Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Thomas D. Vaitys

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

2019 WI 85 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 2017AP1247-D In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Thomas D. Vaitys, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Thomas D. Vaitys, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VAITYS OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: August 22, 2019 2019 WI 85 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2017AP1247-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Thomas D. Vaitys, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, AUG 22, 2019 v. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court Thomas D. Vaitys, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license revoked. ¶1 PER CURIAM. Pending before the court is a report and recommendation filed by Referee Richard M. Esenberg. The report recommends that we accept Attorney Thomas D. Vaitys' petition for consensual license revocation, order him to pay restitution, and revoke his license to practice law in Wisconsin. Attorney Vaitys is the subject of an Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) disciplinary complaint alleging that he committed 19 counts of professional misconduct in several client matters. He is also No. 2017AP1247-D the subject of two pending grievances that have not yet been fully investigated by the OLR. ¶2 We agree that both revocation and restitution are appropriate, and we agree that Attorney Vaitys shall pay the costs of this proceeding, which are $4,703.85 as of July 10, 2019. ¶3 Attorney Vaitys was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin in 2004. He currently resides in Sonora, California. He has not previously been subject to professional discipline. His law license has been suspended, however, for failure to pay State Bar dues, certification, failure and to provide a for failure 28, 2017, to required comply trust with CLE account reporting requirements. ¶4 complaint On June charging Attorney professional misconduct. 24, 2017. On the September OLR Vaitys filed with a 19 disciplinary counts of Referee Esenberg was appointed on July 18, 2018, Attorney Vaitys filed a petition for consensual license revocation pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.19.1 1 SCR 22.19 provides: (1) An attorney who is the 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 or his or her license to practice law. (2) The petition shall state that the petitioner cannot successfully defend against the allegations of misconduct. (continued) 2 No. ¶5 Attorney Vaitys states that he cannot 2017AP1247-D successfully defend himself against the professional misconduct alleged in the complaint or the pending investigations, and states he will make appropriate restitution. On September 18, 2018, the OLR filed a recommendation, supporting Attorney Vaitys' petition. (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. 3 No. ¶6 The referee issued a report on recommending revocation and restitution.2 filed in this SCR 22.17(2). matter, so our 2017AP1247-D January 8, 2019, No appeal has been review proceeds pursuant to We revoke Attorney Vaitys' Wisconsin law license effective the date of this order. ¶7 complaint T.A. is The first arise an 12 from counts Attorney individual with of the Vaitys' a OLR's disciplinary representation "wide range of of T.A. cognitive and comprehension difficulties, including difficulty reading and/or understanding written information." In February 2012, T.A. hired Attorney Vaitys and Attorney Thomas Napierala, a lawyer with another firm, to set aside a mediation agreement and settlement that T.A. had entered in a Milwaukee County Circuit Court case involving the estate of T.J.3 setting commence aside the litigation settlement, to the establish If they succeeded in two that lawyers T.A. was would then entitled to 2 The OLR's complaint and a summary of the pending investigations are attached to the petition for consensual revocation as Appendices A and B. The OLR later advised the referee that it had determined that W.A. was partially reimbursed and is entitled to restitution of $100, rather than the previously sought $500. By order dated May 14, 2019, this court remanded the matter to the referee for additional factual findings relating to restitution. The referee filed a supplemental report on June 24, 2019, from which neither party has appealed. 3 This court reprimanded Attorney Napierala for professional misconduct in connection with his representation of T.A. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Napierala, 2018 WI 101, 384 Wis. 2d 273, 918 N.W.2d 893. 4 No. inherit the T.J. estate. 