Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas D. Vaitys

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2017AP001247-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2019-08-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
2019 WI 85 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2017AP1247-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas D. Vaitys, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Thomas D. Vaitys, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VAITYS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 22, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
      
 
 
2019 WI 85
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP1247-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas D. Vaitys, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Thomas D. Vaitys, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
AUG 22, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Pending before the court is a report and 
recommendation filed by Referee Richard M. Esenberg.  The report 
recommends that we accept Attorney Thomas D. Vaitys' petition 
for consensual license revocation, order him to pay restitution, 
and revoke his license to practice law in Wisconsin.  Attorney 
Vaitys is the subject of an Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
disciplinary complaint alleging that he committed 19 counts of 
professional misconduct in several client matters.  He is also 
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
2 
 
the subject of two pending grievances that have not yet been 
fully investigated by the OLR. 
¶2 
We agree that both revocation and restitution are 
appropriate, and we agree that Attorney Vaitys shall pay the 
costs of this proceeding, which are $4,703.85 as of July 10, 
2019. 
¶3 
Attorney Vaitys was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 2004.  He currently resides in Sonora, California.  
He has not previously been subject to professional discipline.  
His law license has been suspended, however, for failure to pay 
State Bar dues, failure to provide a required trust account 
certification, and for failure to comply with CLE reporting 
requirements. 
¶4 
On June 28, 2017, the OLR filed a disciplinary 
complaint 
charging 
Attorney 
Vaitys 
with 
19 
counts 
of 
professional misconduct.  Referee Esenberg was appointed on July 
24, 2017.  On September 18, 2018, Attorney Vaitys filed a 
petition for consensual license revocation pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule (SCR) 22.19.1 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.19 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 or his 
or her license to practice law. 
(2) The petition shall state that the petitioner 
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of 
misconduct. 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
3 
 
¶5 
Attorney Vaitys states that he cannot successfully 
defend himself against the professional misconduct alleged in 
the complaint or the pending investigations, and states he will 
make appropriate restitution.  On September 18, 2018, the OLR 
filed a recommendation, supporting Attorney Vaitys' petition.   
                                                                                                                                                             
(3) If a complaint has not been filed, the 
petition shall be filed in the supreme court and shall 
include the director's summary of the misconduct 
allegations being investigated. Within 20 days after 
the date of filing of the petition, the director shall 
file in the supreme court a recommendation on the 
petition. Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme 
court may extend the time for filing a recommendation. 
(4) If a complaint has been filed, the petition 
shall be filed in the supreme court and served on the 
director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has 
been assigned. Within 20 days after the filing of the 
petition, the director shall file in the supreme court 
a response in support of or in opposition to the 
petition and serve a copy on the referee. Upon a 
showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend 
the time for filing a response. The referee shall file 
a report and recommendation on the petition in the 
supreme court within 30 days after receipt of the 
director's response. 
(5) The supreme court shall grant the petition 
and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or 
deny the petition and remand the matter to the 
director or to the referee for further proceedings. 
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
The referee issued a report on January 8, 2019, 
recommending revocation and restitution.2  No appeal has been 
filed in this matter, so our review proceeds pursuant to 
SCR 22.17(2).  We revoke Attorney Vaitys' Wisconsin law license 
effective the date of this order. 
¶7 
The 
first 
12 
counts 
of 
the 
OLR's 
disciplinary 
complaint arise from Attorney Vaitys' representation of T.A.  
T.A. is an individual with a "wide range of cognitive and 
comprehension difficulties, including difficulty reading and/or 
understanding written information."  In February 2012, T.A. 
hired Attorney Vaitys and Attorney Thomas Napierala, a lawyer 
with another firm, to set aside a mediation agreement and 
settlement that T.A. had entered in a Milwaukee County Circuit 
Court case involving the estate of T.J.3  If they succeeded in 
setting aside the settlement, the two lawyers would then 
commence litigation to establish that T.A. was entitled to 
                                                 
2 The OLR's complaint and a summary of the pending 
investigations are attached to the petition for consensual 
revocation as Appendices A and B.  The OLR later advised the 
referee 
that 
it 
had 
determined 
that 
W.A. 
was 
partially 
reimbursed and is entitled to restitution of $100, rather than 
the previously sought $500.  By order dated May 14, 2019, this 
court remanded the matter to the referee for additional factual 
findings 
relating 
to 
restitution. 
 
