Court Opinion

ID: 9374883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 15:12:08.303055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:53.807934
License: Public Domain

2023 WI 13

                  SUPREME COURT            OF   WISCONSIN
CASE NO.:              2022AP1213-D

COMPLETE TITLE:        In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
                       Against Thomas W. Batterman, Attorney at Law:

                       Office of Lawyer Regulation,
                                 Complainant,
                            v.
                       Thomas W. Batterman,
                                 Respondent.

                          DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BATTERMAN

OPINION FILED:         February 24, 2023
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:
   COURT:
   COUNTY:
   JUDGE:

JUSTICES:
Per curiam. ZIEGLER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion in which
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, HAGEDORN, and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined.
NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTORNEYS:
                                                                           2023 WI 13
                                                                   NOTICE
                                                     This opinion is subject to further
                                                     editing and modification.   The final
                                                     version will appear in the bound
                                                     volume of the official reports.
No.   2022AP1213-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN                               :              IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against

Thomas W. Batterman, Attorney at Law:

                                                                        FILED
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
                                                                   FEB 24, 2023
             Complainant,
                                                                      Sheila T. Reiff
      v.                                                           Clerk of Supreme Court

Thomas W. Batterman,

             Respondent.

      ATTORNEY      disciplinary      proceeding.            Attorney's        license

revoked.

      ¶1     PER CURIAM.       Attorney Thomas W. Batterman has filed a

petition     for    the    consensual    revocation        of    his     license       to

practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR)

22.19.1      In    his    petition,   Attorney   Batterman         states     that     he

      1   SCR 22.19 provides:
                                                            No.    2022AP1213-D

cannot successfully defend against the allegations of misconduct

in connection with a grievance investigated by the Office of

Lawyer Regulation (OLR).

    ¶2      Attorney     Batterman   was   admitted   to   practice   law    in

Wisconsin in 1982.        His license is currently active and in good

standing.     He   has    not   practiced    law   since   1985,    does    not

         (1) An attorney who is subject of an investigation for
    possible misconduct or the respondent in a proceeding may
    file with the supreme court a petition for the revocation
    by consent [of] his or her license to practice law.

         (2) The petition shall state that                  the petitioner
    cannot successfully defend against the                  allegations of
    misconduct.

         (3) If a complaint has not been filed, the petition
    shall be filed in the supreme court and shall include the
    director’s summary of the misconduct allegations being
    investigated. Within 20 days after the date of filing of
    the petition, the director shall file in the supreme court
    a recommendation on the petition. Upon a showing of good
    cause, the supreme court may extend the time for filing a
    recommendation.

         (4) If a complaint has been filed, the petition shall
    be filed in the supreme court and served on the director
    and on the referee to whom the proceeding has been
    assigned. Within 20 days after the filing of the petition,
    the director shall file in the supreme court a response in
    support of or in opposition to the petition and serve a
    copy on the referee.    Upon a showing of good cause, the
    supreme court may extend the time for filing a response.
    The referee shall file a report and recommendation on the
    petition in the supreme court within 30 days after receipt
    of the director's response.

         (5) The supreme court shall grant the petition and
    revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or deny the
    petition and remand the matter to the director or to the
    referee for further proceedings.

                                      2
                                                                   No.     2022AP1213-D

maintain a law office and has no clients, and has no intention

to practice law in the future.                He has no previous disciplinary

history.

      ¶3    On     July    19,   2022,    OLR    filed    a     complaint       against

Attorney    Batterman       alleging     four    counts   of     misconduct.           The

first two counts of misconduct arose out of Attorney Batterman’s

representation of J.G.

