Wisconsin Lawyer: Lawyer Discipline:

State Bar of Wisconsin

Sign In

Top Link Bar

    Wisconsin LawyerWisconsin Lawyer

News & Pubs Search

Advanced

    Lawyer Discipline


    Share This:

    Wisconsin LawyerWisconsin Lawyer
    Vol. 78, No. 11 November 2005

    Lawyer Discipline

    The Office of Lawyer Regulation (formerly known as the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility), an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and component of the lawyer regulation system, assists the court in carrying out its constitutional responsibility to supervise the practice of law and protect the public from misconduct by persons practicing law in Wisconsin. The Office of Lawyer Regulation has offices located at Suite 315, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703, and Suite 300, 342 N. Water St., Milwaukee, WI 53202. Toll-free telephone: (877) 315-6941.

    Hearing to Reinstate Jenelle Glasbrenner

    On Dec. 19, 2005, at 10 a.m., a public hearing will be held before referee Judith Sperling-Newton at The Law Center for Children & Families, 434 S. Yellowstone Dr., Madison, Wis., on the petition of Jenelle Glasbrenner, Madison, to reinstate her law license. Any interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the petition.

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Glasbrenner's license for six months, effective April 22, 2005, for submitting bills to the State Public Defender (SPD) that did not reflect the actual time she had spent, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c), and billing unreasonable fees to the SPD on multiple occasions, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(a). Glasbrenner also had been charged with misdemeanor theft by fraud based on her overbilling. Glasbrenner repaid the entire overbilled amount to the SPD.

    A more detailed description of Glasbrenner's misconduct is set forth in Disciplinary Proceedings Against Glasbrenner, 2005 WI 50, 280 Wis. 2d 37, 695 N.W.2d 291.

    To be reinstated, Glasbrenner must substantiate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that, among other things, she has not practiced law during the suspension; she has maintained competence and learning in the law by attendance at identified educational activities; her conduct since the suspension has been exemplary and above reproach; she has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed on members of the bar and will act in conformity with the standards; she can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others, to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence, and in general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of the courts; she has fully described all of her business activities during the suspension; and she has made restitution to or settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by her misconduct.

    Glasbrenner also must demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that she has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin, that her resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest, and that she has fully complied with the terms of the suspension order and with the requirements of SCR 22.26.

    Relevant information may be provided to or obtained from Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) investigator Kathryn Sievers or OLR assistant litigation counsel Julie M. Falk, 110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI 53703; or phone toll-free, (877) 315-6941.

    Top of page

    Hearing to Reinstate Mark A. Sostarich

    On Dec. 21, 2005, at 9 a.m., a public hearing will be held before referee Kim Peterson at the law offices of Halling & Cayo, 320 E. Buffalo St., #700, Milwaukee, Wis., on the petition of Mark A. Sostarich, Milwaukee, to reinstate his law license. Any interested person may appear at the hearing and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the petition.

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Sostarich's license for 18 months, effective May 18, 2004, for professional misconduct consisting of engaging in conduct resulting in his conviction of one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Sostarich committed a criminal act that reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(b). A more detailed description of Sostarich's misconduct is set forth in Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sostarich, 2005 WI 97, 698 N.W.2d 711.

    To be reinstated, Sostarich must substantiate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that, among other things, he has not practiced law during the suspension; he has maintained competence and learning in the law by attendance at identified educational activities; his conduct since the suspension has been exemplary and above reproach; he has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the standards that are imposed on members of the bar and will act in conformity with the standards; he can safely be recommended to the legal profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit to be consulted by others, to represent them and otherwise act in matters of trust and confidence, and in general to aid in the administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of the courts; he has fully described all of his business activities during the suspension; and he has made restitution to or settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by his misconduct.

    Sostarich also must demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin, that his resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest, and that he has fully complied with the terms of the suspension order and with the requirements of SCR 22.26.

