2014 WI 1



# S UPREME 

# C OURT OF 

# W ISCONSIN

C ASE N O .: 2013AP2089

- D

C OMPLETE T ITLE : 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

O PINION F ILED : January 3, 2014

S UBMITTED ON B RIEFS :

O RAL A RGUMENT :

S OURCE OF A PPEAL :

C OURT :

C OUNTY :

J UDGE :

J USTICES :

C ONCURRED :

D ISSENTED :

N OT P ARTICIPATING :

A TTORNEYS :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 com plaint 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 Law yers 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 compla int 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 t o 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 o f 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 pred icated 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 o r 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 pract ice 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 proo f 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) E xcept 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 licens e 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 juri sdiction 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 th at 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 hi s 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 t he 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 t his order is required for reinstatement. See

SCR 22.28(2).No. 2013AP2089

- D

1