Wisconsin 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
Wisconsin
Lawyer