The 
referee 
filed 
a 
supplemental report on June 24, 2019, from which neither party 
has appealed. 
3 This court reprimanded Attorney Napierala for professional 
misconduct in connection with his representation of T.A.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Napierala, 2018 WI 101, 384 
Wis. 2d 273, 918 N.W.2d 893. 
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
5 
 
inherit the T.J. estate.  If not, they intended to appeal and, 
perhaps, seek review in this court.  The legal work was to be 
paid from settlement funds that T.A. had received from the T.J. 
estate (the Probate Award).  Work commenced in February of 2012, 
but no written fee agreement was signed until November 2012.   
¶8 
The fee agreement limited what the lawyers could 
charge for appellate work.  It established a $25,000 "Appellate 
Fund" trust account.  Fees and costs related to this appellate 
work were only to be paid from the Appellate Fund, not from the 
remainder of the Probate Award.  The balance of the Probate 
Award was to be held in Attorney Vaitys' IOLTA trust account.  
It was agreed there would be an accounting of any other work 
previously performed for T.A.  Other than the anticipated 
appeals, the fee agreement covered no other matters or any 
subsequent work on the T.J. estate matter.  With respect to non-
appellate work, the fee agreement provided that one-third of all 
fees would be paid to Attorney Vaitys, and two-thirds would be 
paid to Attorney Napierala.  Work performed by Attorney 
Napierala was to be billed to and the charges approved by 
Attorney Vaitys. 
¶9 
On November 26, 2012, Attorney Vaitys received a check 
for $161,269.23 representing the settlement funds from the T.J. 
estate.  Attorney Vaitys deposited the funds in his general 
IOLTA trust account.  He then transferred $25,000 to the 
Appellate Fund trust account.  
¶10 Thereafter, Attorney Vaitys failed to keep proper 
records of disbursements, commingled funds, improperly withdrew 
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
6 
 
funds from both the Probate Award in his general IOLTA trust 
account 
and 
from 
the 
Appellate 
Fund 
trust 
account, 
misrepresented account balances, converted funds, improperly 
billed, made then-prohibited internet banking transactions, 
failed to make a proper accounting, and failed to file a timely 
reply brief.  Essentially, Attorney Vaitys improperly took a 
substantial portion of T.A.'s funds and kept T.A. in the dark 
about the balance of funds held by Attorney Vaitys and the 
charges against them.   
¶11 Based on the forgoing, the OLR alleged that Attorney 
Vaitys' handling of the T.A. matter violated a number of the 
rules of professional conduct, as follows: 
Count One:  By failing, prior to November 12, 2012, to 
communicate in writing to T.A. the scope of the 
representation and the rate and basis of Attorney 
Vaitys' fees and expenses, Attorney Vaitys violated 
SCR 20:1.5(b)(1).4  
                                                 
4 The referee emphasized that this failure applied not only 
to work on the T.J. estate matter performed prior to November 
12, 2012, but also to subsequent work unrelated to the appeals 
and not covered by the November 12, 2012 Fee Agreement.  
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 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
7 
 
Count Two:  By failing to clearly and accurately 
communicate with T.A. about the specific amounts 
Attorney Vaitys disbursed from T.A.'s funds, the total 
amount of fees Attorney Vaitys believed were due and 
owing, and the total amount of T.A.'s funds remaining 
in the trust accounts, so as to provide T.A. with an 
accurate understanding of Attorney Vaitys' handling of 
his funds and the total amount of such funds in 
Attorney Vaitys' possession, Attorney Vaitys violated 
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)5 and SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).6  
Count Three:  By converting T.A.'s funds to his own 
use 
or 
benefit, 
Attorney 
Vaitys 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c).7 
Count Four:  By charging T.A. $275 per hour for 
services that were not reasonably billable to T.A., 
Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 20:1.5(a).8 
                                                                                                                                                             
expenses shall also be communicated in writing to the 
client. 
5 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides:  "A lawyer shall keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
6 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4)provides:  "A lawyer shall promptly comply 
with reasonable requests by the client for information." 
7 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
8 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides:  
A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, 
or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable 
amount for expenses. The factors to be considered in 
determining the reasonableness of a fee include the 
following:  
(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;  
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
8 
 
Count Five:  By using T.A.'s funds to pay obligations 
to other clients or third parties, thereby failing to 
safeguard and hold those funds in trust, Attorney 
Vaitys violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).9 
Count Six:  By failing to take reasonable steps to 
ensure that Attorney Napierala's billing statements 
were accurate before paying the same from T.A.'s 
funds, thereby failing to safeguard and hold those 
funds 
in 
trust, 
Attorney 
Vaitys 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(l). 
                                                                                                                                                             
(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. 
9 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides:  
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 
3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation.  All funds of 
clients and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm 
in connection with a representation shall be deposited 
in one or more identifiable trust accounts. 
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
9 
 