      ¶4    Attorney Batterman is the founder, registered agent,

and principal of Financial Fiduciaries and the president and

majority shareholder of WTC, Inc. (WTC), the sole member of

Financial    Fiduciaries.          In   April    1988,    J.G.    established          and

funded a revocable living trust which provided that if J.G.’s

wife should predecease him, the assets remaining in the trust,

together    with    any     assets    received    into    the    trust,        shall    be

distributed to the following charities: 25% to the Diocese of

the   Catholic     Church    for     Superior,    Wisconsin,      for     educational

purposes; 25% to Bruce High School, Bruce, Wisconsin, to fund

scholarships for students pursuing a college education; 25% to
the   Alzheimer’s         Association     for    research;       and     25%    to     the

American Cancer Society for research.

      ¶5    In March 2011, J.G. amended the trust to provide that

the bequest to the American Cancer Society be paid through local

fundraising events such as Relay for Life in a manner and for

such purposes as the organization saw fit.                     The amendment also

changed the successor trustee from Vigil Asset Management Group,

Inc. to Vigil Trust and Financial Advocacy of Wausau, Wisconsin,
or its successors (Vigil).
                                          3
                                                                         No.     2022AP1213-D

      ¶6    WTC was the entity that provided investment management

services    to    Vigil’s    trust    clients.             Vigil     was    a    registered

tradename       for   Investors      Independent            Trust     Company       (IITC).

Attorney Batterman did not have an ownership interest in IITC

and was neither an employee nor an officer of IITC.

      ¶7    A    trust     services      agreement          between        WTC    and    IITC

permitted employees of WTC and Financial Fiduciaries to assist

IITC with ministerial duties in the administration of trusts in

which Vigil is to be named trustee.

      ¶8    J.G. died on December 27, 2014.                         At that time, the

trust was required to distribute 25% of the trust assets to each

of the four beneficiaries.           Vigil was the trustee.

      ¶9    In February of 2015, Attorney Batterman discussed the

administration of the trust with his then-fiancé, D.R., who was

the   senior     manager    for   the    Relay        for    Life    division       of   the

American Cancer Society.          Attorney Batterman and D.R. discussed

an incremental distribution to the American Cancer Society over

a period of up to ten years and discussed splitting the gift
between the Eagle River and Wausau Relay for Life.

      ¶10   The unambiguous language of the trust stated that 25%

of trust assets shall be distributed to the American Cancer

Society.    There was no provision in the trust which provided for

incremental      distribution.          In       a   May    20,   2015     email    to   the

American    Cancer       Society,       Attorney           Batterman       offered       only

incremental distribution of trust assets.                           Attorney Batterman

told the American Cancer Society that Vigil was his company,
although he had no ownership interest in it.                        In a June 15, 2015
                                             4
                                                                       No.     2022AP1213-D

letter to the American Cancer Society, Attorney Batterman said

the trust was discretionary, when he knew it was an irrevocable

trust.     In the letter, Attorney Batterman said that the donor

wished to remain anonymous, which was also not true.

    ¶11     The trust provided that after J.G.’s death, 25% of

trust proceeds be distributed to Bruce High School.                              Instead,

Vigil hired a law firm to create the J.G. Scholarship Trust.

Attorney Batterman was the primary contact person with the law

firm.    The scholarship trust was created without notice to Bruce

High School.       The scholarship trust named Vigil as the trustee,

and Attorney Batterman was named trust protector.                               As   trust

protector, Batterman should have informed Bruce High School of

its status as beneficiary to the trust.                      In a July 9, 2015 email

to the high school, Attorney Batterman failed to inform the high

school that the trust was required to distribute 25% of the

trust assets to the school.             Attorney Batterman also failed to

inform    the    school     that    Vigil       was    the    trustee    and     Attorney

Batterman was the trust protector.
    ¶12     In late June or early July of 2015, the Alzheimer’s

Association      Major    Gifts     Division      made       contact    with     Attorney

Batterman       because   the      Alzheimer’s         Association       had     received

information of its status as a beneficiary of a trust for which

Vigil was the trustee.             Attorney Batterman sent an email to the

Alzheimer’s Association Trust and Estate Specialist on July 6,

2015 saying he was “just going to begin the process of trying to

get in touch with the local Alzheimer’s office.”                        Prior to that
date,    neither    Vigil    nor     Attorney         Batterman   had    notified      the
                                            5
                                                                        No.   2022AP1213-D

Alzheimer’s Association of its status as a beneficiary, as was

the   trustee’s       duty.      In    the    same     email,    Attorney         Batterman

identified the trust as revocable when he knew that the trust

was irrevocable.          Attorney Batterman knew the trust required

distribution of 25% of the trust assets to each of the four

named fiduciaries.

