2014 WI 15

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2011AP1400-D 

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against 

Jeffrey L. Elverman, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant-Respondent,

 v.

Jeffrey L. Elverman,

 Respondent-Appellant. 

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ELVERMAN

OPINION FILED: March 25, 2014

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: 

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED: 

DISSENTED: 

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:

For the respondent-appellant, there were briefs by Jeffrey 

L. Elverman, Genoa City.

For the Office of Lawyer Regulation, there was a brief by 

Anne MacArthur and Anne MacArthur Law, LLC, Madison. 
2014 WI 15

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2011AP1400-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Jeffrey L. Elverman, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant-Respondent,

 v.

Jeffrey L. Elverman,

 Respondent-Appellant.

FILED

MAR 25, 2014

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

revoked.

¶1 PER CURIAM. Attorney Jeffrey L. Elverman appeals 

from that portion of a referee's report recommending that his 

license to practice law be revoked effective the date of this 

court's order rather than making revocation retroactive to the 

date that his prior nine-month license suspension ended. He 

also appeals the amount of restitution recommended by the 

referee.
No. 2011AP1400-D 

2

¶2 Upon careful review of this matter, we agree with the 

referee that given the seriousness of Attorney Elverman's 

misconduct, the revocation of his license to practice law in 

Wisconsin should not be retroactive. We agree with Attorney 

Elverman and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) that 

restitution should be ordered in the same amount and upon the 

same terms as that ordered by the circuit court in Attorney 

Elverman's underlying criminal case. Finally, we find it 

appropriate to assess the full costs of this proceeding, which 

are $19,558.08 as of September 5, 2013, against Attorney 

Elverman.

¶3 Attorney Elverman was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1986. On May 12, 2008, Attorney Elverman's license 

was suspended for nine months for failure to report co-trustee 

fees he received as income in his state and federal income tax 

returns for the years 1999 to 2003. In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Elverman, 2008 WI 28, 308 Wis. 2d 524, 746 

N.W.2d 793. The nine-month suspension would have ended 

February 13, 2009. Attorney Elverman's license remains 

suspended.

¶4 The most serious counts of misconduct alleged in the 

OLR's amended complaint, which was filed on July 10, 2012, arose 

out of Attorney Elverman's representation of D.P. Attorney 

Elverman was introduced to D.P., who was 82 years old, in 2000, 

when he was a partner at Quarles & Brady. D.P.'s investment 

advisor introduced them. D.P., a widow, wanted Attorney 

Elverman to prepare an estate plan for her. She had assets of 
No. 2011AP1400-D 

3

between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000, including substantial liquid 

assets.

¶5 In May 2000 D.P. signed various estate planning 

documents prepared by Attorney Elverman, including a durable 

financial power of attorney and a durable power of attorney for 

health care. The financial advisor, Leonard Campbell, was 

D.P.'s agent under both powers of attorney, with Attorney 

Elverman designated as successor agent.

¶6 Attorney Elverman also drafted a will for D.P., along 

with a revocable trust. The trust established terms for its 

administration during D.P.'s lifetime and provided for the 

creation of the D.P. Foundation (the Foundation) upon her death.

¶7 D.P. was the initial trustee of the revocable trust. 

Campbell was the successor trustee, and Attorney Elverman was 

the successor trustee if Campbell did not act or ceased to act. 

Campbell was the initial trustee for the Foundation, and 

Attorney Elverman was the successor trustee.

¶8 By late 2000, D.P.'s mental acuity began to decline as 

a result of Alzheimer's disease. During 2001, Campbell resigned 

as D.P.'s agent under her powers of attorney, and Attorney 

Elverman became D.P.'s agent for both finances and health care.

¶9 In February 2001 one of D.P.'s physicians wrote to 

another of her doctors noting he had spoken with Attorney 

Elverman and that D.P.'s ability to think cognitively was 

substantially impaired. Around this time, Attorney Elverman 

contracted with Professional Organizers Unlimited to assist D.P. 

with her activities of daily living. The principal of 
No. 2011AP1400-D 

4

Professional Organizers Unlimited, Marion Whelpley, continued to 

provide services to D.P. through 2008.

