Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Douglas Katerinos

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2010 WI 28 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2008AP1637-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Douglas Katerinos, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Douglas Katerinos, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KATERINOS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 20, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 28
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2008AP1637-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Douglas Katerinos, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Douglas Katerinos, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 20, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney 
publicly 
reprimanded.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of Referee John A. Fiorenza that Attorney Douglas Katerinos be 
publicly reprimanded for professional misconduct and required to 
pay the costs of this disciplinary proceeding.  No appeal from 
the referee's report and recommendation has been filed.  Upon 
our independent review, we agree that Attorney Katerinos 
committed 
professional 
misconduct 
that 
warrants 
a 
public 
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
2 
 
reprimand, and we order Attorney Katerinos to pay the full costs 
of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶2 
Attorney Katerinos has been licensed to practice law 
in Wisconsin since 2000.  He has an office in his home in 
Milwaukee.  He has not previously been disciplined by this 
court. 
¶3 
The 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
filed 
a 
disciplinary complaint against Attorney Katerinos on July 1, 
2008, alleging five counts of professional misconduct.  The 
referee conducted an evidentiary hearing on May 5 and 6, 2009, 
and issued a report on September 10, 2009.  Attorney Katerinos 
filed a letter addressed to the justices of the Wisconsin 
Supreme Court on September 30, 2009, objecting to the OLR 
proceeding 
and 
various 
aspects 
of 
the 
referee's 
report.  
However, he did not file an appeal.  Therefore, we consider this 
matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1 
¶4 
All the claims in the OLR complaint relate to Attorney 
Katerinos' handling of a small claims dispute on behalf of his 
clients, M.O. and R.O.  M.O. and R.O. failed to pay a $591 bill 
for dental services performed by Dr. H.  After efforts to 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
3 
 
negotiate a payment plan failed, Dr. H. referred M.O. and R.O.'s 
unpaid debt to Hawthorne Collection Services, Inc. (Hawthorne).  
M.O. and R.O. paid $100 toward the balance but then refused to 
pay any more of the debt.   
¶5 
M.O. and R.O. retained Attorney Katerinos and, in 
November 2002, commenced a small claims lawsuit against Dr. H. 
and Hawthorne for an alleged violation of the Wisconsin Consumer 
Act.  The complaint alleged that Dr. H.'s collection efforts 
amounted to illegal collection activity.  Dr. H., represented by 
Attorney 
Christopher 
Drosen, 
denied 
liability 
and 
counterclaimed, seeking recovery of $491.36, the outstanding 
balance for the dental services.  Dr. H. also sought the 
recovery of costs for a frivolous claim under Wis. Stat. 
§ 814.025. 
¶6 
On 
February 
10, 
2003, 
the 
small 
claims 
court 
commissioner dismissed M.O. and R.O.'s complaint and ordered 
them to pay Dr. H. the outstanding balance of $491.36.  No 
ruling was made as to Dr. H.'s request for attorney fees.  
¶7 
M.O. and R.O. and defendant Hawthorne each appealed 
the commissioner's decision to the circuit court, seeking a 
trial.  Dr. H. filed a motion for summary judgment in the 
circuit court, seeking a dismissal of M.O. and R.O.'s complaint, 
an award of $491.36 as found by the commissioner, and an award 
of costs and attorney fees for filing a frivolous appeal 
pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 814.025.  Hawthorne, represented by 
Attorney Bernard Stein, filed its own summary judgment motion 
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
4 
 
seeking a dismissal of the complaint and an award of attorney 
fees and costs under the same statute.   
¶8 
The Honorable Mel Flanagan conducted a hearing on 
August 11, 2003.  By order dated October 7, 2003, Judge Flanagan 
dismissed M.O. and R.O.'s complaint as to both defendants.  
Judge Flanagan specifically found there was no evidence to 
support M.O. and R.O.'s claim and concluded that the action was 
frivolous.  Judge Flanagan awarded costs against M.O. and R.O. 
and Attorney Katerinos, jointly and severally, in favor of 
Dr. H. and Hawthorne in the amounts of $5,437.50 and $2,347.50, 
respectively.  
¶9 
M.O. and R.O. appealed (the "First Appeal").  On 
June 28, 2004, while the First Appeal was pending, Attorney 
Katerinos filed a motion in the circuit court to reopen the 
underlying litigation, alleging fraud pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 806.07(1)(c).  
¶10 The Honorable Christopher Foley held a hearing on 
Attorney 
Katerinos' 
motion 
to 
reopen 
the 
litigation 
on 
January 31, 2005, and indicated on the record that "[s]ome of 
this stuff that is cited in support of the proposition that the 
judgment resulted from fraud is simply silly."  Judge Foley 
denied Attorney Katerinos' motion to reopen the litigation by 
order dated February 21, 2005, but did not make a specific 
finding that Attorney Katerinos' motion was frivolous.  Attorney 
Katerinos appealed that order on March 4, 2005 (the "Second 
Appeal").    
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
5 
 