      ¶13     In   July   2015,       over   six     months     after    J.G.’s      death,

Attorney      Batterman       first     notified         the    Superior,         Wisconsin

Diocese of the Catholic Church of its status as a beneficiary

under the trust.

      ¶14     In September and October of 2015, the American Cancer

Society, the School District of Bruce, the Superior, Wisconsin

Diocese of the Catholic Church, and the Alzheimer’s Association

all filed petitions for the removal of the trustee in the matter

of the J.G. Revocable Trust filed in Marathon County Circuit

Court.      In its petition, the American Cancer Society alleged

that Attorney Batterman concocted a plan to distribute funds

over a ten year period, rather than make an outright gift to the
American Cancer Society as required by the trust instrument.

Through this plan Attorney Batterman would reap the benefit of

long-term trustee and investment fees paid from the trust, while

his fiancé, an American Cancer Society employee responsible for

implementing the local Relay for Life events, would benefit from

enhanced opportunities for salary increases through the trust’s

stepped-up annual gifting.

      ¶15     Bruce    High     School       alleged     that    Attorney         Batterman
failed   to    notify     the    school      it    was    entitled      to    a    one-time
                                              6
                                                                          No.     2022AP1213-D

distribution        of    its    25%     share,       and    instead     Vigil     created     a

scholarship trust.           Bruce High School also alleged that Attorney

Batterman failed to notify the school that Vigil was the trustee

and Attorney Batterman was the trust protector.

      ¶16     Attorney          Batterman        filed       a     responsive      affidavit

addressing the four petitions requesting removal of the trustee.

On October 23, 2015, the circuit court granted the petitioners’

requests      for    removal       of    the     trustee         and   appointed    Attorney

Terrance Byrn as the new successor trustee.

      ¶17     On March 1, 2017, Attorney Batterman was deposed in

the   trust     matter.           In     his     sworn       deposition       testimony,      he

acknowledged that J.G. never indicated he wanted his gifts to be

anonymous.          Attorney       Batterman          also    admitted     that    while      he

stated   to    the       American       Cancer       Society     that   the     trust   was    a

discretionary trust, Vigil in fact had no discretion over the

trust.

      ¶18     A court trial was conducted in the trust case on April

27 and May 23, 2017.              On September 18, 2017, the circuit court
determined:

      Vigil owes each beneficiary a duty to inform and
      report. Breach of this duty constitutes a breach of
      trust. From the testimony, the Court cannot help but
      find Mr. Batterman, slash, Vigil failed to provide the
      necessary information to several of the beneficiaries
      regarding the gift in a timely manner and upon request
      in which many ways has resulted in this extensive and
      arguably unnecessary litigation...

      This Court finds that the manner in which Vigil failed
      to give the appropriate notice to the American Cancer
      Association and the manner in which the gift was set
      up for distribution not authorized within the trust

                                                 7
                                                                         No.       2022AP1213-D

     document, often providing incomplete information and
     by setting up unilaterally disposition - - or
     distribution  plans  which  arguably  favor   Vigil’s
     constant breach of loyalty and duty to inform and
     report.
     ¶19       Following     the     circuit     court’s        decision,      significant

litigation ensued regarding payment of attorney’s fees.                                  In a

March    19,    2018      oral    ruling,    the    circuit       court      ordered      that

Attorney   Batterman         and    Vigil    shall       be    jointly    and       severally

liable   for     attorney’s        fees.       Attorney        Batterman       and    Midwest

Trust Company, the successor in interest to IITC, filed a notice
of   appeal.         In     January     2019,      the        appeal   was     voluntarily

dismissed.