¶10 By March of 2003, D.P.'s Alzheimer's disease had 

progressed to the stage that she was no longer competent to 

manage her personal or financial affairs. On March 24, 2003, at 

Attorney Elverman's request, Dr. Brian Hirano, another of D.P.'s 

physicians, provided Attorney Elverman with a certification of 

D.P.'s incapacitation which was sent by facsimile to Attorney 

Elverman's office at Quarles & Brady. In July and September 

2003, Dr. Hirano sent letters to D.P. explaining that her memory 

would continue to decline over time. Attorney Elverman received 

copies of those letters.

¶11 In or about August of 2003, Attorney Elverman drafted 

an amendment to D.P.'s revocable trust making him trustee of her 

trust and the Foundation. This amendment gave him the power to 

appoint a successor trustee of each entity and gave him complete 

control over the disposition of D.P.'s estate during her life 

and after her death. D.P. signed the amendment on August 14, 

2003, several months after Dr. Hirano had provided Attorney 

Elverman with a certification of D.P.'s incapacitation.

¶12 In or about September of 2004, concerns were raised at 

Quarles & Brady as the result of allegations that Attorney 

Elverman's time records and billing were false. Upon review of 

the firm's records, Quarles & Brady learned that Attorney 

Elverman had received $230,000 in co-trustee fees from the 

Donald W. Kastner Trusts that he had not turned over to Quarles 

& Brady. Attorney Elverman also failed to originally report the 
No. 2011AP1400-D 

5

receipt of the Kastner trustee income on his tax returns. This 

failure formed the basis for the 2008 license suspension.

¶13 After conducting an inquiry in the Kastner matter, 

Quarles & Brady asked that Attorney Elverman provide a sworn 

statement certifying all circumstances where he had acted or was 

acting as a trustee. In the statement he submitted to Quarles & 

Brady in October 2004, Attorney Elverman failed to disclose that 

he was acting as D.P.'s trustee.

¶14 Between December 12, 2001, and September 23, 2004, 

Attorney Elverman was paid at least $604,000 by D.P., 

purportedly for performing 30 to 35 hours per week of personal 

services that he billed at $150 an hour.

¶15 In November 2004, after leaving Quarles & Brady, 

Attorney Elverman joined Michael Best & Friedrich. He failed to 

disclose his relationship with D.P. to Michael Best & Friedrich, 

even though the firm required new members to identify all 

existing client relationships. Attorney Elverman's employment 

at Michael Best & Friedrich was terminated when the firm became 

aware of the disciplinary proceedings against him involving the 

Kastner trusts.

¶16 In June 2008, following his suspension, Attorney 

Elverman filed his SCR 22.261 affidavit with the OLR, but he 

failed to list D.P. as one of his clients.

 

1 SCR 22.26 states, in relevant part: 

(1) On or before the effective date of license 

suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 

suspended or revoked shall do all of the following:
No. 2011AP1400-D 

6

¶17 After his license was suspended, Attorney Elverman 

resigned as D.P.'s agent under her durable financial power of 

attorney and appointed Dwayne Johnson, an accountant he knew, as 

the new agent. Attorney Elverman also resigned as trustee of 

D.P.'s revocable trust and of the Foundation and appointed 

Johnson trustee of each entity. Attorney Elverman and Johnson 

had an agreement whereby Johnson would resign and reappoint 

Attorney Elverman to again be D.P.'s agent under the durable 

powers of attorney, and trustee of D.P.'s revocable trust and of 

the Foundation, when Attorney Elverman's license to practice law 

was reinstated.

¶18 In July of 2008, while D.P. was living in an assisted 

living facility, a social worker raised concerns about the 

enforceability of D.P.'s durable power of attorney for health 

care because both Campbell and Attorney Elverman had witnessed 

the document, making it invalid under Wisconsin law. In 

September 2008 the social worker filed a petition for the 

appointment of a guardian of D.P.'s person and estate.

 

. . . .

(e) Within 25 days after the effective date of 

suspension or revocation, file with the director an 

affidavit showing . . . :

. . . .