Count Seven:  By failing to provide T.A. with 
accurate, written accountings upon request, Attorney 
Vaitys violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(2).10 
Count Eight:  By making multiple internet banking 
transactions related to either T.A.'s appellate trust 
account or his IOLTA trust account, at a time when 
such transactions were prohibited, Attorney Vaitys 
violated former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c.11 
Count Nine:  By failing to timely file T.A.'s reply 
brief or to timely file for an extension of time in 
which to file the reply brief, Attorney Vaitys 
violated SCR 20:1.3.12 
Count Ten:  By holding himself out as trustee of 
T.A.'s special needs trust, when no such trust existed 
and Attorney Vaitys was not trustee of any trust 
related 
to 
T.A., 
Attorney 
Vaitys 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count Eleven:  By failing to cooperate in the OLR's 
investigation 
of 
the 
grievance, 
including 
making 
misrepresentations to the OLR during the investigation 
and by willfully failing to fully and fairly disclose 
                                                 
10 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to 
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule."  See S. 
Ct. Order 14-07, 2016 WI 21 (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 
2016).  Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior to 
July 1, 2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the 
supreme court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 
2016. 
Former 
SCR 
20:1.15(d)(2) 
provided: 
 
"Upon 
final 
distribution of any trust property or upon request by the client 
or a 3rd party having an ownership interest in the property, the 
lawyer shall promptly render a full written accounting regarding 
the property." 
11 Former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c. provided:  "A lawyer shall not 
make deposits to or disbursements from a trust account by way of 
an Internet transaction." 
12 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
10 
 
all facts and circumstances pertaining to his alleged 
misconduct after having been notified by the OLR of 
the matter, Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 22.03(2)13 and 
SCR 22.03(6),14 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).15  
Count Twelve:  By making misrepresentations to the OLR 
during 
the 
OLR's 
initial 
evaluation 
of 
these 
grievances, Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶12 The remaining seven allegations in the complaint 
relate to misconduct that the OLR identified in the course of 
investigating the T.A. grievance.  These include accounting 
anomalies affecting other clients, and misrepresentations that 
                                                 
13 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 
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.   
14 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"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." 
15 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)." 
 
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
11 
 
Attorney Vaitys made to the OLR in an effort to hide his 
misconduct.  The OLR audited Attorney Vaitys' banking records 
during the period he represented T.A. and identified at least 
seven occasions between February 6, 2013 and February 12, 2014 
when Attorney Vaitys made other internet banking transfers from 
the Appellate Fund trust account or general IOLTA trust account 
to his business account.  These transactions were prohibited at 
the time.  
¶13 During the investigation, Attorney Vaitys represented 
to 
the 
OLR 
that 
billing 
statements 
were 
supported 
by 
contemporaneously created ledgers that he claimed to have gone 
over with T.A. on a monthly basis.  Attorney Vaitys later 
admitted that these statements and ledgers were fabricated to 
conceal his misuse of T.A.'s funds.  
¶14 Attorney Vaitys also misrepresented the terms of the 
fee agreement, falsely stating that it provided for up to 
$43,000 in fees and costs for appellate work, and falsely 
claiming that he obtained T.A.'s authorization for every 
disbursement when he had not.  
¶15 In addition, during the investigation, Attorney Vaitys 
procured an affidavit from Attorney Napierala stating that 
certain funds were not converted because he and Attorney Vaitys 
had an agreement by which Attorney Vaitys was authorized to 
offset these amounts against amounts owed to him by Attorney 
Napierala.  However, Attorney Napierala later told the OLR that 
while there was such an agreement, it did not exist between 
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
12 
 
November 2012 and May 2014 when the funds at issue were 
converted.     
¶16 As noted, T.A. was not the only client affected by 
Attorney Vaitys' misconduct.  The OLR found irregularities in 
legal matters related to former clients A.H., C.S.M., Y.E., and 
M.B.  On numerous occasions, Attorney Vaitys received funds in 
which clients or a third party had an interest and failed to 
notify them; failed to promptly deliver to clients or third 
parties the funds to which they were entitled; or improperly 
transferred funds from his trust account into his business 
account, recorded the transaction as something else, and then 
never disbursed the funds to the owner.  He also deposited funds 
belonging to clients and third parties into his business account 
rather than his IOLTA trust account or failed to hold client 
funds in his trust accounts.  For example, in regards to A.H., 
Attorney Vaitys deposited client funds to his business account 
to avoid overdrafts of his business account, thereby converting 
A.H.'s funds.  
¶17 The C.S.M. matter involved efforts to collect on a 
$1,417,204.38 
judgment 
involving 
the 
receipt 
of 
multiple 
garnishment checks, of which 66.7 percent would belong to 
C.S.M., 16.65 percent would belong to Attorney Napierala, and 
16.65 percent to Attorney Vaitys.  Attorney Vaitys repeatedly 
failed to promptly deliver received funds to C.S.M. and Attorney 
Napierala.  Sometimes, he deposited the money in his business 
account and used all of the money for other purposes and never 
paid it to the rightful owner.  On other occasions, he deposited 
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
13 
 