2017AP1247-D If not, they intended to appeal and, perhaps, seek review in this court. The legal work was to be paid from settlement funds that T.A. had received from the T.J. estate (the Probate Award). Work commenced in February of 2012, but no written fee agreement was signed until November 2012. ¶8 The fee agreement charge for appellate work. Fund" trust account. limited what the lawyers could It established a $25,000 "Appellate Fees and costs related to this appellate work were only to be paid from the Appellate Fund, not from the remainder of the Probate Award. The balance of the Probate Award was to be held in Attorney Vaitys' IOLTA trust account. It was agreed there would be an accounting of any other work previously appeals, performed the fee for T.A. agreement Other covered no subsequent work on the T.J. estate matter. than the anticipated other matters or any With respect to non- appellate work, the fee agreement provided that one-third of all fees would be paid to Attorney Vaitys, and two-thirds would be paid to Napierala Attorney was to Napierala. be billed Work to and performed the charges by Attorney approved by Attorney Vaitys. ¶9 On November 26, 2012, Attorney Vaitys received a check for $161,269.23 representing the settlement funds from the T.J. estate. IOLTA Attorney trust Vaitys account. deposited the He then funds in his general transferred $25,000 to the Appellate Fund trust account. ¶10 Thereafter, Attorney Vaitys failed to keep proper records of disbursements, commingled funds, improperly withdrew 5 No. 2017AP1247-D funds from both the Probate Award in his general IOLTA trust account and misrepresented billed, made from account the Appellate balances, then-prohibited Fund converted internet trust funds, banking account, improperly transactions, failed to make a proper accounting, and failed to file a timely reply brief. Essentially, Attorney Vaitys improperly took a substantial portion of T.A.'s funds and kept T.A. in the dark about the balance of funds held by Attorney Vaitys and the charges against them. ¶11 Based on the forgoing, the OLR alleged that Attorney Vaitys' handling of the T.A. matter violated a number of the rules of professional conduct, as follows: Count One: By failing, prior to November 12, 2012, to communicate in writing to T.A. the scope of the representation and the rate and basis of Attorney Vaitys' fees and expenses, Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 20:1.5(b)(1).4 4 The referee emphasized that this failure applied not only to work on the T.J. estate matter performed prior to November 12, 2012, but also to subsequent work unrelated to the appeals and not covered by the November 12, 2012 Fee Agreement. SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) provides: The scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will be responsible shall be communicated to the client in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation, except when the lawyer will charge a regularly represented client on the same basis or rate as in the past. If it is reasonably foreseeable that the total cost of representation to the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000 or less, the communication may be oral or in writing. Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or (continued) 6 No. 2017AP1247-D Count Two: By failing to clearly and accurately communicate with T.A. about the specific amounts Attorney Vaitys disbursed from T.A.'s funds, the total amount of fees Attorney Vaitys believed were due and owing, and the total amount of T.A.'s funds remaining in the trust accounts, so as to provide T.A. with an accurate understanding of Attorney Vaitys' handling of his funds and the total amount of such funds in Attorney Vaitys' possession, Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)5 and SCR 20:1.4(a)(4).6 Count Three: By converting T.A.'s funds to his own use or benefit, Attorney Vaitys violated 7 SCR 20:8.4(c). Count Four: By charging T.A. $275 per hour for services that were not reasonably billable to T.A., Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 20:1.5(a).8 expenses shall also be communicated in writing to the client. 5 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides: "A lawyer shall keep client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." the 6 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4)provides: "A lawyer shall promptly comply with reasonable requests by the client for information." 7 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 8 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides: A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses. The factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following: (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; (continued) 7 No. 2017AP1247-D Count Five: By using T.A.'s funds to pay obligations to other clients or third parties, thereby failing to safeguard and hold those funds in trust, Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).9 Count Six: By failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that Attorney Napierala's billing statements were accurate before paying the same from T.A.'s funds, thereby failing to safeguard and hold those funds in trust, Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(l). (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 