Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Christopher S. Petros
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2019AP000565-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: July 22, 2020

2020 WI 71 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP565-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Christopher S. Petros , Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Christopher S. Petros, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETROS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 22, 2020   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
DANIEL KELLY, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2020 WI 71
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2019AP565-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Christopher S. Petros,  
Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Christopher S. Petros, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
JUL 22, 2020 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee, Allan Beatty, recommending that Attorney Christopher S. 
Petros' license to practice law be suspended for two years due 
to his professional misconduct.  The referee also recommended 
that Attorney Petros be ordered to pay restitution to the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection ("the Fund") in 
the amount of $24,000, and pay the full costs of this 
proceeding, which are $4,387.44 as of April 10, 2020.  The 
No. 
2019AP565-D   
 
2 
 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact, 
conclusions 
of 
law, 
and 
recommendations derive from two stipulations filed by the 
parties.  
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law.  We agree that the seriousness of Attorney 
Petros' professional misconduct warrants a two-year suspension 
of his law license.  We further agree that Attorney Petros 
should pay restitution as recommended by the referee and that he 
should pay the full costs of this proceeding.  
¶3 
Attorney Petros was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2009.  His license is administratively suspended 
for noncompliance with continuing legal education requirements.  
He was also licensed to practice law in Minnesota in 2002, and 
his Minnesota law license is suspended.  On August 6, 2013, the 
Minnesota Supreme Court suspended Attorney Petros' Minnesota law 
license for misconduct that included submitting false evidence 
and making false statements to the Director of the Minnesota 
Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility; failing to notify 
a client of a hearing; lying to the 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 re Disciplinary Action Against Petros, 834 
N.W.2d 714 (Minn. 2013).  In 2014, Attorney Petros received a 
90-day suspension of his Wisconsin law license as reciprocal 
No. 
2019AP565-D   
 
3 
 
discipline to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court.  In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Petros, 2014 WI 1, 351 
Wis. 2d 775, 841 N.W.2d 47. 
¶4 
In 2017, this court imposed a public reprimand on 
Attorney Petros for failing to prepare a contract he was hired 
to prepare; failing to provide advance notice of a withdrawal of 
fees from trust; failing to materially advance a matter for a 
different client; and failing to timely respond to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation's (OLR) investigations in both matters.  
Public Reprimand of Christopher S. Petros, 2017-8 (electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/ 
002974.html). 
¶5 
This disciplinary proceeding commenced on March 21, 
2019, when the OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Petros 
alleging 17 counts of professional misconduct.  Referee Beatty 
was appointed.  On June 27, 2019, the OLR amended its complaint 
to allege 24 counts of misconduct relating to seven client 
matters.  
¶6 
On 
November 
18, 
2019, 
the 
parties 
executed 
a 
stipulation in which Attorney Petros pled no contest to each of 
the 24 counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's amended 
disciplinary complaint.  He further stipulated that he owes 
restitution in the amount of $24,000 to the Fund in connection 
with one client matter.  The parties agreed that the amended 
disciplinary complaint and the terms of the stipulation could 
serve as the factual basis for the referee's factual findings 
and determination of misconduct.  Subsequently, the parties 
No. 
2019AP565-D   
 
4 
 
executed a second stipulation agreeing that a two-year license 
suspension is an appropriate sanction for Attorney Petros' 
admitted misconduct. 
¶7 
In each stipulation, the parties confirmed that the 
stipulation was not the result of plea bargaining but reflects 
Attorney Petros' voluntary decision not to contest the matter.  
Attorney 
Petros 
represents 
and 
verifies 
that 
he 
fully 
understands the allegations to which he stipulated in this 
disciplinary matter; he fully understands his right to contest 
this matter; he fully understands the ramifications of his entry 
into the stipulation; he fully understands that he has the right 
to consult counsel; and that his entry into the stipulation was 
made knowingly and voluntarily.   
¶8 
On March 16, 2020, Referee Beatty filed a report, 
stating 
that 
based 
on 
the 
record 
he 
found 
by 
clear, 
satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Attorney Petros 
violated the rules of professional conduct, as alleged.  We 
summarize that professional misconduct here.  
Representation of J.O. (Counts 1-3) 
¶9 
In November 2016, the State Public Defender's Office 
(SPD) appointed Attorney Petros as counsel for J.O., who faced 
criminal charges in Barron County.  At J.O.'s sentencing 
hearing, Attorney Petros obtained permission from the court to 
have a second presentencing investigation report (PSI) prepared 
and J.O.'s sentencing hearing was adjourned.  Then, J.O. was 
charged with driving under the influence, 2nd offense, in Polk 
County.  Attorney Petros later told the OLR that there was some 
No. 
2019AP565-D   
 