funds belonging to C.S.M. and Attorney Napierala in his trust 
account but did not keep it there, transferring it to his 
business account or reserve line.  The referee observed that 
amounts were not large——generally in the low to mid-hundred 
dollar range——but the occasions were frequent.16 
¶18 These allegations gave rise to seven additional counts 
of misconduct: 
Count Thirteen: By converting client and third party 
funds to his own use or for the use of other clients 
or 
third 
parties, 
Attorney 
Vaitys 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c). 
 
Count Fourteen: By depositing client and third party 
funds into his Business Account, thereby failing to 
safeguard and hold client and third party funds in 
trust, Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).  
                                                 
16 Initially, it appeared that Attorney Vaitys might owe 
restitution to C.S.M.  However, the OLR did not seek restitution 
in this matter, explaining that "[C.S.M.] agreed in a writing 
provided to OLR that Attorney Vaitys was entitled to retain the 
funds in question" apparently to cover his fees and costs.  See 
OLR's Restitution Statement at 2.  The referee did not reach a 
different conclusion or recommendation.  No restitution is 
ordered to C.S.M. 
It also appeared that Attorney Vaitys might owe restitution 
to Y.E.  The referee observed that Attorney Vaitys' trust 
account records showed that, of $30,000 in settlement funds, 
$19,000 were disbursed to Y.E. and $11,000 were retained by 
Attorney Vaitys, when in fact, he disbursed $15,000 and retained 
$15,000. By order dated May 14, 2019 we remanded this matter to 
the referee to determine whether Y.E. might be entitled to 
restitution.  The referee filed a supplemental report on June 
24, 2019, confirming that he did not recommend restitution with 
respect to Y.E. The parties clarified that the apparent 
discrepancy was due to an error in a ledger, not an actual 
conversion of funds.  No restitution is ordered to Y.E. 
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
14 
 
Count Fifteen: By depositing personal funds into his 
IOLTA 
trust 
account, 
Attorney 
Vaitys 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(l). 
Count Sixteen: By causing Attorney Napierala to sign 
an affidavit containing false information, Attorney 
Vaitys violated SCR 20:8.4(c). 
Count Seventeen: By failing to provide clients and 
third parties with written notice of his receipt of 
funds in which they have an interest and by failing to 
promptly deliver to clients and third parties the 
funds that they were entitled to receive, Attorney 
Vaitys violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).17 
Count Eighteen: By making multiple internet banking 
transactions related to the IOLTA trust account at a 
time when such transactions were prohibited, Attorney 
Vaitys violated former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c. 
Count Nineteen: By making misrepresentations to the 
OLR during the course of its investigation of OLR 
Matter No. 2016MA1162, including by presenting an 
affidavit to the OLR that contained a false assertion, 
Attorney 
Vaitys 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(2) 
and 
SCR 22.03(6), both enforceable under the Rules of 
Professional Conduct via SCR 20:8.4(h). 
¶19 In addition to the allegations in the OLR complaint, 
when 
Attorney 
Vaitys 
filed 
his 
petition, 
the 
OLR 
was 
investigating two additional grievances filed by clients W.A. 
                                                 
17 Former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provided:  
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client has an interest, or in which the lawyer has 
received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or 
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client 
or 3rd party in writing.  Except as stated in this 
rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement 
with the client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to 
the client or 3rd party any funds or other property 
that the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive.   
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
15 
 
and M.B.  The W.A. grievance involved neglect of a client 
matter.  The OLR seeks restitution in this matter.  The M.B. 
grievance also involved allegations of carelessness and neglect, 
but the OLR did not seek restitution for M.B.   
¶20 When reviewing a report and recommendation in an 
attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's findings 
of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 
Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  We review the referee's conclusions 
of law on a de novo basis.  Id.  We determine the appropriate 
level of discipline given the particular facts of each case, 
independent of the referee's recommendation, but benefitting 
from it.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 
34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  
¶21 Attorney Vaitys admits that he cannot defend against 
the allegations of the complaint or the pending grievances, 
explains that he is represented by counsel and understands the 
rights he is giving up, and agrees that his law license should 
be revoked and that he should be ordered to make restitution to 
T.A., to Attorney Napierala, and to W.A.  The OLR supports 
Attorney Vaitys' petition.  The referee determined, based on 
Attorney Vaitys' petition and the OLR's response, by clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence, that Attorney Vaitys has 
engaged in serious misconduct, and he recommends that we accept 
the petition, order restitution, and revoke Attorney Vaitys' 
license to practice law. 
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
16 
 
