Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas W. Batterman

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2022AP001213-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2023-02-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
2023 WI 13 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2022AP1213-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Thomas W. Batterman, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Thomas W. Batterman, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BATTERMAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 24, 2023   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per curiam. ZIEGLER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion in which 
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, HAGEDORN, and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2023 WI 13
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2022AP1213-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
 
Thomas W. Batterman, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Thomas W. Batterman, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 24, 2023 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
revoked. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Thomas W. Batterman has filed a 
petition for the consensual revocation of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 
22.19.1  In his petition, Attorney Batterman states that he 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.19 provides: 
No. 
2022AP1213-D   
 
2 
 
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of misconduct 
in connection with a grievance investigated by the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation (OLR).   
¶2 
Attorney Batterman was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1982.  His license is currently active and in good 
standing.  He has not practiced law since 1985, does not 
                                                                                                                                                             
(1) An attorney who is subject of an investigation for 
possible misconduct or the respondent in a proceeding may 
file with the supreme court a petition for the revocation 
by consent [of] his or her license to practice law. 
(2) The petition shall state that the petitioner 
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of 
misconduct.  
(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. 
2022AP1213-D   
 
3 
 
maintain a law office and has no clients, and has no intention 
to practice law in the future.  He has no previous disciplinary 
history. 
¶3 
On July 19, 2022, OLR filed a complaint against 
Attorney Batterman alleging four counts of misconduct.  The 
first two counts of misconduct arose out of Attorney Batterman’s 
representation of J.G.   
¶4 
Attorney Batterman is the founder, registered agent, 
and principal of Financial Fiduciaries and the president and 
majority shareholder of WTC, Inc. (WTC), the sole member of 
Financial Fiduciaries.  In April 1988, J.G. established and 
funded a revocable living trust which provided that if J.G.’s 
wife should predecease him, the assets remaining in the trust, 
together with any assets received into the trust, shall be 
distributed to the following charities: 25% to the Diocese of 
the Catholic Church for Superior, Wisconsin, for educational 
purposes; 25% to Bruce High School, Bruce, Wisconsin, to fund 
scholarships for students pursuing a college education; 25% to 
the Alzheimer’s Association for research; and 25% to the 
American Cancer Society for research.  
¶5 
In March 2011, J.G. amended the trust to provide that 
the bequest to the American Cancer Society be paid through local 
fundraising events such as Relay for Life in a manner and for 
such purposes as the organization saw fit.  The amendment also 
changed the successor trustee from Vigil Asset Management Group, 
Inc. to Vigil Trust and Financial Advocacy of Wausau, Wisconsin, 
or its successors (Vigil).  
No. 
2022AP1213-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
WTC was the entity that provided investment management 
services to Vigil’s trust clients.  Vigil was a registered 
tradename for Investors Independent Trust Company (IITC).  
Attorney Batterman did not have an ownership interest in IITC 
and was neither an employee nor an officer of IITC.   
¶7 
A trust services agreement between WTC and IITC 
permitted employees of WTC and Financial Fiduciaries to assist 
IITC with ministerial duties in the administration of trusts in 
which Vigil is to be named trustee.  
¶8 
J.G. died on December 27, 2014.  At that time, the 
trust was required to distribute 25% of the trust assets to each 
of the four beneficiaries.  Vigil was the trustee.   
¶9 
In February of 2015, Attorney Batterman discussed the 
administration of the trust with his then-fiancé, D.R., who was 
the senior manager for the Relay for Life division of the 
American Cancer Society.  Attorney Batterman and D.R. discussed 
an incremental distribution to the American Cancer Society over 
a period of up to ten years and discussed splitting the gift 
between the Eagle River and Wausau Relay for Life.  
¶10 The unambiguous language of the trust stated that 25% 
of trust assets shall be distributed to the American Cancer 
Society.  There was no provision in the trust which provided for 
incremental distribution.  In a May 20, 2015 email to the 
American 
Cancer 
Society, 
Attorney 
Batterman 
offered 
only 
incremental distribution of trust assets.  Attorney Batterman 
told the American Cancer Society that Vigil was his company, 
although he had no ownership interest in it.  In a June 15, 2015 
No. 
2022AP1213-D   
 