(iii) A list of clients in all pending matters 

and a list of all matters pending before any court or 

administrative agency, together with the case number 

of each matter.
No. 2011AP1400-D 

7

¶19 In October 2008 in response to the guardianship 

petition, Attorney Elverman executed a document attempting to 

withdraw his resignation as D.P.'s financial power of attorney. 

He also filed an objection to the guardianship petition and 

filed his own guardianship petition asking that he be named the 

guardian of D.P.'s person and estate.

¶20 On November 13, 2008, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge 

John DiMotto issued an order appointing Supportive Community 

Services (SCS) as D.P.'s temporary guardian. Judge DiMotto held 

that Attorney Elverman was not an interested person in the 

guardianship proceeding and thus had no standing in the matter 

since he had resigned as D.P.'s financial power of attorney and 

because D.P.'s health care power of attorney was invalid. Judge 

DiMotto held that Attorney Elverman's attempt to withdraw his 

resignation as D.P.'s financial power of attorney was improper, 

as was Attorney Elverman's attempt to appoint Johnson as D.P.'s 

agent under her durable financial power of attorney, because 

Attorney Elverman lost the power to appoint a successor agent 

when he resigned as D.P.'s agent.

¶21 On December 3, 2008, upon SCS's petition, Milwaukee 

County Probate Court Commissioner Patrice A. Baker determined 

that Attorney Elverman's attempt to resign as trustee of D.P.'s 

trust and appoint Johnson in his place was ineffective because 

Attorney Elverman's resignation only referred to the trustee 

appointment under the article of the trust creating the 

Foundation upon D.P.'s death and did not refer to the article 

governing appointment of the trustee of the trust administered
No. 2011AP1400-D 

8

during D.P.'s lifetime. The court commissioner ordered that 

Attorney Elverman be removed as trustee of the trust, vacated 

his appointment of Johnson as trustee of the Foundation, and 

appointed SCS the trustee of each entity.

¶22 On December 5, 2008, Judge DiMotto issued an order 

appointing SCS as D.P.'s permanent guardian, after finding that 

Attorney Elverman had "engaged in questionable conduct as it 

relates to the ward, including not making her a client of 

Michael Best & Friedrich when he became a partner in the firm." 

Judge DiMotto ordered SCS, as D.P.'s guardian, to obtain 

accountings from Attorney Elverman and Johnson, finding it was 

"essential that Jeffrey L. Elverman account to a third party for 

his actions as trustee/agent for the ward." At Judge DiMotto's 

direction, SCS began an investigation into Attorney Elverman's 

conduct in relation to D.P.

¶23 A forensic accountant retained by SCS reviewed 

Attorney Elverman's billing records at Quarles & Brady from 

January 2002 through September 2004, the last month he billed 

time at Quarles & Brady before his departure. During all of the 

time Attorney Elverman was allegedly performing services for 

D.P., he was employed on a full-time basis as an equity partner 

at Quarles & Brady. Attorney Elverman never disclosed to 

Quarles & Brady that he was performing services for D.P., nor 

did he report his receipt of income from her to the firm.

¶24 Adding the hours he billed at Quarles & Brady to the 

hours he claimed to have worked for D.P., Attorney Elverman 

would have worked 75 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, in 2002; 74 
No. 2011AP1400-D 

9

hours a week, 52 weeks a year, in 2003; and 54 hours a week in 

2004. While at Quarles & Brady, Attorney Elverman prepared, or 

had prepared at his direction, four fake invoices purportedly on 

behalf of Quarles & Brady, representing legal work he had done 

on D.P.'s behalf, which D.P. paid. The fake invoices were 

generated on Quarles & Brady computers but were prepared outside 

of the usual billing system employed by the firm. Two checks 

drawn on D.P.'s account correspond to the dates and amounts of 

the fake invoices and were made payable to, and endorsed by, 

Attorney Elverman. Two other checks drawn on D.P.'s account 

correspond to the dates and amounts of the fake invoices, but 

the payee is unknown. One of the two checks is in the exact 

amount of a deposit into Attorney Elverman's checking account 

that occurred within two weeks of the date of one of the fake 

invoices.

¶25 As a result of Quarles & Brady's inquiry into Attorney 

Elverman's billing practices, Quarles & Brady determined it had 

not received any payment regarding the fake invoices, nor were 

there any time entries in its billing system matching them. 