¶11 Meanwhile, in the First Appeal, Attorney Katerinos 
filed an appeal brief on July 19, 2004, in which he asked the 
court of appeals to reverse Judge Flanagan's October 2003 
summary judgment order.  In that brief Attorney Katerinos made 
two statements that are relevant in this disciplinary matter.  
Attorney Katerinos wrote, "There is nothing to support the 
Defendants' counterclaims for frivolousness.  The Defendants 
misused the trial court and the relationship between Judge 
Flanagan and Mr. Stein [Hawthorne's attorney] to victimize [M.O. 
and R.O.] and their counsel."  Attorney Stein asserts this 
statement 
was 
misleading 
because 
he 
did 
not 
have 
a 
"relationship" of any kind with Judge Flanagan, other than as a 
lawyer appearing before her in court.  
¶12 Attorney Katerinos also argued in the appeal brief 
that the circuit court lacked authority to impose costs and fees 
against him because he was not a named party to the underlying 
litigation.  Attorney Katerinos stated:  
Respondents' mutual entry of judgments against [M.O. 
and 
R.O.'s] 
counsel 
are 
particularly 
disturbing.  
Without naming him as a party, or service of process, 
or any proper motion, Respondents entered judgments in 
contrast to the circuit court's contrary decision on 
the record.  . . .  
These 
longstanding 
authorities 
regarding 
jurisdiction over a non-party were mistakenly not 
given consideration and instead the court of appeals 
misapplied Ziebell v. Ziebell, 2003 WI App 127, 265 
Wis. 2d 664, 666 N.W.2d 107 (Wis. App. 2003) in 
affirming the circuit court, despite additional notice 
that a judgment or order which is void may be expunged 
by a court at any time. 
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
6 
 
¶13 Essentially, Attorney Katerinos took the position that 
the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to impose costs and 
sanctions on him, personally, because he had not been served in 
the underlying proceeding.  If this argument succeeded, Attorney 
Katerinos would be exonerated from the costs and fees associated 
with filing a frivolous pleading but his clients would remain 
responsible for the costs and fees.  Attorney Katerinos did not 
have a written waiver from M.O. and R.O. to pursue this 
potentially adverse argument on appeal.  
¶14 On November 16, 2004, the court of appeals affirmed 
Judge Flanagan's decision in all respects and found that the 
First Appeal, itself, was frivolous.  The court of appeals noted 
that the frivolous finding made in the circuit court was "amply 
supported by the record before the trial court."2  The court of 
                                                 
2 The court of appeals stated:  
Plaintiffs' claim, that there was an agreement by 
[Dr. H.] to accept periodic payments, is unsupported 
by any evidence.  It is undisputed that [Dr. H.'s] 
initial offer to permit [M.O. and R.O.] to suggest a 
payment method was ignored by [M.O. and R.O.] for 
months.  It is undisputed that [M.O. and R.O.] made 
not a single payment while the proposal was open, and 
that [M.O.] made no payment at all until contacted by 
Hawthorne.  Even then the partial payment of $100 was 
initially refused by [Dr. H.].  If there was ever an 
"offer" to accept periodic payments, it was withdrawn 
by referral to collection, and never thereafter 
renewed by [Dr. H.].  Indeed, the claimed existence of 
any 
"agreement" to periodic payments is further 
refuted by correspondence to [M.O. and R.O.] from both 
[Dr. H.'s] office and Hawthorne Collection Agency.  
Summary judgment dismissing the complaint is amply 
supported by the record.  Olsen v. Hoffmann, No. 
03-3500, unpublished slip op., ¶5 (Wis. Ct. App. 
Nov. 16, 2004). 
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
7 
 
