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

Citation: 2014 WI 1

Docket Number: 2013AP002089-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2014-01-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
2014 WI 1 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP2089-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Christopher Stephen Petros, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Christopher Stephen Petros, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETROS  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 3, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 1
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP2089-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Christopher Stephen Petros, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Christopher Stephen Petros, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 3, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Christopher 
Stephen Petros pursuant to SCR 22.12.1  The stipulation requests 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides as follows:  Stipulation. 
 
(1)  The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed.  The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee.   
No. 
2013AP2089-D   
 
2 
 
this court to suspend Attorney Petros's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed 
by the Minnesota Supreme Court. 
¶2 
Attorney Petros was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2009.  According to the stipulation, on August 6, 
2013, the Minnesota Supreme Court suspended Attorney Petros's 
Minnesota law license for 90 days based on misconduct consisting 
of submitting false evidence and making false statements to the 
director of the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional 
Responsibility; failing to notify a client about a hearing; 
lying to a 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 
return the client's property, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. 
Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 3.3(a)(1), 8.1(a), and 8.4(c) and 
(d).   
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(2)  If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
 
(3)  If 
the 
supreme 
court 
rejects 
the 
stipulation, a referee shall be appointed and the 
matter shall proceed as a complaint filed without a 
stipulation. 
 
(4)  A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint.   
No. 
2013AP2089-D   
 
3 
 
¶3 
On September 19, 2013, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging that by virtue of having received discipline imposed in 
Minnesota 
for 
his 
violations 
of 
the 
Minnesota 
Rules 
of 
Professional Conduct, Attorney Petros is subject to reciprocal 
discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22.2 
                                                 
2 SCR 22.22 states:  Reciprocal discipline. 
 
(1)  An attorney on whom public discipline for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.  
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.  
 
(2)  Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a 
judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing 
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for 
medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the 
practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in 
this state, the director may file a complaint in the 
supreme court containing all of the following:  
 
(a)  A certified copy of the judgment or order 
from the other jurisdiction. 
 
(b)  A motion requesting an order directing the 
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the 
grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of 
the identical discipline or license suspension by the 
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual 
basis for the claim. 
 
(3)  The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
 
 
(a)  The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process. 
No. 
2013AP2089-D   
 
4 
 
¶4 
In the stipulation, Attorney Petros does not claim 
that any of the conditions listed in SCRs 22.22(3)(a) through 
(c) prevent the imposition of reciprocal discipline in this 
case.  Attorney Petros and the OLR jointly request that Attorney 
Petros's license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for 
90 days.   
¶5 
The stipulation properly provides that it did not 
result from plea bargaining.  Attorney Petros says he does not 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(b)  There 
was 
such 
an 
infirmity 
of 
proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity. 
 
(c)  The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
 
(4)  Except as provided in sub. (3), a final 
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney 
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity 
shall 
be 
conclusive 
evidence 
of 
the 
attorney's 
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a 
proceeding under this rule. 
 
(5)  The supreme court may refer a complaint 
filed under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a 
report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16.  At 
the hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the 
imposition 
of 
discipline 
or 
license 
suspension 
different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction 
to demonstrate that the imposition of identical 
discipline or license suspension by the supreme court 
is unwarranted. 
 
(6)  If the discipline or license suspension 
imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any 
reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by 
the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the 
stay expires.  
No. 
2013AP2089-D   
 
5 
 
contest the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR or the 
discipline that the OLR's director is seeking in this matter.  
Attorney Petros further states that he fully understands the 
misconduct allegations and the ramifications should this court 
impose the stipulated level of discipline.  He also states he 
fully understands his right to contest the matter and he 
understands his right to consult with counsel.  Attorney Petros 
further states that his entry into the stipulation is made 
knowingly and voluntarily and represents his decision not to 
contest the misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint or the 
level and type of discipline sought by the OLR director.   
¶6 
Based upon our independent review of the matter, we 
conclude that the SCR 22.12 stipulation should be accepted and 
that Attorney Petros's license to practice law in Wisconsin 
should be suspended for 90 days as reciprocal discipline 
identical to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court.  Since 
Attorney Petros entered into a stipulation with the OLR and 
there was no need to appoint a referee, we agree that no costs 
should be assessed. 
¶7 
IT IS ORDERED that the license of Christopher Stephen 
Petros to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 
90 days, effective February 3, 2014. 
¶8 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Christopher Stephen Petros 
shall comply with provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties 
of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended. 
No. 
2013AP2089-D   
 
6 
 
¶9 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2).   
 
 
No. 
2013AP2089-D   
 
 
 
1