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