5 
 
letter to the American Cancer Society, Attorney Batterman said 
the trust was discretionary, when he knew it was an irrevocable 
trust.  In the letter, Attorney Batterman said that the donor 
wished to remain anonymous, which was also not true.  
¶11 The trust provided that after J.G.’s death, 25% of 
trust proceeds be distributed to Bruce High School.  Instead, 
Vigil hired a law firm to create the J.G. Scholarship Trust.  
Attorney Batterman was the primary contact person with the law 
firm.  The scholarship trust was created without notice to Bruce 
High School.  The scholarship trust named Vigil as the trustee, 
and Attorney Batterman was named trust protector.  As trust 
protector, Batterman should have informed Bruce High School of 
its status as beneficiary to the trust.  In a July 9, 2015 email 
to the high school, Attorney Batterman failed to inform the high 
school that the trust was required to distribute 25% of the 
trust assets to the school.  Attorney Batterman also failed to 
inform the school that Vigil was the trustee and Attorney 
Batterman was the trust protector. 
¶12 In late June or early July of 2015, the Alzheimer’s 
Association Major Gifts Division made contact with Attorney 
Batterman because the Alzheimer’s Association had received 
information of its status as a beneficiary of a trust for which 
Vigil was the trustee.  Attorney Batterman sent an email to the 
Alzheimer’s Association Trust and Estate Specialist on July 6, 
2015 saying he was “just going to begin the process of trying to 
get in touch with the local Alzheimer’s office.”  Prior to that 
date, neither Vigil nor Attorney Batterman had notified the 
No. 
2022AP1213-D   
 
6 
 
Alzheimer’s Association of its status as a beneficiary, as was 
the trustee’s duty.  In the same email, Attorney Batterman 
identified the trust as revocable when he knew that the trust 
was irrevocable.  Attorney Batterman knew the trust required 
distribution of 25% of the trust assets to each of the four 
named fiduciaries. 
¶13 In July 2015, over six months after J.G.’s death, 
Attorney Batterman first notified the Superior, Wisconsin 
Diocese of the Catholic Church of its status as a beneficiary 
under the trust.   
¶14 In September and October of 2015, the American Cancer 
Society, the School District of Bruce, the Superior, Wisconsin 
Diocese of the Catholic Church, and the Alzheimer’s Association 
all filed petitions for the removal of the trustee in the matter 
of the J.G. Revocable Trust filed in Marathon County Circuit 
Court.  In its petition, the American Cancer Society alleged 
that Attorney Batterman concocted a plan to distribute funds 
over a ten year period, rather than make an outright gift to the 
American Cancer Society as required by the trust instrument.  
Through this plan Attorney Batterman would reap the benefit of 
long-term trustee and investment fees paid from the trust, while 
his fiancé, an American Cancer Society employee responsible for 
implementing the local Relay for Life events, would benefit from 
enhanced opportunities for salary increases through the trust’s 
stepped-up annual gifting. 
¶15 Bruce High School alleged that Attorney Batterman 
failed to notify the school it was entitled to a one-time 
No. 
2022AP1213-D   
 
7 
 
distribution of its 25% share, and instead Vigil created a 
scholarship trust.  Bruce High School also alleged that Attorney 
Batterman failed to notify the school that Vigil was the trustee 
and Attorney Batterman was the trust protector. 
¶16 Attorney 
Batterman 
filed 
a 
responsive 
affidavit 
addressing the four petitions requesting removal of the trustee.  
On October 23, 2015, the circuit court granted the petitioners’ 
requests for removal of the trustee and appointed Attorney 
Terrance Byrn as the new successor trustee. 
¶17 On March 1, 2017, Attorney Batterman was deposed in 
the trust matter.  In his sworn deposition testimony, he 
acknowledged that J.G. never indicated he wanted his gifts to be 
anonymous.  Attorney Batterman also admitted that while he 
stated to the American Cancer Society that the trust was a 
discretionary trust, Vigil in fact had no discretion over the 
trust.  
¶18 A court trial was conducted in the trust case on April 
27 and May 23, 2017.  On September 18, 2017, the circuit court 
determined: 
Vigil owes each beneficiary a duty to inform and 
report. Breach of this duty constitutes a breach of 
trust. From the testimony, the Court cannot help but 
find Mr. Batterman, slash, Vigil failed to provide the 
necessary information to several of the beneficiaries 
regarding the gift in a timely manner and upon request 
in which many ways has resulted in this extensive and 
arguably unnecessary litigation... 
This Court finds that the manner in which Vigil failed 
to give the appropriate notice to the American Cancer 
Association and the manner in which the gift was set 
up for distribution not authorized within the trust 
No. 
2022AP1213-D   
 