¶22 The referee observes that what is disturbing about 
this matter is not simply the exceedingly careless trust 
accounting, but the "way in which Attorney Vaitys seemed to 
regard a vulnerable client as a 'cash cow'——someone whose 
settlement funds could be used for legal fees without regard to 
whether the legal services were worth it."  The referee cites 
several cases in support of his conclusion that revocation is 
appropriate here, despite Attorney Vaitys' lack of prior 
professional 
discipline. 
 
See, 
e.g., 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Mularski, 2010 WI 113, 329 Wis. 2d 273, 787 
N.W.2d 834.   
¶23 Conversion of client funds may warrant revocation even 
where, as here, the attorney does not have a prior history of 
discipline.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Wynn, 2014 WI 17, 353 Wis. 2d 132, 845 N.W.2d 663 (granting 
petition for consensual license revocation filed by an attorney 
who admitted he used his law practice to misappropriate over 
three-quarters of a million dollars from dozens of clients); 
Mularski, 329 Wis. 2d 273.   
¶24 Like Attorney Vaitys, Attorney Mularski had not been 
subject to prior discipline, but he used client money for his 
own 
purposes, 
commingled 
funds, 
made 
misrepresentations, 
fabricated documents in an effort to exonerate himself, and his 
trust account was in utter disarray.  He was charged with 13 
counts of misconduct in three client matters and was subject to 
eight pending grievance investigations.  We granted his petition 
for consensual license revocation and revoked his law license.   
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
17 
 
¶25 The 
seriousness 
of 
Attorney 
Vaitys' 
misconduct 
demonstrates the need to revoke his law license to protect the 
public, the courts, and the legal system from the repetition of 
misconduct, to impress upon Attorney Vaitys the seriousness of 
his misconduct, and to deter other attorneys from engaging in 
similar misconduct.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910.  We 
have 
also 
specifically 
observed 
that 
"clients 
that 
are 
vulnerable especially require protection from those who abuse 
their professional position to enrich themselves."  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Krombach, 2005 WI 170, ¶39, 286 
Wis. 2d 589, 
707 N.W.2d 146 
(citing 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Gilbert, 
227 
Wis. 2d 444, 
474, 
595 
N.W.2d 715 (1999)).   
¶26 We grant Attorney Vaitys' petition for revocation by 
consent.  See SCR 22.19.  We also accept the referee's 
recommendation 
regarding 
restitution, 
as 
modified 
by 
his 
supplemental report filed June 24, 2019.  Attorney Vaitys is 
ordered to pay $69,867.46 to T.A.  This amount of restitution is 
consistent with the terms of Attorney Vaitys' petition for 
revocation by consent, and the OLR's restitution statement filed 
January 10, 2019.  Attorney Vaitys is also ordered to pay 
$2,130.05 to Attorney Thomas Napierala, and $100 to W.A.  
¶27 Finally, we direct Attorney Vaitys to pay the costs of 
this proceeding which are $4,703.85 as of July 10, 2019.  
Attorney Vaitys has provided no reason for this court to deviate 
from its usual practice of imposing full costs.  SCR 22.24(1m). 
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
18 
 
¶28 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for revocation by 
consent is granted and the license of Thomas D. Vaitys to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
already done so, Thomas D. Vaitys shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas D. Vaitys is ordered 
to pay $69,867.46 to T.A., $2,130.05 to Attorney Thomas 
Napierala, and $100 to W.A.  Thomas D. Vaitys shall reimburse 
his 
former 
clients 
T.A. 
and 
W.A. 
before 
satisfying 
his 
restitution obligation to Attorney Napierala. 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a condition of any 
future petition for reinstatement of his license to practice law 
in Wisconsin, Thomas D. Vaitys will be required to prove that he 
has made restitution to or settled all claims of all persons 
injured or harmed by his misconduct, including reimbursement to 
the State Bar of Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection 
for all payments made by that fund, or, if restitution has not 
been made, Thomas D. Vaitys will need to explain his failure or 
inability to do so.  See SCR 22.29(4m). 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Thomas D. Vaitys shall pay the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $4,703.85 as 
of July 10, 2019. 
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
19 
 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
No. 
2017AP1247-D   
 
 
 
1