    Relevant information may be provided to or obtained from OLR investigator Sarah Peterson or OLR assistant litigation counsel Julie M. Falk, 110 E. Main St., Suite 315, Madison, WI 53703; or phone toll-free, (877) 315-6941.

    Top of page

    Public Reprimand of Barbara A. Cadwell

    The OLR and Barbara A. Cadwell, 52, White Lake, Wis., agreed to the imposition of a public reprimand pursuant to SCR 22.09(1). A referee appointed by the supreme court thereafter approved the agreement and issued the public reprimand on Sept. 4, 2005, in accordance with SCR 22.09(3).

    The reprimand is based on two matters brought to the OLR's attention by the SPD, and involves Cadwell's conduct as appointed appellate counsel for two clients.

    Cadwell twice violated SCR 20:1.2(a) by failing to consult with either client before deciding to file a no-merit report. With respect to each client, Cadwell violated SCR 20:1.3 by failing to respond to numerous requests from the SPD attorney manager for information about the status of the cases, and by failing, in both matters, to timely file either a no-merit report or a request for an extension. Cadwell also violated SCR 20:1.4(a) in each client matter by failing to respond to either client's numerous requests for information, and, in the second matter, by failing to inform the client about an important court order. In each of the client matters, Cadwell made false statements to the appellate court regarding the no-merit reports, contrary to SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).

    Additionally, with respect to the first client, Cadwell violated SCR 20:1.4(b) by failing to explain to the client the effect of a no-merit report and that he would have an opportunity to respond to it. In the first matter Cadwell also violated SCR 22.03(6) by making misrepresentations in a disclosure to the OLR about the sequence of events with respect to the no-merit report. In the second client matter, Cadwell told the client, shortly before a court deadline, that her representation had been terminated, and then allowed the deadline to pass without seeking an extension for the client, thereby failing to protect a client's interests on termination, contrary to SCR 20:1.16(d).

    Top of page

    Disciplinary Proceedings against Clay F. Teasdale

    On Sept. 13, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revoked the law license of Clay F. Teasdale, effective the date of the order, for 75 counts of misconduct involving 21 separate client matters and one matter stemming from an inquiry made by a circuit court judge. The court also ordered that Teasdale make restitution totaling $600 to three separate clients and that he reimburse the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in the amount of $2,375 for claims the fund approved to reimburse three of Teasdale's clients for unearned fees. The court also ordered Teasdale to pay the $1,446.51 costs of the proceeding. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Teasdale, 2005 WI 137.

    The court order noted that all 75 allegations of misconduct involved matters in which Teasdale continued to practice law despite being under suspension, failed to inform his clients of his suspension, and then subsequently failed to cooperate with the OLR's investigation of the matters.

    The court adopted the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law as follows: Teasdale failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, violating SCR 20:1.3, in three client matters; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, violating SCR 20:1.4(a), in 11 client matters; failed to prepare a written contingent fee agreement, violating SCR 20:1.5(c), in five client matters; failed to hold in trust, separate from his own property, the property of clients that was in his possession in connection with the representation, violating SCR 20:1.15(a), in three client matters; failed on termination of representation to surrender property and papers to which the client was entitled, violating SCR 20:1.16(d), in 10 client matters; failed to cooperate with the OLR's investigation, violating SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.03(6), and SCR 20:8.4(f), in 21 client matters; failed to comply with the requirements of a suspended attorney as outlined in SCR 22.26(1)(a)-(c) and SCR 20:8.4(f), in 17 client matters; and failed to comply with the requirements of a suspended or revoked attorney as outlined in SCR 22.26(2) and SCR 20:8.4(f), in five client matters.

    The court also noted that the referee commented on several aggravating circumstances, including Teasdale's prior discipline consisting of a consensual public reprimand imposed against him in 1995, for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, failing to comply with a client's reasonable request for information, and failing to cooperate with the investigation; and a court public reprimand imposed on Feb. 16, 2005, for misconduct consisting of failing to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request and failing to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of a matter.

    Top of page




To view or add comment, Login