8 
 
document, often providing incomplete information and 
by 
setting 
up 
unilaterally 
disposition 
- 
- 
or 
distribution 
plans 
which 
arguably 
favor 
Vigil’s 
constant breach of loyalty and duty to inform and 
report. 
¶19 Following the circuit court’s decision, significant 
litigation ensued regarding payment of attorney’s fees.  In a 
March 19, 2018 oral ruling, the circuit court ordered that 
Attorney Batterman and Vigil shall be jointly and severally 
liable for attorney’s fees.  Attorney Batterman and Midwest 
Trust Company, the successor in interest to IITC, filed a notice 
of appeal.  In January 2019, the appeal was voluntarily 
dismissed. 
¶20 The OLR’s complaint alleged the following counts of 
misconduct with respect to Attorney Batterman’s handling of the 
J.G. Trust:  
Count 1: By engaging in conduct that amounted to a 
breach of trust in In the Matter of the [J.G.] 
Revocable 
Trust, 
Attorney 
Batterman 
violated 
SCR 
20:8.4 (c). 2  
Count 2: By misrepresenting to ACS that the trust 
donor wished to remain anonymous and that the funds 
came from a discretionary trust, Attorney Batterman 
violated SCR 20:8.4 (c).   
¶21 The OLR’s complaint also alleged that the American 
Cancer Society filed a complaint with the Securities Exchange 
Commission (SEC) against Financial Fiduciaries and Attorney 
Batterman.  The SEC investigated the complaint.  In a March 5, 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4 (c) provides: “It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation.” 
No. 
2022AP1213-D   
 
9 
 
2018 order, the SEC found that Attorney Batterman caused 
Financial Fiduciaries’ violations of various sections of the 
Advisers Act, which prohibits an investment advisor from 
engaging in a transaction, practice, or course of business which 
operates as a fraud or deceit upon a client or a prospective 
client and requires an advisor to take enumerated steps to 
safeguard client assets over which it has custody.  In addition, 
the SEC found that Attorney Batterman willfully made untrue 
statements of material fact in a registration application or 
report filed with the Commission or willfully omitted to state 
material facts.  The SEC ordered Financial Fiduciaries to pay a 
civil money penalty in the amount of $40,000, and it ordered 
Attorney Batterman to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of 
$20,000.   
¶22 The OLR’s complaint alleged the following count of 
misconduct with respect to the SEC proceeding: 
Count 3: By causing Financial Fiduciaries’ violations 
of Sections 206(2), 206(4) and 207 of the Advisors Act 
in In the Matter of Financial Fiduciaries, LLC and 
Thomas Batterman, SEC Administrative Proceeding File 
No. 3-18385, Attorney Batterman violated SCR 20:8.4 
(c).   
¶23 Finally, the OLR’s complaint alleged that on April 10, 
2018, Attorney Batterman was pulled over while operating his 
vehicle at 46 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone.  During 
the traffic stop, the officer detected a strong odor of 
intoxicants coming from Attorney Batterman, as well as glassy 
eyes and slurred speech.  The officer detected some impairment 
in field sobriety tests and requested Attorney Batterman to 
No. 
2022AP1213-D   
 