appeals noted that M.O. had admitted the only reason he brought 
the lawsuit was because his sister-in-law works for Dr. H. and 
"family doesn't put family in collection."  
¶15 The court of appeals remanded the First Appeal to the 
circuit court to determine the exact amount of attorney fees and 
costs to be awarded to the defendants.  See Olsen v. Hoffmann, 
No. 2003-3500, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 
2004).  
¶16 On December 16, 2004, Attorney Katerinos filed a 
petition for review of the decision on the First Appeal.  In the 
petition for review he reiterated his argument that he could not 
be held personally responsible for fees and sanctions because 
the court lacked jurisdiction over him on the theory that he was 
not a named party to the lawsuit. 
¶17 On July 5, 2005, while the petition for review in the 
First Appeal was pending before this court, and while the Second 
Appeal was pending in the court of appeals, Attorney Katerinos 
filed a motion in the circuit court for sanctions against 
defense counsel, Attorney Drosen and Attorney Stein, for "fraud, 
perjury, and other alleged malfeasance."  This motion was 
substantially similar in content to the motion to reopen the 
small claims litigation which the circuit court had already 
denied, and which was at the time the subject of the Second 
Appeal.  Attorney Katerinos claimed that "Defendants' counsels 
had to resort to . . . threats of violence . . . to obtain their 
void judgments" (emphasis added).  Both defense attorneys denied 
ever threatening Attorney Katerinos in any way.  Defense counsel 
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
8 
 
filed motions for protective orders asking the circuit court to 
bar discovery into this claim pending resolution of the Second 
Appeal. 
¶18 Judge Foley conducted a hearing on the motions for 
protective orders on September 19, 2005.  Judge Foley ordered 
Attorney Katerinos not to issue any discovery requests pending 
resolution of the matters then pending before the Wisconsin 
Supreme Court and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, and granted 
defense counsels' motions for protective orders.  Attorney 
Katerinos was ordered to pay costs to the defendants on the 
motion and was directed that these costs should be borne by him 
personally.  
¶19 On October 17, 2005, Judge Foley conducted a hearing 
on Attorney Katerinos' motion for sanctions.  Judge Foley noted 
the defendants had prevailed in small claims court, the circuit 
court, and the court of appeals, and the supreme court had 
denied Attorney Katerinos' petition for review on October 3, 
2005.  Judge Foley found no basis for the sanctions sought by 
Attorney Katerinos and denied the motion.  Judge Foley directed 
the defendants to present affidavits with calculations of their 
costs and attorney fees.  On November 21, 2005, Judge Foley 
issued written orders confirming his September 19 and October 17 
rulings.  Judge Foley ordered Attorney Katerinos to pay 
Attorneys Drosen and Stein the sums of $1,222 and $862.50, 
respectively, on or before January 15, 2006.  
¶20 Judge Foley conducted hearings on November 28 and 30, 
2005, to determine the costs due the defendants for attorney 
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
9 
 
fees incurred in defending the First Appeal, together with other 
motion costs.  In January 2006 Judge Foley issued a written 
order awarding Dr. H. a total of $6,139.10 in fees and costs and 
awarded Hawthorne a total of $2,222.93.  Judge Foley apportioned 
responsibility for these costs on a 90/10 basis between Attorney 
Katerinos and M.O. and R.O., respectively.  Orders for judgment 
on these amounts were filed on February 23 and 24, 2006, and 
judgments entered on February 28, 2006.  On April 7, 2006, 
Attorney Katerinos appealed the orders for judgment, which 
included by reference the November 21, 2005, orders denying his 
motion for sanctions and imposing costs in favor of the other 
attorneys ("Third Appeal").  
¶21 On April 11, 2006, the court of appeals issued a 
decision in the Second Appeal, affirming the circuit court on 
all counts. The court of appeals flatly rejected Attorney 
Katerinos' claims that the judgment entered against him and his 
clients was based upon the defendants' fraudulent activities, 
stating: 
This court agrees with the trial court's conclusions 
made on the record that there is "nothing here to 
suggest 
that 
this 
judgment 
resulted 
from 
fraud 
perpetrated on the Court, by any of the lawyers, by 
any of the defendants, by any representatives of the 
defendants, et cetera.   
Some of this stuff that is cited in support of 
the proposition that the judgment resulted from fraud 
is simply silly." 
Olsen v. Hoffman, No. 2005AP644, unpublished slip op., ¶14 (Wis. 
Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2006) (stating, inter alia, "It is time for 
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
10 
 