5 
 
discussion about whether the second PSI should be done, because 
the 
new 
charges 
might 
negatively 
affect 
the 
sentence 
recommendation.  However, at the adjourned sentencing hearing on 
August 14, 2017, court records reflect that an "Alternative PSI 
has been ordered by defense" and the sentencing hearing was 
adjourned 
again. 
 
By 
late 
November 
2017, 
the 
OLR 
was 
investigating Attorney Petros, who told the OLR that he and J.O. 
decided against obtaining a second PSI.  J.O. asserts no such 
decision was ever made but rather, "the second PSI was always 
the plan."  Attorney Petros never ordered a second PSI.  He also 
failed to appear at J.O.'s sentencing hearing on October 30, 
2017. 
¶10 Meanwhile, in April 2017, J.O. had paid Attorney 
Petros $750 to commence a paternity case.  Between April and 
October, 2017, Attorney Petros took no steps to initiate the 
paternity case.  On November 27, 2017, Attorney Petros told the 
OLR via email that he had sent J.O. a full refund check.  The 
client, however, did not receive a refund check, despite 
repeated requests, until February 2018, and then, it was refused 
due to insufficient funds.  Attorney Petros later told the OLR 
that he had ensured there were sufficient funds in the account 
for the check to be cashed.  The OLR provided this information 
to J.O. and did not hear from J.O. again. 
¶11 The parties stipulated and the referee concluded that: 
 By failing to arrange for a second PSI; by failing to 
appear in court at the October 30, 2017, sentencing 
hearing; and by failing to advance the paternity case, 
No. 
2019AP565-D   
 
6 
 
in each instance, Attorney Petros violated SCR 20:1.3 
(Count One).1 
 By failing to timely refund the unearned advanced fee 
in the paternity case, 
Attorney Petros violated 
SCR 20:1.16(d) (Count Two).2 
 By twice willfully misrepresenting to the OLR that he 
returned J.O.'s advanced fees when he had not, 
Attorney Petros violated SCR 22.03(6),3 enforceable via 
SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count Three).4 
Representation of J.T. (Counts 4-6) 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
2 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides:  
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall 
take 
steps 
to 
the 
extent 
reasonably 
practicable to protect a client's interests, such as 
giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing 
time for employment of other counsel, surrendering 
papers and property to which the client is entitled 
and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense 
that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may 
retain papers relating to the client to the extent 
permitted by other law. 
3 SCR 
22.03(6) 
provides: 
 
"In 
the 
course 
of 
the 
investigation, the respondent's willful 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." 
4 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. 
2019AP565-D   
 
7 
 
¶12 In the fall of 2017, the SPD appointed Attorney Petros 
to represent J.T. at a sentencing hearing following the 
revocation of J.T.'s probation in Sawyer County.  In short, 
Attorney Petros failed to make contact with J.T. and failed to 
respond to J.T's repeated efforts to contact him.  J.T., who was 
being held in the Sawyer County jail, sent correspondence to 
Attorney Petros on September 27, November 23, and December 22, 
2017.  At J.T.'s request, jail staff left voice mail messages 
for Attorney Petros on October 9, November 1 and 20, December 
12, 19, and 20, 2017, and February 1, 2018, requesting Attorney 
Petros to contact J.T.  Attorney Petros did not respond to any 
of these attempts to reach him.  Later, Attorney Petros falsely 
told the OLR that he visited J.T. in jail on October 16, 2017.  
¶13 Attorney Petros then failed to respond to the OLR's 
request for information, and this court issued an order 
directing Attorney Petros to show cause why his law license 
should not be suspended for failure to cooperate with the OLR.  
Attorney Petros responded with a letter advising the court that 
he had provided the OLR with the requested information.  
However, the OLR had not received the requested information.   
¶14 On June 4, 2018, the OLR received a response from 
Attorney Petros that was sufficient to allow it to continue its 
investigation.  The OLR did not withdraw its motion to 
temporarily suspend Attorney Petros' law license, due to his 
continued non-cooperation in two other OLR investigations.  On 
August 15, 2018, Attorney Petros' law license was temporarily 
No. 
2019AP565-D   
 
