Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Peter T. Elliott
Citation: 2010 WI 124
Docket Number: 2010AP000260-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: November 3, 2010

2010 WI 124 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP0260-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Peter T. Elliott, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Peter T. Elliott, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Elliott 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 3, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 124
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2010AP0260-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Peter T. Elliott, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Peter T. Elliott, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 3, 2010 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of the referee, Reserve Judge Timothy L. Vocke, that Attorney 
Peter T. Elliott's license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
revoked; that he be required to pay restitution to two former 
clients, a financial institution that was the victim of his 
check-kiting scheme, and the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection (the Fund); and that he be required to pay the costs 
No. 
2010AP0260-D   
 
2 
 
of this disciplinary proceeding, which were $4,960.72 as of 
June 1, 2010. 
¶2 
After conducting our review of the matter, we accept 
the referee's findings of fact, which were based on the 
allegations of the complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) due to Attorney Elliott's default.  We agree 
that 
those 
facts 
show 
that 
Attorney 
Elliott 
engaged 
in 
professional misconduct, as alleged in the 51 counts of the 
complaint.  We determine that Attorney Elliott's pattern of 
deliberately deceitful behavior requires that his license to 
practice law in this state be revoked.  We further order 
Attorney Elliott to make restitution payments as outlined in the 
referee's report.  Finally, we impose the full costs of this 
proceeding on Attorney Elliott. 
¶3 
Attorney Elliott was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1974.  He most recently practiced with a private 
law firm in West Allis.  On January 13, 2009, this court 
temporarily suspended Attorney Elliott's license due to his 
failure to cooperate with a number of OLR investigations.  His 
license was also suspended for non-payment of bar dues and 
supreme court assessments, for non-compliance with continuing 
legal education reporting requirements, and for non-compliance 
with the client trust account certification requirement.  His 
license remains suspended as of the date of this opinion. 
¶4 
The 
OLR's 
formal 
complaint 
in 
this 
matter 
was 
personally served on Attorney Elliott on February 11, 2010.  
Attorney Elliott did not file an answer to the complaint.  
No. 
2010AP0260-D   
 
3 
 
Despite multiple attempts by counsel for the OLR to contact 
Attorney Elliott, he did not appear for a scheduling conference 
on March 17, 2010.  The referee subsequently granted the OLR's 
motion for the entry of a default. 
¶5 
Because of the default, the referee accepted all of 
the factual allegations of the complaint as his findings of 
fact.  Based on those facts, the referee concluded that the OLR 
had established that Attorney Elliott had engaged in 51 separate 
acts of professional misconduct.   
¶6 
Given the voluminous nature of the very serious 
factual findings against Attorney Elliott, it is not necessary 
that we repeat all of the referee's factual findings here.   It 
is sufficient to provide some summary information and a 
description of the pattern that many of Attorney Elliott's 
misdeeds followed. 
¶7 
The 51 counts of professional misconduct arose out of 
12 
separate client 
representations and Attorney Elliott's 
handling of his client trust account and business account.  
Twelve of those counts involved Attorney Elliott's failure to 
hold funds belonging to clients or third parties in trust and 
his conversion of those funds for other purposes.  See 
SCRs 20:8.4(b),1 20:8.4(c),2 and 20:1.15(b)(1).3  Similarly, 
                                                 
1 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. 
2010AP0260-D   
 
4 
 
another ten counts involved Attorney Elliott's failure to 
promptly disburse funds to clients or to third parties who were 
legally entitled to receive them.  See SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).4  Five 
counts involved Attorney Elliott's issuance of checks from his 
client trust account to himself or his law firm without 
identifying the client and matter or the reason for the 
disbursement.  See SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)e.1.5   Three counts related 
                                                                                                                                                             
2 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
3 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provides:  Separate account. 
 
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 
3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation.  All funds of 
clients and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm 
in connection with a representation shall be deposited 
in one or more identifiable trust accounts. 
4 SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provides:  Notice and disbursement. 
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client has an interest, or in which the lawyer has 
received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or 
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client 
or 3rd party in writing.  Except as stated in this 
rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement 
with the client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to 
the client or 3rd party any funds or other property 
that the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive. 
5 SCR 20:1.15(f)(1)e.1 states: 
Checks shall be pre-printed and pre-numbered.  
The name and address of the lawyer or law firm, and 
the name of the account shall be printed in the upper 
left corner of the check.  Trust account checks shall 
include 
the 
words 
"Client 
Account," 
or 
"Trust 
No. 
2010AP0260-D   
 
5 
 
to instances when Attorney Elliott either issued checks from his 
client trust account made payable to "cash" or made cash 
withdrawals 
from 
his 
client 
trust 
account. 
 
