Milwaukee attorney wants leniency from court in disciplinary proceeding

Listen to this article

A Milwaukee attorney who faces a three-year suspension is asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to dole out less punishment than what lawyer-regulators are asking for and what a referee might recommend.

The Office of Lawyer Regulation filed a complaint against the Milwaukee attorney Thomas Vaitys in June alleging 19 charges of misconduct arising from his representation of a single client in a Milwaukee County estate matter.

The OLR alleges that Vaitys fabricated records to hide the fact that he had misused money that was supposed to be held in trust, failed to file briefs in a timely manner to the state Court of Appeals and failed to explain in writing the reasons for his fee and the scope of his representation.

Vaitys and another attorney, Thomas Napierala, had been hired to represent the client in the matter. Napierala faces a public reprimand for allegations that he improperly billed the client.

Vaitys filed a preliminary answer in July, denying all the charges in the OLR’s complaint. He also asked for permission to file an amended answer through his attorney, Michael Torphy of Brookfield, and for an extension to file that answer.

He filed an amended answer on Nov. 30, admitting to some of the OLR’s factual allegations, while denying others. Vaitys noted in the filing that he keeps an office in Milwaukee, though his firm, Vaitys Law, has been dissolved. He wrote that he lives in California, where he has been running a family business because the operator had a severe illness.

In the filing, Vaitys admitted in full to six counts of misconduct and admitted in part two counts of misconduct.

He admitted, for instance, to failing to provide accurate written accounts to a client when the client requested them and making online banking transactions from trust accounts. Until recently, such transactions were prohibited by Supreme Court rules.

He also admitted that although he may have failed to promptly provide written notice to clients of receiving money, as well as to third parties with an interest in that money, he always notified clients about receiving the money, just not always quickly or within a customary time period.

Vaitys’ affirmative defenses stated that the alleged misconduct occurred immediately after his divorce, when he was “struggling emotionally,” and that those circumstances hindered his ability to maintain high standards of professional conduct. He acknowledged that he, in some instances, failed to meet those standards.

In his amended answer, Vaitys requested the Wisconsin Supreme Court be more lenient in doling out discipline than both the OLR and the referee in the case had been.

Rick Esenberg, whom the court appointed July, will preside over a hearing on the matter and submit a report that includes a recommendation for discipline or dismissal.

The high court will review that report, which Vaitys may choose to challenge, and make a final decision in the matter.