2014 WI 1
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2013AP2089-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Christopher Stephen Petros, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Christopher Stephen Petros,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETROS
OPINION FILED: January 3, 2014
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2014 WI 1
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2013AP2089-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Christopher Stephen Petros, Attorney at
Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant, JAN 3, 2014
v. Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Christopher Stephen Petros,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
suspended.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a stipulation filed by the
Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Christopher
Stephen Petros pursuant to SCR 22.12.1 The stipulation requests
1
SCR 22.12 provides as follows: Stipulation.
(1) The director may file with the complaint a
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and
discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may
consider the complaint and stipulation without the
appointment of a referee.
No. 2013AP2089-D
this court to suspend Attorney Petros's license to practice law
in Wisconsin as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed
by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
¶2 Attorney Petros was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 2009. According to the stipulation, on August 6,
2013, the Minnesota Supreme Court suspended Attorney Petros's
Minnesota law license for 90 days based on misconduct consisting
of submitting false evidence and making false statements to the
director of the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional
Responsibility; failing to notify a client about a hearing;
lying to a court through an associate and failing to correct the
misrepresentations he caused to be made to the court; failing to
timely notify clients of their appeal rights and that he would
not file an appeal on their behalf; and failing to diligently
pursue a client's case, communicate with that client, and timely
return the client's property, in violation of Minn. R. Prof.
Conduct 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 3.3(a)(1), 8.1(a), and 8.4(c) and
(d).
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation,
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of
law and impose the stipulated discipline.
(3) If the supreme court rejects the
stipulation, a referee shall be appointed and the
matter shall proceed as a complaint filed without a
stipulation.
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the
prosecution of the complaint.
2
No. 2013AP2089-D
¶3 On September 19, 2013, the OLR filed a complaint
alleging that by virtue of having received discipline imposed in
Minnesota for his violations of the Minnesota Rules of
Professional Conduct, Attorney Petros is subject to reciprocal
discipline in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.22.2
2
SCR 22.22 states: Reciprocal discipline.
(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for
misconduct or a license suspension for medical
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the
effective date of the order or judgment of the other
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a
judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for
medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the
practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in
this state, the director may file a complaint in the
supreme court containing all of the following:
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order
from the other jurisdiction.
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the
grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of
the identical discipline or license suspension by the
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual
basis for the claim.
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of
the following is present:
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to
constitute a deprivation of due process.
3
No. 2013AP2089-D
¶4 In the stipulation, Attorney Petros does not claim
that any of the conditions listed in SCRs 22.22(3)(a) through
(c) prevent the imposition of reciprocal discipline in this
case. Attorney Petros and the OLR jointly request that Attorney
Petros's license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for
90 days.
¶5 The stipulation properly provides that it did not
result from plea bargaining. Attorney Petros says he does not
(b) There was such an infirmity of proof
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that
the supreme court could not accept as final the
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical
incapacity.
(c) The misconduct justifies substantially
different discipline in this state.
(4) Except as provided in sub. (3), a final
adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity
shall be conclusive evidence of the attorney's
misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a
proceeding under this rule.
(5) The supreme court may refer a complaint
filed under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a
report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16. At
the hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the
imposition of discipline or license suspension
different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction
to demonstrate that the imposition of identical
discipline or license suspension by the supreme court
is unwarranted.
(6) If the discipline or license suspension
imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any
reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by
the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the
stay expires.
4
No. 2013AP2089-D
contest the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR or the
discipline that the OLR's director is seeking in this matter.
Attorney Petros further states that he fully understands the
misconduct allegations and the ramifications should this court
impose the stipulated level of discipline. He also states he
fully understands his right to contest the matter and he
understands his right to consult with counsel. Attorney Petros
further states that his entry into the stipulation is made
knowingly and voluntarily and represents his decision not to
contest the misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint or the
level and type of discipline sought by the OLR director.
¶6 Based upon our independent review of the matter, we
conclude that the SCR 22.12 stipulation should be accepted and
that Attorney Petros's license to practice law in Wisconsin
should be suspended for 90 days as reciprocal discipline
identical to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Since
Attorney Petros entered into a stipulation with the OLR and
there was no need to appoint a referee, we agree that no costs
should be assessed.
¶7 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Christopher Stephen
Petros to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of
90 days, effective February 3, 2014.
¶8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Christopher Stephen Petros
shall comply with provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties
of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been
suspended.
5
No. 2013AP2089-D
¶9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See
SCR 22.28(2).
6
No. 2013AP2089-D
1