Quarles & Brady's further review of Attorney Elverman's time 

entries in the firm's billing system indicated that for certain 

days, the aggregate of the hours logged on the system for 

Attorney Elverman's work for the firm, plus the hours indicated 

in the fake invoices, totaled more than 20 hours in a day and in 

one case more than 24 hours in a day.

¶26 Attorney Elverman did not include any of the income he 

received from D.P. on the state and federal tax returns he 
No. 2011AP1400-D 

10

originally filed in 2001, 2002, or 2003. He underreported 

income he received from D.P. on his original state and federal 

tax returns filed in 2004.

¶27 In September of 2009, the OLR's investigative 

committee asked that Attorney Elverman provide copies of his 

income tax returns for 2001 through 2004, or provide an 

authorization for the OLR to obtain the returns from the 

Department of Revenue. Attorney Elverman failed to respond to 

this request until March of 2010, and then claimed there was no 

Department of Revenue form authorizing release of tax returns. 

The OLR ultimately obtained copies of the returns by subpoenaing 

Attorney Elverman's accountant.

¶28 On December 6, 2010, Attorney Elverman was charged 

with violating Wis. Stat. § 943.20(1)(a), theft of movable 

property in excess of $10,000, a Class G felony, in Milwaukee 

County circuit court as a result of his conduct regarding D.P.

¶29 The OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Elverman on 

June 17, 2011. Attorney Elverman filed a motion asking that the 

OLR proceedings be stayed pending disposition of the criminal 

case. This court granted the motion on October 25, 2011. On 

December 15, 2011, a jury found Attorney Elverman guilty of 

theft of movable property in excess of $10,000. A judgment of 

conviction was entered against him on March 13, 2012. A 

sentence consisting of five years of initial confinement and 

five years of extended supervision was imposed and stayed and 

Attorney Elverman was placed on probation for five years, with 

seven months in the House of Corrections with work release 
No. 2011AP1400-D 

11

privileges. Attorney Elverman was ordered to make restitution 

in the amount of $325,000, less payments already made. 

Specifically, the Department of Corrections was ordered to 

facilitate payment to the victim2 in the amount of $1,500 per 

month during 2012, $2,000 per month during 2013, and $3,000 per 

month during 2014, until paid in full.

¶30 James J. Winiarski was appointed referee in the 

matter. On July 10, 2012, the OLR filed an amended complaint. 

The amended complaint alleged the following counts of misconduct 

with respect to Attorney Elverman's dealings with D.P.:

[COUNT ONE] By using his position of trust as 

[D.P.'s] lawyer, trustee, and financial power of 

attorney to take at least $604,000 from her between 

December 2001 through September 2004, [Attorney] 

Elverman engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 

fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, in violation of 

SCR 20:8.4(c).3

[COUNT TWO] By collecting fees totaling at least 

$604,000 from [D.P.] from December 2001 to September 

2004, for which he has inadequate substantiating 

records, [Attorney] Elverman charged an unreasonable 

fee, in violation of former SCR 20:1.5(a), effective 

prior to July 1, 2007.4

 

2 The record indicates that D.P. is now deceased.

3 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 

lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 

or misrepresentation; . . . ."

4 Former SCR 20:1.5(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 

provided as follows:

A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable. The factors 

to be considered in determining the reasonableness of 

a fee include the following:
No. 2011AP1400-D 

12

[COUNT THREE] By concealing from [Quarles & 

Brady (Q&B)] the fees he earned from [D.P.], and by 

concealing from Q&B and [Michael Best & Friedrich] his 

position as trustee for [D.P.'s] Trust, [Attorney] 

Elverman violated a standard of conduct set forth by 

the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Shea, 190 Wis. 2d 560, 527 

N.W.2d 314 (1995), actionable via SCR 20:8.4(f).5

[COUNT FOUR] By failing to report on his federal 

and state income tax returns for 2001, 2002, and 2003 

any of the income he received from [D.P.], and by 

underreporting the income he received from [D.P.] on 

his original federal and state income tax returns for 

2004, [Attorney] Elverman violated a standard of 

conduct set forth by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Owens, 172 

 

(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and 

difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill 

requisite to perform the legal service properly;

(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 

that the acceptance of the particular employment will 

preclude other employment by the lawyer;

(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality 

for similar legal services;

(4) the amount involved and the results 

obtained;

(5) the time limitations imposed by the client 

or by the circumstances;

(6) the nature and length of the professional 

relationship with the client;

(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of 

the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and

(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.