this litigation to come to an end.").  The court of appeals also 
found that the Second Appeal was frivolous and remanded the 
matter to the circuit court for a determination of costs and 
attorney fees owed to the defendants on the Second Appeal.  On 
May 3, 2006, Judge Foley ordered judgment in the amount of 
$1,147.50 in favor of Dr. H. for costs associated with the 
Second Appeal.  
¶22 Attorney Katerinos reached a settlement for the fees 
and costs and personally paid them in full.  In August 2006 
Attorneys Katerinos, Stein, and Drosen reached a settlement and 
executed a stipulation and order of dismissal upon conditions 
relating to Attorney Katerinos' payment of sanctions to the 
defendants.  The Third Appeal was voluntarily dismissed in late 
August 2006.   
¶23 Attorney Katerinos' conduct in this small claims 
litigation gave rise to this disciplinary proceeding.  The OLR 
complaint alleged five counts of professional misconduct: 
• 
Count One.  By over-litigating this small claims 
case for two and one-half years to his clients' financial 
detriment, Attorney Katerinos violated SCR 20:1.1.3   
• 
Count Two.  By arguing during the First Appeal a 
position that was adverse and detrimental to his clients' 
interests 
and 
was 
potentially 
favorable 
to 
Attorney 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:1.1 provides, "A lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client.  Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
11 
 
Katerinos' own interest, Attorney Katerinos violated former 
SCR 20:1.7(b).4   
• 
Count Three.  By filing a motion for sanctions in 
September 2005 that generally repeated grounds Attorney 
Katerinos had previously (and unsuccessfully) raised in a 
motion to reopen that the circuit court had already denied, 
Attorney Katerinos violated SCRs 20:3.1(a)(l) and (3).5   
                                                 
4 Former SCR 20:1.7(b) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided:   
A lawyer shall not represent a client if the 
representation 
of that client may be materially 
limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another 
client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own 
interests, unless:  
(1)  the 
lawyer 
reasonably 
believes 
the 
representation will not be adversely affected; and  
(2)  the 
client 
consents 
in 
writing 
after 
consultation.  When representation of multiple clients 
in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation 
shall include explanation of the implications of the 
common representation and the advantages and risks 
involved. 
5 SCR 20:3.1(a)(1) and (3) provide, in pertinent part, that 
in representing a client, a lawyer shall not: 
(1)  knowingly advance a claim or defense that is 
unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer 
may advance such claim or defense if it can be 
supported by good faith argument for an extension, 
modification or reversal of existing law; . . .  
(3)  file a suit, assert a position, conduct a 
defense, delay a trial or take other action on behalf 
of the client when the lawyer knows or when it is 
obvious that such an action would serve merely to 
harass or maliciously injure another. 
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
12 
 
• 
Count 
Four.  By 
making 
a 
baseless 
statement 
indicating the defendants had misused their "relationship" 
between the presiding judge and one of the defense 
attorneys to victimize the plaintiffs and plaintiffs' 
counsel when, in fact, no relationship between the judge 
and 
the 
defense attorney existed, Attorney Katerinos 
violated SCR 20:8.2(a).6   
• 
Count Five.  By making a baseless statement in a 
motion for sanctions to the trial court filed on or about 
June 30, 2005, that the defense attorneys had made "threats 
of violence" against him, Attorney Katerinos violated 
former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).7  
¶24 The OLR sought a public reprimand and imposition of 
costs.  The referee conducted an evidentiary hearing in May 2009 
and requested post—hearing briefs.  The referee filed his report 
on September 10, 2009.  As indicated earlier, although he wrote 
a 
lengthy 
letter 
to 
the 
justices 
of 
this 
court 
dated 
September 30, 2009, Attorney Katerinos did not formally appeal 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:8.2(a) provides as follows: 
A lawyer shall not make a statement that the 
lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as 
to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications 
or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or 
public legal officer, or of a candidate for election 
or appointment to judicial or legal office. 
7 Former SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
stated a lawyer shall not knowingly "make a false statement of 
fact or law to a tribunal . . . ." 
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
13 
 