relationship with the client; of the professional (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 9 SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) 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 No. 2017AP1247-D Count Seven: By failing to provide T.A. with accurate, written accountings upon request, Attorney Vaitys violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(2).10 Count Eight: By making multiple internet banking transactions related to either T.A.'s appellate trust account or his IOLTA trust account, at a time when such transactions were prohibited, Attorney Vaitys violated former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c.11 Count Nine: By failing to timely file T.A.'s reply brief or to timely file for an extension of time in which to file the reply brief, Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 20:1.3.12 Count Ten: By holding himself out as trustee of T.A.'s special needs trust, when no such trust existed and Attorney Vaitys was not trustee of any trust related to T.A., Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 20:8.4(c). Count Eleven: By failing to cooperate in the OLR's investigation of the grievance, including making misrepresentations to the OLR during the investigation and by willfully failing to fully and fairly disclose 10 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule." See S. Ct. Order 14-07, 2016 WI 21 (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016). Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2016. Former SCR 20:1.15(d)(2) provided: "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 Former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c. provided: "A lawyer shall not make deposits to or disbursements from a trust account by way of an Internet transaction." 12 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 9 No. 2017AP1247-D all facts and circumstances pertaining to his alleged misconduct after having been notified by the OLR of the matter, Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 22.03(2)13 and SCR 22.03(6),14 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).15 Count Twelve: By making misrepresentations to the OLR during the OLR's initial evaluation of these grievances, Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 20:8.4(c). ¶12 The remaining seven allegations in the complaint relate to misconduct that the OLR identified in the course of investigating the T.A. grievance. These include accounting anomalies affecting other clients, and misrepresentations that 13 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. 14 SCR 22.03(6) provides: "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)." 10 No. Attorney Vaitys misconduct. made to the OLR in an effort 2017AP1247-D to hide his The OLR audited Attorney Vaitys' banking records during the period he represented T.A. and identified at least seven occasions between February 6, 2013 and February 12, 2014 when Attorney Vaitys made other internet banking transfers from the Appellate Fund trust account or general IOLTA trust account to his business account. These transactions were prohibited at the time. to ¶13 During the investigation, Attorney Vaitys represented the OLR that billing statements were supported by contemporaneously created ledgers that he claimed to have gone over with T.A. on a monthly basis. Attorney Vaitys later admitted that these statements and ledgers were fabricated to conceal his misuse of T.A.'s funds. ¶14 fee Attorney Vaitys also misrepresented the terms of the agreement, $43,000 in claiming falsely fees that he and stating costs obtained for that it provided appellate T.A.'s work, for and authorization up to falsely for every disbursement when he had not. ¶15 procured In addition, during the investigation, Attorney Vaitys an affidavit from Attorney Napierala stating that certain funds were not converted because he and Attorney Vaitys had an agreement by which Attorney Vaitys was authorized to offset these amounts against amounts owed to him by Attorney Napierala. However, Attorney Napierala later told the OLR that while there was such an agreement, it did not exist between 11 No. November 2012 and May 2014 when the funds 2017AP1247-D at issue were converted. ¶16 As noted, T.A. was not the only client affected by Attorney Vaitys' misconduct. The OLR found irregularities in legal matters related to former clients A.H., C.S.M., Y.E., and M.B. On numerous occasions, Attorney Vaitys received funds in which clients or a third party had an interest and failed to notify them; failed to promptly deliver to clients or third parties the funds to which they were entitled; or improperly transferred funds from his trust account into his business account, recorded the transaction as something else, and then never disbursed the funds to the owner. He also deposited funds belonging to clients and third parties into his business account rather than his IOLTA trust account or failed to hold client funds in his trust accounts. For example, in