5 SCR 20:8.4(f) states it is professional misconduct for a 

lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme court 

order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 

lawyers; . . . ."
No. 2011AP1400-D 

13

Wis. 2d 54, 56-57, 492 N.W.2d 157 (1992), actionable 

via SCR 20:8.4(f).

[COUNT FIVE] By failing to promptly comply with 

OLR's Investigative District Committee's request for 

his tax returns or an authorization to obtain copies 

of them, [Attorney] Elverman failed to cooperate with 

OLR's investigation, in violation of SCR [22.03(6)],6

actionable via SCR 20:8.4(h).7

¶31 The amended complaint also alleged that on May 30, 

2011, Attorney Elverman was arrested as the result of a domestic 

violence incident that occurred at the home of H.H., where 

Attorney Elverman was living with H.H. and her two minor 

children, who were both home at the time of the incident. On 

July 7, 2011, Attorney Elverman was charged with disorderly 

conduct, a Class B misdemeanor. He entered a guilty plea to 

that charge on July 15, 2011.

¶32 Attorney Elverman failed to report his conviction to 

the OLR and the clerk of this court within five days of the 

entry of judgment of conviction. On July 26, 2011, after 

learning of Attorney Elverman's disorderly conduct conviction, 

the OLR notified Attorney Elverman by first-class mail to his 

last known address that the OLR was investigating his criminal 

 

6 SCR 22.03(6) provides as follows: "In the course of the 

investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide 

relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 

documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 

are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 

in the grievance."

7 SCR 20:8.4(h) states it is professional misconduct for a 

lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a grievance 

filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required by 

SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or 

SCR 22.04(1); . . . ."
No. 2011AP1400-D 

14

conduct in the disorderly conduct case and Attorney Elverman's 

failure to report the conviction, and that his response to the 

OLR's investigation was required by August 18, 2011. Attorney 

Elverman failed to respond to the OLR's letter.

¶33 On August 23, 2011, the OLR sent Attorney Elverman a 

second letter informing him that failure to timely respond to 

its investigation constituted misconduct and giving him until 

September 2, 2011, to respond. Attorney Elverman finally 

responded on September 7, 2011, but the OLR concluded that his 

response failed to fully and fairly disclose all facts and 

circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct.

¶34 The OLR's amended complaint alleged the following 

counts of misconduct with respect to the disorderly conduct 

conviction:

[COUNT SIX] By engaging in conduct resulting in 

his conviction for disorderly conduct in a domestic 

violence situation, [Attorney] Elverman engaged in 

criminal conduct that reflects adversely on his 

fitness as a lawyer in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).8

[COUNT SEVEN] By failing to notify OLR and the 

Clerk of the Supreme Court of his conviction for 

disorderly conduct within five (5) days of its entry, 

[Attorney] Elverman violated SCR 21.15,9 enforced via 

SCR 20:8.4(f).

 

8 SCR 20:8.4(b) states 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; . . . ."

9 SCR 21.15 provides, in relevant part, as follows:

(5) An attorney found guilty or convicted of any 

crime on or after July 1, 2002, shall notify in 

writing the office of lawyer regulation and the clerk 
No. 2011AP1400-D 

15

[COUNT EIGHT] By failing to timely respond to 

OLR's investigation in the criminal [disorderly 

conduct] matter within 20 days of receiving notice of 

the investigation, and by failing to fully and fairly 

disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to it 

when he did respond, [Attorney] Elverman violated 

SCR 22.03(2),10 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).