the referee's report.  Therefore, we consider this matter 
pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). 
¶25 The referee concluded that OLR met its burden of 
establishing 
the 
allegations 
in 
the 
complaint 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence and recommended imposition 
of a public reprimand.  We agree.  We have carefully reviewed 
the record in this matter, and the record evidence supports the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect 
to each allegation of misconduct. 
¶26 Attorney Katerinos continued to pursue the small 
claims litigation——over a bill of less than $500——despite clear 
warnings from the trial court and the court of appeals that his 
arguments were "silly" and that further discovery would be 
"frivolous on its face."  Indeed, at one point the circuit court 
advised Attorney Katerinos that if he pursued discovery on his 
third motion for sanctions the court would "anticipate putting 
you [Attorney Katerinos] in jail for it."  The referee made the 
following findings: 
The 
Findings 
clearly 
indicate 
that 
Attorney 
Katerinos was very aggressive in this case and refused 
to accept the decision of the trial court and 
decisions of the Court of Appeals.  His action in the 
case was clearly frivolous.  He had a fixation on his 
interpretation of the Wisconsin Consumer Act and would 
not tolerate any other position but his.  In the 
disciplinary 
hearing 
he 
spent 
more 
time 
on 
substantiating his position in the small [claims] case 
than defending himself on the five counts in the 
Disciplinary Complaint. He clearly violated Count 1, 
and I so find.  
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
14 
 
¶27 We adopt these findings and agree that Attorney 
Katerinos violated SCR 20:1.1. 
¶28 We also agree that the record supports a finding that 
Attorney Katerinos violated SCR 20:1.7(b) when he attempted to 
exonerate himself from a judgment for sanctions imposed on 
Attorney Katerinos and his clients jointly without having 
obtained a waiver from his clients before pursuing this 
argument.  We agree with the referee's conclusion: 
Mr. Katerinos' attempts to extricate himself of 
the frivolous fees, would have put the burden of all 
the fees on his clients.  This was a direct conflict 
with his clients' interest.  He had not procured a 
waiver 
of 
the 
conflict 
from 
his 
clients.  
Mr. Katerinos violated SCR [20:1.7(b)]. 
¶29 Attorney Katerinos also violated SCRs 20:3.1(a)(1) and 
(3) when he filed a motion to reopen the litigation on June 28, 
2004, based on an allegation of fraud, and when he filed a 
motion for sanctions on July 5, 2005.  When Attorney Katerinos 
filed his motion for sanctions he had already lost a motion to 
reopen the litigation in the circuit court.  That motion had 
raised almost the same issue of attorney misconduct.  As such, 
Attorney Katerinos' motion for sanctions asserted a duplicative 
position that "would merely serve to harass or maliciously 
injure 
other 
individuals, 
here 
the 
defendants 
and 
the 
defendants' counsel."  We agree with the referee's observation 
that: 
During the course of the litigation Mr. Katerinos 
repeated motions that had already been heard and 
disposed of by the Court.  One such incident was the 
motion for sanctions filed by him in [July 2005]. This 
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
15 
 
matter had been raised in a motion to reopen that the 
Circuit Court had already denied.  Mr. Katerinos 
violated [SCRs 20:3.1(a)(1) and (3)]. 
¶30 The referee concluded, and we agree, that Attorney 
Katerinos violated SCR 20:8.2(a) with respect to statements 
included in the brief he filed with the court of appeals on 
July 19, 2004.  In this brief Attorney Katerinos said "[t]he 
Defendants misused the trial court and the relationship between 
Judge Flanagan and Mr. Stein to victimize [R.O. and M.O.] and 
their counsel . . . ."  At the evidentiary hearing, Attorney 
Stein denied he had any type of "relationship" with Judge 
Flanagan other than that of an attorney who appeared in the 
judge's courtroom on legal matters.  The referee found that 
Attorney Katerinos could not substantiate this statement and, as 
such, the referee concluded that Attorney Katerinos' assertion 
that there was a "relationship" involving Judge Flanagan and a 
defense attorney was false and related to the integrity of the 
judge.  More specifically, the referee stated: 
The 
statement 
by 
Mr. 
Katerinos 
that 
Judge 
Flanagan and Mr. Stein had a relationship that was 
detrimental to [his clients'] case had no basis in 
fact.  The statement was careless and was a disservice 
to Judge Flanagan and Attorney Stein.  He just made 
the statement without presenting any factual basis.  
Brash statements with no foundation have no place in 
the 
Court 
System. 
 