8 
 
suspended.  He then cooperated with the OLR and his law license 
was reinstated on August 29, 2018. 
¶15 The parties stipulated and the referee concluded that: 
 By failing to respond to J.T.'s requests to contact 
him for information regarding his case, Attorney 
Petros violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) (Count 4).5 
 By misrepresenting to the OLR that he visited J.T. in 
jail on October 16, 2017, Attorney Petros violated 
SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count 5). 
 By willfully failing to provide the OLR with a timely 
response to J.T.'s grievance, Attorney Petros violated 
SCR 
22.03(2)6 
and 
SCR 
22.03(6), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count 6). 
Representation of A.H. (Counts 7-11)  
                                                 
5 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) provides: "A lawyer shall promptly comply 
with reasonable requests by the client for information." 
6 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 
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. 
2019AP565-D   
 
9 
 
¶16 In December 2016, A.H. received $30,012.77 from the 
proceeds of her mother's life insurance policy.  A.H. hired 
Attorney Petros to prepare a special needs trust for her.  Due 
to a disability, A.H. required such a trust so payments could be 
made to her that would not jeopardize her receipt of disability 
benefits.  Attorney Petros charged A.H. $2,000 to create the 
trust but failed to follow through. On February 2, 2017, 
Attorney Petros deposited the settlement funds into his trust 
account.  Between May 4 and October 10, 2017, Attorney Petros 
issued five checks totaling $6,000 to A.H. 
¶17 In June 2017, the special needs trust had not been 
prepared and A.H. began having difficulty receiving full 
disability benefits.  Despite A.H.'s requests for information, 
Attorney Petros failed to prepare the special needs trust and 
A.H. was required to retain successor counsel to prepare the 
trust.  
¶18 Meanwhile, it was determined that Attorney Petros had 
misappropriated A.H.'s funds.  His trust records indicate that 
in December 2017 he should have been holding $22,012.77 in trust 
attributable to A.H. even after his fees were deducted.  The 
trust balance was $1.02. 
¶19 Attorney Petros then failed to respond to the OLR's 
requests for information and, as described above, his law 
license was temporarily suspended for noncooperation.  On May 8, 
2019, the Fund approved payment to A.H. in the amount of 
$24,000, reflecting her losses as a result of Attorney Petros' 
misconduct. 
No. 
2019AP565-D   
 
10 
 
¶20 The parties stipulated and the referee concluded that: 
 By failing to prepare the special needs trust on 
behalf of A.H., Attorney Petros violated SCR 20:1.3 
(Count Seven). 
 By failing to return any of the $2,000 advance fees to 
A.H., Attorney Petros violated SCR 20:1.16(d) (Count 
Eight). 
 By failing to hold $22,012.77 of funds in trust 
belonging 
to 
A.H., 
Attorney 
Petros 
violated 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) (Count Nine).7 
 By using A.H.'s funds for purposes unrelated to A.H., 
Attorney Petros violated SCR 20:8.4(c) (Count Ten).8 
 By willfully failing to timely provide the OLR with a 
response to A.H.'s grievance, Attorney Petros violated 
SCR 22.03(2) 
and 
SCR 
22.03(6), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count Eleven). 
Representation of D.G. (Counts 12-15) 
                                                 
7 SCR 20:1.l5(b)(l) provides:  
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.  
8 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
 
No. 
2019AP565-D   
 
11 
 
¶21 In January 2015, D.G. hired Attorney Petros to 
represent him as plaintiff's counsel in a defamation action.  
This was to include preparing and filing a complaint.  Two years 
after being hired, Attorney Petros falsely notified D.G. that a 
hearing was scheduled on the matter.  D.G. arrived for the 
purported hearing, and Attorney Petros misrepresented to D.G. 
that the court had granted him a default judgment.  This was 
untrue. 
 