¶35 On February 12, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation 

whereby Attorney Elverman withdrew his answer to the amended 

complaint and pled no contest to all eight counts alleged in the 

OLR's amended complaint. Attorney Elverman and the OLR jointly 

recommended that the sanction in this matter be a license 

revocation imposed retroactively to February 13, 2009, so as to 

run consecutive to the prior nine-month suspension. The 

stipulation says, "The disciplinary conduct at issue in this 

 

of the Supreme Court within 5 days after the finding 

or conviction, whichever first occurs. The notice 

shall include the identity of the attorney, the date 

of finding or conviction, the offenses, and the 

jurisdiction. An attorney's failure to notify the 

office of lawyer regulation and clerk of the supreme 

court of being found guilty or his or her conviction 

is misconduct.

10 SCR 22.03(2) states:

Upon commencing an investigation, the director 

shall notify the respondent of the matter being 

investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 

investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The 

respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 

and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 

within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 

request for a written response. The director may 

allow additional time to respond. Following receipt 

of the response, the director may conduct further 

investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 

questions, furnish documents, and present any 

information deemed relevant to the investigation.
No. 2011AP1400-D 

16

case occurred during roughly the same period of time as the 

matters addressed in the prior disciplinary matter, and occurred 

prior to the imposition of discipline in the previous 

disciplinary case." The parties also jointly recommended that 

restitution be imposed "as ordered by the Milwaukee County 

Criminal Court . . . ."

¶36 The referee filed his report and recommendation on 

April 3, 2013. The referee found that Attorney Elverman engaged 

in the eight counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's amended 

complaint. While both the OLR and Attorney Elverman recommended 

license revocation retroactive to February 13, 2009, the referee 

found the misconduct serious enough to recommend that the 

starting date for the revocation be the date this court enters 

the order of revocation. The referee explained:

In this case, [Attorney] Elverman stole money 

from a client. His attempts to cover up his thefts 

were well planned and occurred over a significant 

period of time. He deceived two law firms by failing 

to report income and by using fake invoices. He 

failed to report taxable income.

Most of the misconduct in this case occurred 

after the misconduct in the previous disciplinary 

case. . . . While Q&B was investigating [Attorney] 

Elverman's conduct in the Kastner

case . . . [Attorney] Elverman was actively involved 

in covering up his conduct in this disciplinary case.

I realize the Wisconsin Supreme Court customarily 

considers retroactive commencement of the date for 

license revocation if the attorney has not been 

licensed to practice since an earlier date. However, 

given the extreme seriousness and the distinctly 

separate and consecutive misconduct in this case, I do 

not believe [Attorney] Elverman should be given any 

credit for the time since his license suspension of 
No. 2011AP1400-D 

17

nine months which commenced May 12, 2008, nor do I 

believe [Attorney] Elverman should be given credit for 

the fact that he has not practiced law for an extended 

period of time.

¶37 Turning to the issue of restitution, the referee said:

The pleadings and filings in this case do not 

disclose to me what, if any, restitution was ordered 

by the criminal court upon [Attorney] Elverman's 

convictions. In any case, the factual agreement 

between the parties shows that [Attorney] Elverman was 

paid at least $604,000 by [D.P.] He should be ordered 

to make restitution of that full amount.

¶38 Attorney Elverman appeals, arguing that there are 

compelling reasons to retroactively revoke his license to 

practice law so that the revocation runs consecutive to his 

prior license suspension. Attorney Elverman argues that his 

license has already remained suspended well beyond the period of 

the nine-month suspension previously imposed. He notes that he 

filed a petition for reinstatement from the nine-month license 

suspension before the OLR filed its complaint in this case, but 

once the complaint was filed he withdrew the reinstatement 

petition pending resolution of all issues presented in this 

matter.

¶39 Attorney Elverman says that during the period of his 

suspension he has engaged in numerous professional, civic, and 

charitable events; he has taught numerous seminars on behalf of 

the State Bar of Wisconsin; and he participated on numerous 

charitable boards. He says:

[I]t is fair to say that becoming an equity partner at 

two major law firms requires not only intellectual 

capacity, but also sound ethical and moral character. 

Many smart and worthy attorneys saw [Attorney] 
No. 2011AP1400-D 

18

Elverman fit to become one of their partners. This 

was not a mistake. Moreover, [Attorney] Elverman has 

represented some of the most influential and wealthy 

individuals and families of this State, including CEOs 

of major private and publicly traded companies. This 

did not happen by accident——it resulted from an 

exceptional reputation and character.