10 
 
submit to a preliminary breath test, which Attorney Batterman 
declined.  Based on the field sobriety tests, Attorney Batterman 
was placed under arrest for Operating While Intoxicated, 2nd 
offense.  Attorney Batterman subsequently submitted to a blood 
draw showing a blood alcohol content of .124, in excess of the 
legal limit in Wisconsin. 
¶24 On October 19, 2021, a jury found Attorney Batterman 
guilty of Operating with a Prohibited Alcohol Concentration, 2nd 
offense.  He was sentenced to 15 days confinement in the 
Marathon County jail, 13 months driver’s license revocation and, 
12 months ignition interlock.  Attorney Batterman appealed, and 
his sentence has been stayed pending appeal.   
¶25 The OLR’s complaint alleged the following count of 
misconduct with respect to the OWI conviction: 
Count 4: By engaging in conduct leading to a criminal 
Conviction of Operating with a PAC 2nd offense in 
State of Wisconsin v. Thomas Batterman, Marathon 
County Case No. 2018CM752, Attorney Batterman violated 
SCR 20:8.4 (b). 3  
¶26 Attorney Batterman filed his petition for revocation 
by consent on December 8, 2022.  The petition alleges that 
Attorney Batterman cannot successfully defend himself against 
the professional misconduct alleged in the complaint.  The 
petition states Attorney Batterman has been represented by 
counsel in the matter and is freely, voluntarily, and knowingly 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:8.4 (b) provides: “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.” 
No. 
2022AP1213-D   
 
11 
 
filing his petition for revocation by consent.  Attorney 
Batterman further states that by filing the petition he 
understands he is giving up his right to further contest each 
misconduct allegation in the complaint. 
¶27 The OLR filed a memorandum recommending that Attorney 
Batterman’s petition for revocation by consent be granted and 
that his Wisconsin law license be revoked.   
¶28 Having reviewed Attorney Batterman’s petition for 
consensual revocation and OLR’s recommendation on the petition, 
we grant Attorney Batterman’s petition for the revocation of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  In the trust proceeding, 
Attorney Batterman engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.  The SEC found that he 
engaged in conduct which operated as a fraud or deceit upon a 
client.  
¶29 The seriousness of Attorney Batterman’s misconduct 
demonstrates that it is appropriate to revoke his law license in 
order to protect the public, the courts, and the legal system 
from repetition of his misconduct; to impress upon him the 
seriousness of his misconduct; and to deter other attorneys from 
engaging in similar misconduct.  This court has previously 
revoked attorneys’ licenses when they face multiple counts of 
misconduct, 
including 
misconduct 
consisting 
of 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation. 
 
See, 
e.g., 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings against Vaitys, 2019 WI 85, 388 Wis. 2d 
259, 932 N.W. 2d 400. 
No. 
2022AP1213-D   
 
12 
 
¶30 Since this matter was resolved without the need to 
appoint 
a 
referee, 
we 
assess 
no 
costs 
against 
Attorney 
Batterman.  
¶31 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license 
revocation is granted. 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Thomas W. 
Batterman to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the 
date of this order. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas W. Batterman 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. 
No.  2022AP1213-D.akz 
 
1 
 
¶34 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J.   (concurring).  I 
concur in the court's order revoking Attorney Batterman’s 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  I write separately to 
point out that in Wisconsin the "revocation" of an attorney's 
law license is not truly revocation because the attorney may 
petition for reinstatement after a period of five years.  See 
SCR 22.29(2).  I believe that when it comes to lawyer 
discipline, courts should say what they mean and mean what they 
say.  We should not be creating false perceptions to both the 
public and to the lawyer seeking to practice law again.  See In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 WI 39, 391 
Wis. 2d 196, 942 N.W.2d 302 (Ziegler, J., dissenting).  And, as 
I stated in my dissent to this court's order denying Rule 
Petition 19-10, In the Matter of Amending Supreme Court Rules 
Pertaining to Permanent Revocation of a License to Practice Law 
in Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings, I believe there may be 
rare and unusual cases that would warrant the permanent 
revocation of an attorney's license to practice law.  See S. Ct. 
Order 19-10 (issued Dec. 18, 2019) (Ziegler, J., dissenting). 
¶35 I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL 
BRADLEY, BRIAN HAGEDORN, and JILL J. KAROFSKY join this 
concurrence. 
 
 
 
 
No.  2022AP1213-D.akz 
 
 
 
1