regards to A.H., Attorney Vaitys deposited client funds to his business account to avoid overdrafts of his business account, thereby converting A.H.'s funds. ¶17 The C.S.M. matter involved efforts to collect on a $1,417,204.38 garnishment judgment checks, of involving which 66.7 the receipt percent of would multiple belong to C.S.M., 16.65 percent would belong to Attorney Napierala, and 16.65 percent to Attorney Vaitys. Attorney Vaitys repeatedly failed to promptly deliver received funds to C.S.M. and Attorney Napierala. Sometimes, he deposited the money in his business account and used all of the money for other purposes and never paid it to the rightful owner. On other occasions, he deposited 12 No. 2017AP1247-D funds belonging to C.S.M. and Attorney Napierala in his trust account but did not keep it there, business account or reserve line. amounts were not large——generally transferring it to his The referee observed that in the low to mid-hundred dollar range——but the occasions were frequent.16 ¶18 These allegations gave rise to seven additional counts of misconduct: Count Thirteen: By converting client and third party funds to his own use or for the use of other clients or third parties, Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 20:8.4(c). Count Fourteen: By depositing client and third party funds into his Business Account, thereby failing to safeguard and hold client and third party funds in trust, Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1). 16 Initially, it appeared that Attorney Vaitys might owe restitution to C.S.M. However, the OLR did not seek restitution in this matter, explaining that "[C.S.M.] agreed in a writing provided to OLR that Attorney Vaitys was entitled to retain the funds in question" apparently to cover his fees and costs. See OLR's Restitution Statement at 2. The referee did not reach a different conclusion or recommendation. No restitution is ordered to C.S.M. It also appeared that Attorney Vaitys might owe restitution to Y.E. The referee observed that Attorney Vaitys' trust account records showed that, of $30,000 in settlement funds, $19,000 were disbursed to Y.E. and $11,000 were retained by Attorney Vaitys, when in fact, he disbursed $15,000 and retained $15,000. By order dated May 14, 2019 we remanded this matter to the referee to determine whether Y.E. might be entitled to restitution. The referee filed a supplemental report on June 24, 2019, confirming that he did not recommend restitution with respect to Y.E. The parties clarified that the apparent discrepancy was due to an error in a ledger, not an actual conversion of funds. No restitution is ordered to Y.E. 13 No. 2017AP1247-D Count Fifteen: By depositing personal funds into his IOLTA trust account, Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(l). Count Sixteen: By causing Attorney Napierala to sign an affidavit containing false information, Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 20:8.4(c). Count Seventeen: By failing to provide clients and third parties with written notice of his receipt of funds in which they have an interest and by failing to promptly deliver to clients and third parties the funds that they were entitled to receive, Attorney Vaitys violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).17 Count Eighteen: By making multiple internet banking transactions related to the IOLTA trust account at a time when such transactions were prohibited, Attorney Vaitys violated former SCR 20:1.15(e)(4)c. Count Nineteen: By making misrepresentations to the OLR during the course of its investigation of OLR Matter No. 2016MA1162, including by presenting an affidavit to the OLR that contained a false assertion, Attorney Vaitys violated SCR 22.03(2) and SCR 22.03(6), both enforceable under the Rules of Professional Conduct via SCR 20:8.4(h). ¶19 when In addition to the allegations in the OLR complaint, Attorney Vaitys filed his petition, the OLR was investigating two additional grievances filed by clients W.A. 17 Former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provided: 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. 14 No. and M.B. matter. The W.A. grievance involved neglect 2017AP1247-D of a The OLR seeks restitution in this matter. client The M.B. grievance also involved allegations of carelessness and neglect, but the OLR did not seek restitution for M.B. ¶20 When reviewing a report and recommendation in an 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 on a de novo basis. Id. We determine the appropriate level of discipline given the particular facts of each case, independent from it. of the referee's recommendation, but benefitting In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. ¶21 the Attorney Vaitys admits that he cannot defend against allegations of the complaint or the pending grievances, explains that he is represented by counsel and understands the rights he is giving up, and agrees that his law license should be revoked and that he should be ordered to make restitution to T.A., to Attorney