Subsequently, 
D.G. 
asked 
Attorney 
Petros 
for 
documentation relating to the default judgment.  Attorney Petros 
agreed to provide the documents several times but did not do so.   
¶22 In August 2017, D.G. learned that the lawsuit had not 
even been filed until March 30, 2017, and that Attorney Petros 
had taken no further action to prosecute it.  Attorney Petros 
then failed to respond to the OLR's repeated requests for 
information regarding the matter.   
¶23 The parties stipulated and the referee concluded that: 
 By failing to file D.G.'s lawsuit for approximately 
two years after being hired, and by failing to take 
any action to pursue the lawsuit after filing it, 
Attorney Petros violated SCR 20:1.3 (Count Twelve). 
 By misrepresenting to D.G. the status of his case, 
including that default judgment had been obtained 
before he even filed the lawsuit, Attorney Petros 
violated SCR 20:8.4(c) (Count Thirteen). 
 By willfully failing to provide the OLR with a timely 
written response to D.G.'s grievance, Attorney Petros 
No. 
2019AP565-D   
 
12 
 
violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable 
via SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count Fourteen). 
 By willfully failing to provide the OLR the additional 
information requested on September 14, 2018, Attorney 
Petros 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(6), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count Fifteen). 
Representation of T.V.B. (Counts 16-17) 
¶24 On October 6, 2017, the SPD appointed Attorney Petros 
as counsel for T.V.B., who was charged with fleeing an officer 
and possession of methamphetamine in Sawyer County.  Attorney 
Petros appeared by phone for T.V.B.'s preliminary hearing.  
Thereafter, however, T.V.B. tried repeatedly to reach Attorney 
Petros by phone and letter and Attorney Petros failed to 
respond.  On January 21, 2018, T.V.B. wrote to the judge 
presiding over his case and described his unsuccessful efforts 
to contact Attorney Petros.  On April 9, 2018, T.V.B. wrote the 
SPD's office and requested new counsel, stating that Attorney 
Petros was "M.I.A."  On June 26, 2018, Attorney Petros then 
failed to appear at T.V.B.'s plea and sentencing hearing.  The 
judge removed Attorney Petros as counsel of record, and ordered 
the appointment of successor counsel.  Attorney Petros initially 
responded to the OLR's requests for information about the 
ensuing grievance, but then failed to cooperate further.  
¶25 The parties stipulated and the referee concluded that: 
 By failing to respond to T.V.B.'s requests for 
information 
regarding 
his 
case, 
Attorney 
Petros 
violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) (Count Sixteen). 
No. 
2019AP565-D   
 
13 
 
 By willfully failing to provide the OLR the additional 
information requested on September 13, 2018, Attorney 
Petros 
violated 
SCR 
22.03(6), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count Seventeen). 
Representation of S.W. (Counts 18-20) 
¶26 In July 2015, S.W. hired Attorney Petros to represent 
her in a family law case in St. Croix County.  Her former 
partner, J.A., had requested mediation regarding the legal 
custody and physical placement of their child.  S.W. knew 
mediation was a prerequisite to a court hearing so she requested 
Attorney Petros schedule mediation promptly.   
¶27 In November 2015, S.W. asked about the status of 
mediation but Attorney Petros had not scheduled a mediation.  In 
December 2015, S.W. again contacted Attorney Petros, asking if a 
mediation date had been set.  Attorney Petros claimed that he 
had sent her possible dates.  S.W. had not received that 
communication.  Attorney Petros promised to resend possible 
mediation dates but failed to do so.  S.W. then asked Attorney 
Petros again and he did not respond. 
¶28 On January 25, 2016, Attorney Petros sent S.W. a text 
falsely stating a court hearing was scheduled in February 2016.  
Shortly before the supposed hearing, S.W. asked Attorney Petros 
if the court date was still on.  He responded, "Yep."  There was 
no court hearing.  On May 18 and 23, 2016, S.W. sent Attorney 
Petros texts asking "have you received the papers for court."  
Attorney Petros responded, "What's your email will send papers 
over" but did not follow through.  On May 23, 2016, J.A. filed a 
No. 
2019AP565-D   
 