Mr. 
Katerinos 
violated 
SCR 20:8.2(a).  
¶31 Finally, we agree that Attorney Katerinos violated 
ethical standards when he accused defense counsel of harassing 
M.O. and R.O., pilfering them financially, and denying their day 
in court.  For example, Attorney Katerinos stated, "Defendants' 
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
16 
 
counsels had to resort to fraud, perjury, threats of violence, 
and intentional misstatements to obtain their void judgments."  
A review of the record reflects that both Attorneys Drosen and 
Stein denied making any threats of violence towards Attorney 
Katerinos.  Attorney Katerinos claimed that Stein "shook his 
fist" in the face of Attorney Katerinos and "mumbled" words 
about the prospects of collecting money from his client.  
Attorney Stein denied this occurred.   
¶32 The referee agreed that by describing the alleged 
conduct 
as 
"threats 
of 
violence" 
Attorney 
Katerinos 
mischaracterized to the court what had occurred.  The referee 
stated, and we agree that: 
The statement made in the motion for sanction[s] 
[filed] on [July 5, 2005] that the defense attorneys 
had made threats of violence against Mr. Katerinos has 
no 
foundation. 
 
Mr. 
Katerinos 
violated 
SCR 
20:3.3(a)(1). 
¶33 A referee's findings of fact will not be overturned 
unless clearly erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 
N.W.2d 718.  We independently review the referee's legal 
conclusions.  Id.  
¶34 As this matter was submitted to the court without 
appeal, 
Referee 
Fiorenza's 
findings 
and 
conclusions 
are 
unchallenged and they are also supported by the record.  We 
therefore 
approve 
and 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
and 
conclusions regarding Attorney Katerinos' misconduct. 
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
17 
 
¶35 Although Attorney Katerinos declined to appeal the 
referee's report he nonetheless sent a 17-page letter to each 
justice. 
 
He 
challenges 
many 
aspects 
of 
the 
referee's 
recommendation which he describes as "rife with numerous errors, 
omissions, and misrepresentations."  His assertion that "[t]he 
lack of respect and regard for Wis. Stat. § 427.105 is 
'shockingly not right' . . . ," registers his disagreement with 
credibility determinations made by the referee.  Attorney 
Katerinos further maintained that "OLR repeatedly interfered 
with the underlying small claims case while the action was still 
pending in the court system" (emphasis supplied).  He states, 
inter alia: 
While acting as a shadow party, OLR repeatedly abused 
the power and resources of the State of Wisconsin to 
derail the pending case and obtain the penalizing 
outcome it desired to punish the Respondent.  
He then provides the court with an extremely lengthy list that 
he emphasizes is "not intended to be comprehensive" of the 
errors and omissions he perceives in the referee's report.  
¶36 Attorney Katerinos explicitly declined to appeal the 
referee's report and recommendations.  Therefore, we need not, 
and will not, address the many and varied complaints set forth 
at length in his letter to this court. 
¶37 We 
will 
note, 
however, 
that 
many 
of 
Attorney 
Katerinos' objections and claims of purported error or omission 
are grounded in his own belief in the validity of his legal 
argument, notwithstanding the fact that several circuit and 
appellate courts have advised him that his arguments lack merit.  
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
18 
 
Indeed, the letter to this court reflects a disturbing lack of 
awareness 
or 
respect 
for 
appropriate 
legal 
practice 
and 
procedure.  As the OLR stated in written submissions, "[w]ere 
every such lawsuit to be handled in a similar fashion, our court 
system would come to a grinding halt."   
¶38 We accept the referee's recommendation for a public 
reprimand and we impose the full costs of this proceeding.8 
¶39 IT IS ORDERED that Douglas Katerinos is publicly 
reprimanded as discipline for professional misconduct. 
¶40 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 90 days of the date 
of this order, Douglas Katerinos pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If costs are not paid 
within the time specified and absent a showing of his inability 
to pay the costs within that time, Douglas Katerinos' license to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order 
of the court. 
 
                                                 
8 Supreme court rule 22.24 governs the assessment of costs. 
Under SCR 22.24(1m), the court's general policy is to impose 
costs on the respondent.  To award less than full costs, the 
court must find "extraordinary circumstances."  Id.  Attorney 
Katerinos has not formally objected to the costs and has not 
claimed extraordinary circumstances to justify the imposition of 
less than full costs.  We conclude Attorney Katerinos shall bear 
the entire costs of the proceedings.  On September 29, 2009, the 
OLR filed a statement of costs in this matter totaling 
$20,543.75. 
No. 
2008P1637-D   
 
 
 
1