Napierala, Attorney Vaitys' petition. Attorney Vaitys' petition and to W.A. The OLR supports The referee determined, based on and the OLR's response, by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, that Attorney Vaitys has engaged in serious misconduct, and he recommends that we accept the petition, order restitution, license to practice law. 15 and revoke Attorney Vaitys' No. ¶22 this The matter referee observes is simply not accounting, but the "way regard a vulnerable that the what is exceedingly 2017AP1247-D disturbing about careless trust in which Attorney Vaitys client as a 'cash seemed cow'——someone to whose settlement funds could be used for legal fees without regard to whether the legal services were worth it." The referee cites several cases in support of his conclusion that revocation is appropriate professional here, despite discipline. Attorney See, Vaitys' e.g., In lack re of prior Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mularski, 2010 WI 113, 329 Wis. 2d 273, 787 N.W.2d 834. ¶23 Conversion of client funds may warrant revocation even where, as here, the attorney does not have a prior history of discipline. Wynn, 2014 See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against WI 17, 353 Wis. 2d 132, 845 N.W.2d 663 (granting petition for consensual license revocation filed by an attorney who admitted he used his law practice to misappropriate over three-quarters of a million dollars from dozens of clients); Mularski, 329 Wis. 2d 273. ¶24 Like Attorney Vaitys, Attorney Mularski had not been subject to prior discipline, but he used client money for his own purposes, commingled funds, made misrepresentations, fabricated documents in an effort to exonerate himself, and his trust account was in utter disarray. He was charged with 13 counts of misconduct in three client matters and was subject to eight pending grievance investigations. We granted his petition for consensual license revocation and revoked his law license. 16 ¶25 The seriousness of Attorney No. 2017AP1247-D Vaitys' misconduct demonstrates the need to revoke his law license to protect the public, the courts, and the legal system from the repetition of misconduct, to impress upon Attorney Vaitys the seriousness of his misconduct, and to deter other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910. have also specifically observed that "clients that We are vulnerable especially require protection from those who abuse their professional position to enrich themselves." In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Krombach, 2005 WI 170, ¶39, 286 Wis. 2d 589, Proceedings 707 N.W.2d 146 Against (citing Gilbert, In 227 re Disciplinary Wis. 2d 444, 474, 595 N.W.2d 715 (1999)). ¶26 We grant Attorney Vaitys' petition for revocation by consent. See recommendation SCR 22.19. regarding We also accept restitution, as supplemental report filed June 24, 2019. ordered to pay $69,867.46 to T.A. consistent with the terms of the referee's modified by his Attorney Vaitys is This amount of restitution is Attorney Vaitys' petition for revocation by consent, and the OLR's restitution statement filed January 10, 2019. Attorney Vaitys is also ordered to pay $2,130.05 to Attorney Thomas Napierala, and $100 to W.A. ¶27 this Finally, we direct Attorney Vaitys to pay the costs of proceeding which are $4,703.85 as of July 10, 2019. Attorney Vaitys has provided no reason for this court to deviate from its usual practice of imposing full costs. 17 SCR 22.24(1m). No. ¶28 consent IT is IS ORDERED granted and that the the petition license of for Thomas 2017AP1247-D revocation by D. to Vaitys practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this order. ¶29 already IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not done so, Thomas D. Vaitys 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. ¶30 to pay IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas D. Vaitys is ordered $69,867.46 to T.A., Napierala, and $100 to W.A. his former clients T.A. $2,130.05 to Attorney Thomas Thomas D. Vaitys shall reimburse and W.A. before satisfying his restitution obligation to Attorney Napierala. ¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a condition of any future petition for reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, Thomas D. Vaitys will be required to prove that he has made restitution to or settled all claims of all persons injured or harmed by his misconduct, including reimbursement to the State Bar of Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection for all payments made by that fund, or, if restitution has not been made, Thomas D. Vaitys will need to explain his failure or inability to do so. ¶32 See SCR 22.29(4m). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Thomas D. Vaitys shall pay the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $4,703.85 as of July 10, 2019. 18 No. ¶33 2017AP1247-D IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer Regulation. 19 No. 1 2017AP1247-D

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.