14 
 
second request for mediation and the family court commissioner 
signed a referral for mediation that same day. 
¶29 On August 23, 2016, S.W. sent Attorney Petros a text 
stating "I still haven't received anything about a court date." 
The next day, Attorney Petros falsely told S.W. that a court 
date was set for September 15, 2016.  On August 25, 2016, S.W. 
informed Attorney Petros that she had discovered that the court 
had no record of a hearing scheduled for September 15, 2016.  
When Attorney Petros filed a formal Notice of Retainer on 
December 6, 2016, it was the first pleading he had filed on 
behalf of S.W. since he was retained in July 2015. 
¶30 Several hearings took place in 2017 and 2018, at which 
Attorney Petros did appear with S.W., culminating in a review 
hearing on November 15, 2018.  S.W. failed to appear, having 
mistaken the time and Attorney Petros appeared late.  The family 
court commissioner entered orders.  Unhappy with the orders, 
S.W. asked Attorney Petros to schedule another hearing.  He 
agreed but did not act.  On December 10, 2018, S.W. asked if 
another hearing had been scheduled.  Attorney Petros did not 
respond.  On December 31, 2018, S.W. requested Attorney Petros 
return her paperwork.  Again, Attorney Petros did not respond. 
¶31 The parties stipulated and the referee concluded that: 
 By failing to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in furtherance of S.W.'s interests in her 
case between July 2015 and December 6, 2016, and 
continuously from November 15, 2018 to present, 
Attorney Petros violated SCR 20:1.3 (Count Eighteen). 
No. 
2019AP565-D   
 
15 
 
 By making misrepresentations to S.W. about the status 
of her case on January 25, 2016 and August 24, 2016, 
Attorney 
Petros 
violated 
SCR 
20:8.4(c) 
(Count 
Nineteen). 
 By failing to respond to reasonable requests for 
information regarding her case and failing to provide 
requested paperwork concerning her case, Attorney 
Petros violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) (Count Twenty). 
Matter of J.R. (Counts 21-24) 
¶32 In July 2016, J.R. hired Attorney Petros to file small 
claims actions against two tenants.  In late 2016 or early 2017, 
Attorney Petros falsely told J.R. that the two cases had 
settled.  In the summer of 2017, J.R. asked Attorney Petros to 
file small claims cases against two other tenants.  Attorney 
Petros did not file any of the four cases until March 12, 2018. 
¶33 From July through November 2017, J.R. repeatedly 
attempted to reach Attorney Petros without success.  On December 
8, 2017, Attorney Petros misrepresented to J.R. that all four 
cases were scheduled for court hearings on December 27, 2017.  
At that time, none of the cases had even been filed.   
¶34 On March 6, 2018, the OLR advised Attorney Petros that 
J.R. had filed a grievance and requested a response.  Six days 
after the OLR notified Attorney Petros of the grievance, he 
finally filed all four small claims cases.  Attorney Petros 
initially responded to the OLR's request for a response to 
J.R.'s grievance, but thereafter failed to respond. 
¶35 The parties stipulated and the referee concluded that: 
No. 
2019AP565-D   
 
16 
 
 By failing to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in furtherance of J.R.'s interests in his 
cases between July 2016 and March 2018, Attorney 
Petros violated SCR 20:1.3 (Count Twenty-One). 
 By failing to respond to J.R.'s reasonable requests 
for information regarding his cases and failing to 
provide requested paperwork concerning his cases, 
Attorney 
Petros 
violated 
SCR 
20:1.4(a)(4) 
(Count 
Twenty-Two). 
 By making misrepresentations to J.R. about the status 
of his cases in late 2016 or early 2017, and on August 
1, 2017 and December 8, 2017, Attorney Petros violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c) (Count Twenty-Three). 
 By willfully failing to respond to the OLR's September 
17, 2018 request for additional information, Attorney 
Petros 
violated 
SCR 22.03(6), 
enforceable 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h) (Count Twenty-Four). 
¶36 After making a determination of misconduct as to all 
24 
counts 
summarized 
above, 
the 
referee 
evaluated 
the 
appropriate 
discipline 
for 
Attorney 
Petros. 
 
Determining 
appropriate discipline for professional misconduct requires an 
assessment of: (1) the seriousness, nature, and extent of the 
misconduct; (2) the level of discipline needed to protect the 
public, the courts, and the legal system from repetition of the 
attorney's misconduct; (3) the need to impress upon the attorney 
the seriousness of the misconduct; and (4) the need to deter 
other attorneys from committing similar misconduct.  In re 
No. 
2019AP565-D   
 
17 
 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hammis, 2011 WI 3, ¶39, 331 
Wis. 2d 19, 793 N.W.2d 884. 
¶37 The referee deemed instructive several cases cited in 
the 
OLR's 
sanctions 
memorandum. 
 