     ¶20       The OLR’s complaint alleged the following counts of

misconduct with respect to Attorney Batterman’s handling of the

J.G. Trust:

     Count 1: By engaging in conduct that amounted to a
     breach of trust in In the Matter of the [J.G.]
     Revocable Trust, Attorney Batterman violated SCR
     20:8.4 (c). 2

     Count 2: By misrepresenting to ACS that the trust
     donor wished to remain anonymous and that the funds
     came from a discretionary trust, Attorney Batterman
     violated SCR 20:8.4 (c).
     ¶21       The   OLR’s       complaint   also    alleged       that      the     American

Cancer Society filed a complaint with the Securities Exchange

Commission      (SEC)      against     Financial         Fiduciaries         and     Attorney

Batterman.       The SEC investigated the complaint.                      In a March 5,

     2 SCR 20:8.4 (c) provides: “It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation.”

                                             8
                                                                        No.     2022AP1213-D

2018     order,      the     SEC     found   that      Attorney       Batterman      caused

Financial      Fiduciaries’          violations     of    various     sections       of    the

Advisers       Act,    which       prohibits      an     investment       advisor         from

engaging in a transaction, practice, or course of business which

operates as a fraud or deceit upon a client or a prospective

client       and   requires     an    advisor     to     take    enumerated      steps      to

safeguard client assets over which it has custody.                            In addition,

the    SEC    found    that    Attorney      Batterman      willfully         made   untrue

statements of material fact in a registration application or

report filed with the Commission or willfully omitted to state

material facts.            The SEC ordered Financial Fiduciaries to pay a

civil money penalty in the amount of $40,000, and it ordered

Attorney Batterman to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of

$20,000.

       ¶22     The    OLR’s    complaint     alleged       the    following      count      of

misconduct with respect to the SEC proceeding:

       Count 3: By causing Financial Fiduciaries’ violations
       of Sections 206(2), 206(4) and 207 of the Advisors Act
       in In the Matter of Financial Fiduciaries, LLC and
       Thomas Batterman, SEC Administrative Proceeding File
       No. 3-18385, Attorney Batterman violated SCR 20:8.4
       (c).
       ¶23     Finally, the OLR’s complaint alleged that on April 10,

2018, Attorney Batterman was pulled over while operating his

vehicle at 46 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone.                             During

the    traffic       stop,     the     officer    detected        a   strong      odor      of

intoxicants coming from Attorney Batterman, as well as glassy

eyes and slurred speech.                The officer detected some impairment
in    field    sobriety       tests    and   requested      Attorney      Batterman         to

                                             9
                                                                      No.   2022AP1213-D

submit to a preliminary breath test, which Attorney Batterman

declined.       Based on the field sobriety tests, Attorney Batterman

was placed under arrest for Operating While Intoxicated, 2nd

offense.        Attorney Batterman subsequently submitted to a blood

draw showing a blood alcohol content of .124, in excess of the

legal limit in Wisconsin.

       ¶24   On October 19, 2021, a jury found Attorney Batterman

guilty of Operating with a Prohibited Alcohol Concentration, 2nd

offense.         He   was     sentenced    to    15    days    confinement     in    the

Marathon County jail, 13 months driver’s license revocation and,

12 months ignition interlock.               Attorney Batterman appealed, and

his sentence has been stayed pending appeal.