Unfortunately, the time period between 2001-2004 

did not reflect [Attorney] Elverman's true character. 

A retroactive sanction will assure that [Attorney] 

Elverman's second chance will be successful and that 

he will prove once again that he is worthy of being a 

member of the legal profession and is a productive and 

valuable member of society.

¶40 Attorney Elverman also argues that there is no factual 

basis for the referee requiring him to pay restitution of 

$604,000. He notes that the stipulation he entered into with 

the OLR provided that the restitution obligation be as ordered 

by the Milwaukee County criminal court.

¶41 The OLR agrees with Attorney Elverman that the 

revocation should be made retroactive to the date Attorney 

Elverman's nine-month license suspension would have ended. The 

OLR says the facts of this case are similar to those presented 

in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cooper, 2013 WI 55, 

348 Wis. 2d 266, 833 N.W.2d 88. In Cooper this court found that 

the misconduct at issue in two cases involving the attorney 

occurred during roughly the same timeframe. Accordingly, the 

new license suspension was made retroactive.

¶42 With respect to the issue of restitution, the OLR 

notes that the record before the referee did not disclose the 

amount of restitution that was ordered by the criminal court. 

The OLR subsequently moved to supplement the record to include a 
No. 2011AP1400-D 

19

copy of the judgment of conviction which indicates that 

restitution in the amount of $325,000, less payments already 

made, was ordered.

¶43 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 

clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 

See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 

WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. The court may impose 

whatever sanction it sees fit regardless of the referee's 

recommendation. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.

¶44 With the exception of the amount of restitution 

ordered, there is no showing that any of the referee's findings 

of fact are erroneous. Accordingly, we adopt them. We also 

agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney 

Elverman violated all of the supreme court rules set forth 

above.

¶45 Revocation of an attorney's license to practice law is 

the most severe sanction this court can impose. It is reserved 

for the most egregious cases. We agree that in this case, no 

sanction short of revocation would be sufficient to protect the 

public, achieve deterrence, and impress upon Attorney Elverman 

the seriousness of his misconduct.

¶46 We agree with the referee's recommendation that the 

revocation of Attorney Elverman's license not be made 

retroactive. Although Attorney Elverman's actual theft of 

D.P.'s money may have ended in 2004, it appears that he 

continued to take actions to the detriment of her estate past 
No. 2011AP1400-D 

20

the time that his license to practice law was suspended in 2008. 

In addition, both Attorney Elverman and the OLR disregard the 

fact that in July of 2011 Attorney Elverman was convicted of 

disorderly conduct as the result of a domestic violence incident 

that occurred in May 2011. Attorney Elverman's failure to 

timely report that conviction to this court, and his failure to 

cooperate with the OLR's investigation into that incident, is 

yet another indication of Attorney Elverman's true character. 

This fact situation is readily distinguishable from the one 

presented in Cooper. The misconduct at issue in this case is 

extremely serious. Attorney Elverman took advantage of an 

elderly woman who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease and 

stole a large amount of money from her. Accordingly, we decline 

the parties' request to make revocation of his license 

retroactive.

¶47 Turning to the issue of restitution, it is unfortunate 

that the referee was not provided with a copy of the judgment of 

conviction, which would have disclosed the amount of restitution 

ordered by the circuit court. The record has now been 

supplemented to include a copy of the judgment of conviction. 

We find it appropriate to order Attorney Elverman to pay 

restitution in the amount of $325,000, less payments already 

made. Finally, we find it appropriate to require Attorney 

Elverman to pay the full costs of this proceeding.

¶48 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Jeffrey L. Elverman 

to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of 

this order.
No. 2011AP1400-D 

21

¶49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jeffrey L. Elverman be 

required to pay restitution in the amount and under the terms 

ordered by the Milwaukee County criminal court in State v. 

Elverman, No. 2010-CF-5940.

¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 

of this order, Jeffrey L. Elverman shall pay to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.

¶51 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 

already done so, Jeffrey L. Elverman shall comply with the 

provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney 

whose license to practice law has been revoked.
No. 2011AP1400-D 

1