In 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Krezminski, 2007 WI 21, 299 Wis. 2d 152, 727 
N.W.2d 492, the attorney was suspended for two years for making 
false statements to a court, for trust fund violations involving 
a vulnerable client, for lack of diligence in an appeal, and for 
failures to communicate with the client.  Similarly, in In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carter, 2014 WI 126, 359 
Wis. 2d 70, 856 N.W.2d 595, this court suspended the attorney 
for two years after he stipulated to 11 counts of misconduct 
involving a fee agreement, client communications, and trust fund 
violations involving $72,000.  See also In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Morse, 2019 WI 53, 386 Wis. 2d 654, 927 
N.W.2d 543 (one-year suspension for lack of diligence, lack of 
communication, failure to follow a court order, and trust fund 
violations involving $25,000, in addition to conviction of three 
counts of theft due to the trust fund misuse).  
¶38 The referee observed: "[a]ll of [Petros'] violations 
have occurred in a relatively few years by an attorney who began 
his practice of law in 2009" and the "violations are exceedingly 
serious, given their breadth and nature and [Petros'] history."  
The referee recommended this court suspend Attorney Petros' law 
license for a period of two years and require him to pay 
restitution to the Fund, as stipulated, in connection with his 
professional misconduct in the matter of A.H.  The referee 
No. 
2019AP565-D   
 
18 
 
further recommended that Attorney Petros' future reinstatement, 
if any, be conditioned upon Attorney Petros not engaging in solo 
law practice and/or that his practice and trust account be 
subject to monitoring. 
¶39 No appeal was filed so this court's review proceeds 
pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).9  In conducting our review, we affirm 
the referee's findings of fact unless they are found to be 
clearly erroneous, and we review the referee's conclusions of 
law on a de novo basis.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against 
Inglimo, 
2007 
WI 
126, 
¶5, 
305 
Wis. 2d 71, 
740 
N.W.2d 125.  We may impose whatever sanction we see 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.  
¶40 Based upon our review of the record, we accept the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law in this matter 
and agree that Attorney Petros committed the 24 counts of 
professional misconduct, as alleged.  The allegations of 
misconduct 
at 
issue 
are 
very 
serious. 
 
Attorney 
Petros 
misappropriated client funds from a vulnerable client, lied to 
                                                 
9 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. 
2019AP565-D   
 
19 
 
clients about the status of their cases, repeatedly failed to 
respond to clients and failed to appear in court.  Attorney 
Petros also repeatedly failed to respond to inquiries from the 
OLR, resulting in his temporary suspension from the practice of 
law. 
¶41 The undisputed facts show a clear pattern of neglect 
by Attorney Petros of his clients' needs and objectives and 
disregard of his obligations as an attorney.  We agree with the 
referee's recommendation 
that the seriousness of Attorney 
Petros' misconduct demonstrates that his law license must be 
suspended for a period of two years, to protect the public, 
courts, and legal system from the attorney's repetition of the 
misconduct; to impress upon Attorney Petros the seriousness of 
his misconduct; and to deter other attorneys from engaging in 
similar misconduct.   
¶42 The referee proposed that Attorney Petros' future 
reinstatement, if any, should be conditioned upon Attorney 
Petros not engaging in solo law practice and/or that his 
practice and trust account be subject to monitoring.  In the 
event Attorney Petros seeks reinstatement, this court will 
revisit these recommendations.  See SCR 22.29.  
¶43 Finally, we accept the referee's recommendation that 
we order Attorney Petros to pay restitution to the Fund in 
connection with his representation of A.H., and we impose the 
full costs of this disciplinary proceeding on Attorney Petros.  
No. 
2019AP565-D   
 
20 
 
¶44 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Christopher S. 
Petros to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 
two years, effective the date of this order.  
¶45 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if he has not already done 
so, Christopher S. Petros shall comply with the provisions of 
SCR 22.26 regarding the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶46 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Christopher S. Petros shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$4,387.44 as of April 10, 2020. 
¶47 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Christopher S. Petros shall pay restitution of 
$24,000 to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in 
connection with his misconduct in the matter of A.H. 
¶48 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified 
above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation. 
¶49 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Christopher S. Petros' license to practice law in 
Wisconsin for noncompliance with continuing legal education 
requirements, will remain in effect until the administrative 
suspension has been rectified pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). 
¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.28(2). 
¶51 DANIEL KELLY, J., did not participate.   
No. 
2019AP565-D   
 
 
 
1