       ¶25   The      OLR’s   complaint     alleged     the     following    count    of

misconduct with respect to the OWI conviction:

       Count 4: By engaging in conduct leading to a criminal
       Conviction of Operating with a PAC 2nd offense in
       State of Wisconsin v. Thomas Batterman, Marathon
       County Case No. 2018CM752, Attorney Batterman violated
       SCR 20:8.4 (b). 3
       ¶26   Attorney Batterman filed his petition for revocation

by    consent    on    December    8,    2022.        The    petition    alleges    that

Attorney Batterman cannot successfully defend himself against

the    professional         misconduct    alleged      in     the    complaint.      The

petition     states      Attorney       Batterman      has    been    represented     by

counsel in the matter and is freely, voluntarily, and knowingly

       SCR 20:8.4 (b) provides: “It is professional misconduct
       3

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.”

                                           10
                                                                            No.     2022AP1213-D

filing       his    petition       for     revocation        by     consent.          Attorney

Batterman          further       states    that      by     filing     the        petition   he

understands he is giving up his right to further contest each

misconduct allegation in the complaint.

       ¶27    The OLR filed a memorandum recommending that Attorney

Batterman’s petition for revocation by consent be granted and

that his Wisconsin law license be revoked.

       ¶28    Having        reviewed       Attorney        Batterman’s          petition     for

consensual revocation and OLR’s recommendation on the petition,

we grant Attorney Batterman’s petition for the revocation of his

license to practice law in Wisconsin.                        In the trust proceeding,

Attorney      Batterman          engaged       in    conduct      involving        dishonesty,

fraud,    deceit       or    misrepresentation.              The     SEC    found     that    he

engaged in conduct which operated as a fraud or deceit upon a

client.

       ¶29    The     seriousness         of    Attorney         Batterman’s        misconduct

demonstrates that it is appropriate to revoke his law license in

order to protect the public, the courts, and the legal system
from   repetition           of   his    misconduct;        to     impress    upon     him    the

seriousness of his misconduct; and to deter other attorneys from

engaging      in     similar       misconduct.            This    court     has     previously

revoked attorneys’ licenses when they face multiple counts of

misconduct,          including         misconduct         consisting       of      dishonesty,

fraud,       deceit     or       misrepresentation.                See,      e.g.,      In    re

Disciplinary Proceedings against Vaitys, 2019 WI 85, 388 Wis. 2d

259, 932 N.W. 2d 400.

                                                11
                                                       No.     2022AP1213-D

    ¶30    Since this matter was resolved without the need to

appoint    a   referee,   we   assess   no   costs   against     Attorney

Batterman.

    ¶31    IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license

revocation is granted.

    ¶32    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Thomas W.

Batterman to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the

date of this order.

    ¶33    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas W. Batterman 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.

                                   12
                                                                          No.   2022AP1213-D.akz

       ¶34     ANNETTE          KINGSLAND     ZIEGLER,        C.J.       (concurring).              I

concur       in     the     court's      order        revoking      Attorney          Batterman’s

license to practice law in Wisconsin.                              I write separately to

point out that in Wisconsin the "revocation" of an attorney's

law license is not truly revocation because the attorney may

petition for reinstatement after a period of five years.                                          See

SCR 22.29(2).               I    believe      that      when       it    comes        to     lawyer

discipline, courts should say what they mean and mean what they

say.     We should not be creating false perceptions to both the

public and to the lawyer seeking to practice law again.                                      See In

re   Disciplinary           Proceedings       Against        Moodie,      2020    WI       39,    391

Wis. 2d 196, 942 N.W.2d 302 (Ziegler, J., dissenting).                                     And, as

I    stated       in   my   dissent      to   this      court's         order    denying         Rule

Petition 19-10, In the Matter of Amending Supreme Court Rules

Pertaining to Permanent Revocation of a License to Practice Law

in Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings, I believe there may be

rare     and       unusual       cases    that        would    warrant          the    permanent

revocation of an attorney's license to practice law.                                  See S. Ct.
Order 19-10 (issued Dec. 18, 2019) (Ziegler, J., dissenting).

       ¶35     I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL

BRADLEY,          BRIAN     HAGEDORN,       and       JILL    J.     KAROFSKY         join       this

concurrence.

                                                  1
    No.   2022AP1213-D.akz

1