See 
SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a.6  Eight counts involved situations where 
Attorney Elliott either failed to provide required information 
to clients or failed to respond to a client's request for 
information or an accounting of funds.  See SCRs 20:1.4(a)(1),7 
20:1.4(a)(3),8 
20:1.4(a)(4),9 
20:1.15(d)(2),10 
and 
20:1.15(g)(1).11  Finally, eight other counts related to Attorney 
                                                                                                                                                             
Account," or words of similar import in the account 
name.  Each check disbursed from the trust account 
shall identify the client matter and the reason for 
the disbursement on the memo line. 
6 SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)a. provides that "[n]o disbursement of 
cash shall be made from a trust account or from a deposit to a 
trust account, and no check shall be made payable to 'Cash.'" 
7 SCR 20:1.4(a)(1) states a lawyer shall "[p]romptly inform 
the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which 
the client's informed consent, as defined in SCR 20:1.0(f), is 
required by these rules; . . . ." 
8 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) says a lawyer shall "keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of the matter; . . . ." 
9 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides that a lawyer shall "promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
by 
the 
client 
for 
information; . . . ." 
10 SCR 20:1.15(d)(2) states, "Upon final distribution of any 
trust property or upon request by the client or a 3rd party 
having an ownership interest in the property, the lawyer shall 
promptly 
render 
a 
full 
written 
accounting 
regarding 
the 
property." 
11 SCR 20:1.15(g)(1) provides:  Notice to client.   
At least 5 business days before the date on which 
a disbursement is made from a trust account for the 
No. 
2010AP0260-D   
 
6 
 
Elliott's failure to respond to the OLR's investigations. 
SCRs 20:1.15(e)(7),12 
22.03(2),13 
and 
22.03(6),14 
enforceable 
through SCR 20:8.4(h).15 
                                                                                                                                                             
purpose 
of 
paying 
fees, 
with 
the 
exception 
of 
contingent fees or fees paid pursuant to court order, 
the lawyer shall transmit to the client in writing all 
of the following: 
a.  an itemized bill or other accounting showing 
the services rendered; 
b.  notice of the amount owed and the anticipated 
date of the withdrawal; and  
c.  a statement of the balance of the client's 
funds 
in 
the 
lawyer 
trust 
account 
after 
the 
withdrawal. 
12 SCR 20:1.15(e)(7) states as follows:  Production of 
records.   
All trust account records have public aspects 
related to a lawyer's fitness to practice.  Upon 
request of the office of lawyer regulation, or upon 
direction of the supreme court, the records shall be 
submitted to the office of lawyer regulation for its 
inspection, 
audit, 
use, 
and 
evidence 
under 
any 
conditions to protect the privilege of clients that 
the court may provide.  The records, or an audit of 
the records, shall be produced at any disciplinary 
proceeding involving the lawyer, whenever material.  
Failure 
to 
produce 
the 
records 
constitutes 
unprofessional conduct and grounds for disciplinary 
action. 
13 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 
No. 
2010AP0260-D   
 
7 
 
¶8 
A number of the client representations described in 
the OLR's complaint and the referee's report followed a similar 
pattern.  Attorney Elliott would be hired by a buyer or seller 
in a real estate transaction or by the financial institution 
that was lending money to the buyer for the transaction.  As a 
result of his being retained, he would receive substantial sums 
of money that he was to hold in trust and then distribute to 
various parties at the closing of the transaction.  Attorney 
Elliott would often receive those funds days or even weeks in 
advance of the closing.  Before the closing occurred, Attorney 
Elliott would improperly disburse some or all of those trust 
funds to himself or his law firm, or he would use some or all of 
those trust funds to cover payments in other real estate 
transactions.  This would result in there being insufficient 
                                                                                                                                                             
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. 
14 SCR 22.03(6) states: 
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. 
15 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides 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. 
2010AP0260-D   
 
8 
 
funds in Attorney Elliott's trust account to make the necessary 
payments at the time of closing.  At times, Attorney Elliott 
would issue checks from his trust account for the required 
closing payments even though there were insufficient funds to 
cover those checks, but he would then stop payment on the checks 
or those checks would be returned for insufficient funds.  
Often, he then had to make excuses or misrepresentations in 
order to explain why he had stopped payment or failed to make a 
required payment.  Ultimately, in order to cover the closing 
payments he was required to make, Attorney Elliott would often 
use client trust funds obtained from other clients that were 
supposed to be used for other, future transactions.   
¶9 
In September and October 2008 Attorney Elliott turned 
to a check-kiting scheme.  He maintained a business account at 
Wells Fargo Bank and a client trust account at Associated Bank.  
From September 24, 2008, through October 31, 2008, Attorney 
Elliott routinely wrote checks out of his Wells Fargo business 
account for hundreds of thousands of dollars each, although he 
knew the business account did not contain sufficient funds to 
No. 
2010AP0260-D   
 
9 
 
cover those checks.16  He would almost immediately deposit the 
checks or the proceeds from the checks into the Associated Bank 
client trust account.  Before the check written against the 
business account would clear, Attorney Elliott would stop 
payment on the check.  Because of the delay in processing the 
transactions, the balance in the trust account would remain 
inflated for some period of time.   
¶10 On some days Attorney Elliott wrote checks or withdrew 
cash from his client trust account against the falsely inflated 
balance in that account.  For example, on October 3, 2008, 
Attorney Elliott made two cash withdrawals from the trust 
account totaling $506,145.06, although the true balance in the 
trust account was far less.  He used that cash to purchase four 
cashier's checks.  One of those checks, in the amount of 
$350,000.00, was apparently used to repay a personal or business 
loan that Attorney Elliott had received from an individual. 
¶11 Between October 6, 2008, and October 31, 2008, 
Attorney Elliott made 50 deposits into his trust account using 
checks drawn on his business account for which there were 
                                                 
