney Elverman that the 
revocation should be made retroactive to the date Attorney 
Elverman's nine-month license suspension would have ended.  The 
OLR says the facts of this case are similar to those presented 
in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cooper, 2013 WI 55, 
348 Wis. 2d 266, 833 N.W.2d 88.  In Cooper this court found that 
the misconduct at issue in two cases involving the attorney 
occurred during roughly the same timeframe.  Accordingly, the 
new license suspension was made retroactive. 
¶42 With respect to the issue of restitution, the OLR 
notes that the record before the referee did not disclose the 
amount of restitution that was ordered by the criminal court.  
The OLR subsequently moved to supplement the record to include a 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
19 
 
copy of the judgment of conviction which indicates that 
restitution in the amount of $325,000, less payments already 
made, was ordered. 
¶43 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
clearly erroneously.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 
WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The court may impose 
whatever sanction it sees fit regardless 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. 
¶44 With the exception of the amount of restitution 
ordered, there is no showing that any of the referee's findings 
of fact are erroneous.  Accordingly, we adopt them.  We also 
agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney 
Elverman violated all of the supreme court rules set forth 
above. 
¶45 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.  We agree that in this case, no 
sanction short of revocation would be sufficient to protect the 
public, achieve deterrence, and impress upon Attorney Elverman 
the seriousness of his misconduct. 
¶46 We agree with the referee's recommendation that the 
revocation 
of 
Attorney 
Elverman's 
license 
not 
be 
made 
retroactive.  Although Attorney Elverman's actual theft of 
D.P.'s money may have ended in 2004, it appears that he 
continued to take actions to the detriment of her estate past 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
20 
 
the time that his license to practice law was suspended in 2008.  
In addition, both Attorney Elverman and the OLR disregard the 
fact that in July of 2011 Attorney Elverman was convicted of 
disorderly conduct as the result of a domestic violence incident 
that occurred in May 2011.  Attorney Elverman's failure to 
timely report that conviction to this court, and his failure to 
cooperate with the OLR's investigation into that incident, is 
yet another indication of Attorney Elverman's true character.  
This fact situation is readily distinguishable from the one 
presented in Cooper.  The misconduct at issue in this case is 
extremely serious.  Attorney Elverman took advantage of an 
elderly woman who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease and 
stole a large amount of money from her.  Accordingly, we decline 
the 
parties' 
request 
to 
make 
revocation 
of 
his 
license 
retroactive. 
¶47 Turning to the issue of restitution, it is unfortunate 
that the referee was not provided with a copy of the judgment of 
conviction, which would have disclosed the amount of restitution 
ordered by the circuit court.  The record has now been 
supplemented to include a copy of the judgment of conviction.  
We find it appropriate to order Attorney Elverman to pay 
restitution in the amount of $325,000, less payments already 
made.  Finally, we find it appropriate to require Attorney 
Elverman to pay the full costs of this proceeding. 
¶48 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jeffrey L. Elverman 
to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of 
this order. 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
21 
 
¶49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jeffrey L. Elverman be 
required to pay restitution in the amount and under the terms 
ordered by the Milwaukee County criminal court in State v. 
Elverman, No. 2010-CF-5940. 
¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Jeffrey L. Elverman shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶51 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Jeffrey L. Elverman shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney 
whose license to practice law has been revoked. 
 
No. 
2011AP1400-D   
 
 
 
1