16 For example, the balance in Attorney Elliott's business 
account was $3,738.40 at the close of business on September 30, 
2008.  On October 1, 2008, Attorney Elliott disbursed a check in 
the amount of $665,000 from his business account that was made 
payable to "Atty. Peter T. Elliott Trust Account."  That same 
day he subsequently deposited the check into his trust account.  
After that deposit, Attorney Elliott then stopped payment on the 
business account check.  Thus, at the close of business on 
October 1, 2008, the $665,000 check had not been presented to 
the business account, but the balance in the business account 
was only $2,029.90, which was $662,970.10 less than the amount 
of the check that had been written against that account. 
No. 
2010AP0260-D   
 
10 
 
insufficient funds.  Each of the business account checks (and 
therefore each of the trust account deposits) was subject to a 
stop payment order before the check cleared.  The total amount 
of the 50 deposits over that span of 25 days was $31,236,500.  
Between October 3, 2008, and October 30, 2008, a total of 15 
checks, in the total amount of $50,850, were written from the 
trust account payable either to Attorney Elliott or his law 
firm.  None of those 15 checks had any discernible connection to 
a client matter.  All but two of the checks were deposited into 
Attorney Elliott's business account, and the funds from those 
checks were used to pay various business expenses.  Ultimately, 
the OLR calculated that Attorney Elliott used the falsely 
inflated balance in his trust account to improperly obtain a 
total of $942,792.70 from Associated Bank. 
¶12 Given the number and nature of the violations, the 
referee strongly recommended that Attorney Elliott's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin be revoked.  He commented that he had 
found no mitigating factors and that Attorney Elliott's conduct 
"[had] brought disrepute not only to himself but to the legal 
system." 
¶13 Because no appeal was filed from the referee's report 
and 
recommendation, 
our 
review 
proceeds 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 22.17(2).17  When reviewing a report and recommendation in an 
                                                 
17 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
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 
No. 
2010AP0260-D   
 
11 
 
attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's findings 
of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 
Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  We review the referee's conclusions 
of law, however, on a de novo basis.  Id.  Finally, we determine 
the appropriate level of discipline given the particular facts 
of each case, independent of the referee's recommendation, but 
benefiting from it.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶14 In light of Attorney Elliott's default, we accept the 
referee's findings of fact.  We also agree with the referee that 
the facts set forth in the complaint support the legal 
conclusion that Attorney Elliott engaged in 51 counts of 
professional misconduct. 
¶15 With 
respect 
to 
the 
level 
of 
discipline, 
we 
wholeheartedly agree with the referee's comment that Attorney 
Elliott is not fit to be licensed as a lawyer in the state of 
Wisconsin.  He engaged in a lengthy pattern of converting for 
his own benefit client or third party funds that had been 
entrusted to him.  He used trust account funds from one client 
to cover his misappropriation of funds from another client.  He 
even resorted to a multi-million dollar check-kiting scheme to 
continue his theft of others' money.  When asked for information 
by the OLR, Attorney Elliott merely stonewalled and never 
                                                                                                                                                             
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2010AP0260-D   
 
12 
 
provided a response.  Clearly, the only appropriate discipline 
for such misconduct is revocation. 
¶16 With respect to costs, we note that Attorney Elliott 
has not objected to the statement of costs filed by the OLR.  We 
find no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant any 
reduction of the costs, and we impose the full costs of the 
proceeding on Attorney Elliott. 
¶17 Finally, we turn to the issue of restitution.  The 
OLR's complaint requested and the referee recommended that 
Attorney Elliott be required to make restitution payments in the 
total amount of $1,334,804.26.  We note that Attorney Elliott 
has never contested the OLR's assertion that he should pay 
restitution to the Fund,18 to two former clients, and to 
Associated Bank, nor has he disputed the requested amounts of 
restitution.  Consequently, we determine that Attorney Elliott 
should be ordered to pay restitution to the Fund, to the former 
clients, and to Associated Bank in the amounts set forth in the 
referee's report. 
¶18 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Peter T. Elliott to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective as of the date 
of this order. 
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date 
of this order Peter T. Elliott shall pay restitution in the 
following amounts to the following individuals/entities: 
                                                 
18 The Fund reimbursed certain former clients for losses 
caused by Attorney Elliott's misconduct. 
No. 
2010AP0260-D   
 
13 
 
• 
$175,709.09 to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 
Protection ($150,000 regarding client B.E.L.C. and 
$25,709.09 regarding client S.W.); 
• 
$132,219.67 to client S.W.; 
• 
$84,082.80 to client B.E.L.C.; and 
• 
$942,792.70 to Associated Bank. 
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date 
of this order, Peter T. Elliott shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not 
already done so, Peter T. Elliott 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. 
2010AP0260-D   
 
 
 
1