Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski

Citation: 2004 WI 30

Docket Number: 2003AP001697-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2004-03-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
2004 WI 30 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-1697-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski, 
Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski,  
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CAVENDISH-
SOSINSKI 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 26, 2004   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2004 WI 30 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  03-1697-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski, 
Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 26, 2004 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski to 
practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for nine months as 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
2 
 
discipline for professional misconduct.1  That misconduct as 
alleged in the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) complaint 
involved 25 alleged violations of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct involving 9 separate client matters.  The misconduct 
allegations include Cavendish-Sosinski's pattern of inattention 
to and failure to act with respect to client matters and to 
respond in a timely and sufficient manner to the OLR inquiries 
regarding her alleged misconduct.  The pattern consisted of 
Cavendish-Sosinski's repeated violation of the attorney's duty 
to: (1) act with reasonable diligence as required by SCR 20:1.3; 
(2) keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter and to properly reply to reasonable requests for 
information as required by SCR 20:1.4(a); (3) comply with 
investigations of misconduct by the OLR as required under SCR 
22.03(2), as well as the district investigative committee's 
inquiries as required under SCR 22.04(1); (4) failure to act to 
protect a client's interest as required by SCR 20:1.16(d); and 
(5) willful failure to provide information relevant to an OLR 
investigation as required by SCR 22.03(6).   
                                                 
1 On December 16, 2003, this court granted the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation's (OLR) motion to temporarily suspend the 
license of Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski to practice law in 
this state pursuant to SCR 22.03(4), for her willful failure to 
respond 
or 
cooperate 
with 
the 
OLR's 
investigation 
into 
allegations of her misconduct.  Cavendish-Sosinski filed no 
response to the motion or to this court's order requiring her to 
show cause, in writing, why the OLR's motion should not be 
granted.  Accordingly, Cavendish-Sosinski's license to practice 
law was ordered temporarily suspended as of December 16, 2003, 
and until further order of the court.  Her license remains under 
suspension.  
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
3 
 
¶2 
In addition to recommending that Cavendish-Sosinski's 
license to practice law be suspended for nine months, the 
referee further recommended that prior to any reinstatement, 
Cavendish-Sosinski must demonstrate that her depression or 
mental health problems that might impair her ability to practice 
law are under sufficient control to permit her to practice law 
in accordance with accepted professional standards; also, that 
Cavendish-Sosinski 
pay 
the 
costs 
of 
these 
disciplinary 
proceedings now totaling $1373.77.  
¶3 
We determine that the misconduct as established in 
this proceeding warrants a suspension of Cavendish-Sosinski's 
license for nine months.  We also determine that prior to any 
reinstatement, Cavendish-Sosinski shall demonstrate that her 
depression or mental health problems that might impair her 
ability to practice law are sufficiently controlled to permit 
her to practice law in accordance with accepted professional 
standards; and finally, we determine that Cavendish-Sosinski 
shall pay the costs of these disciplinary proceedings in the 
amount specified.  
¶4 
The respondent, Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski, was 
admitted to practice law in this state on January 18, 1994, and 
has practiced in Pewaukee.  She has never previously been the 
subject of a disciplinary proceeding except, as noted in 
footnote one, her license has been temporarily suspended for her 
failure to cooperate in the OLR's investigation of these alleged 
disciplinary infractions.  Her license remains temporarily 
suspended pursuant to this court's December 16, 2003, order.   
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
4 
 
¶5 
The OLR filed a complaint in this court on June 26, 
2003, alleging 25 violations by the respondent of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct involving 9 separate client matters.  After 
the complaint was filed, Attorney Richard M. Esenberg was 
appointed to act as referee in this matter.  Referee Esenberg 
subsequently filed his referee's report detailing the OLR's 
attempts and repeated failures to contact and serve Cavendish-
Sosinski who had informed the OLR that she was abandoning her 
practice and moving to Louisiana.  Although many of the attempts 
to serve Cavendish-Sosinski with the various documents related 
to this 
disciplinary proceeding proved 
futile, 
ultimately 
service of the OLR complaint and order to answer was completed 
on July 29, 2003.   
¶6 
After 
Cavendish-Sosinski 
failed 
to 
answer 
the 
complaint or otherwise appear within 20 days as required by SCR 
22.14(1), the OLR filed a motion for default judgment which was 
served by mail on Cavendish-Sosinski at her last known address.  
Again, she did not respond to that motion, nor did she then 
answer the complaint or appear in the action.  Because of the 
numerous futile attempts to engage Cavendish-Sosinski in this 
disciplinary proceeding, the referee recommended that she be 
found in default and that the allegations of the OLR complaint 
be deemed to be established.   
¶7 
Neither the OLR nor the respondent has appealed from 
the referee's report.   
¶8 
We agree that Cavendish-Sosinski is in default and 
accordingly, we deem the referee's findings to be established 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
5 
 
and supported by the allegations in the OLR complaint.  See In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jackson, 221 Wis. 2d 616, 
585 N.W.2d 151 (1998). The complaint's allegation of 25 
violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the rules 
concerning lawyer regulation will be briefly discussed.   
CLIENT J.V.P.——COUNTS 1-2 
¶9 
Cavendish-Sosinski was appointed in July 2000 in 
federal court to represent J.V.P. in a habeas corpus matter.  
Respondent 
and 
J.V.P. 
subsequently 
disagreed 
about 
the 
representation and the respondent's failure to communicate with 
him.  J.V.P.'s initial complaints to the OLR concerning these 
problems were dismissed but that investigation was subsequently 
reopened focusing on Cavendish-Sosinski's alleged failures to 
communicate with J.V.P. after March 2001.   
¶10 J.V.P. wrote to Cavendish-Sosinski on April 11, 2001, 
asking her questions about his case, but she did not respond.  
Then, on April 30, 2001, a staff member at the Wisconsin 
Department of Corrections (DOC) attempted to set up a telephone 
conference between Cavendish-Sosinski and J.V.P.; although the 
DOC staff member left a message and number for Cavendish-
Sosinski to call, she did not return his call.  On May 2, 2001, 
the staff person again tried calling her, but Cavendish-
Sosinski's voice mailbox was full.  
¶11 On May 21, 2001, on June 19, 2001, and again on June 
26, 2001, an OLR staff member wrote to Cavendish-Sosinski 
regarding her failure to respond to J.V.P.'s request for 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
6 
 
information.  Cavendish-Sosinski failed to respond to the OLR 
investigative letters.  
¶12 On July 26, 2001, a fourth OLR investigative letter 
was sent to Cavendish-Sosinski.  This time she responded in a 
letter dated August 7, 2001, stating that she had not answered 
J.V.P.'s April 11, 2001, letter because "I was trying to 
professionally deal with his blatant accusation that I had lied 
to him in this office."   
¶13 The OLR subsequently referred this matter to the 
district committee for investigation. On May 23, 2002, and again 
on June 5, 2002, the district committee investigator wrote to 
Cavendish-Sosinski requesting that she contact him; on May 29, 
2002, the investigator attempted to contact her by telephone.  
Cavendish-Sosinski did not respond to these letters or return 
the phone call; she did not cooperate with the district 
committee's investigation until after she had personally been 
served with a notice to appear.   
¶14 Based on this course of conduct, the referee concluded 
that the respondent had committed the violations asserted in 
Counts 1 and 2 of the complaint.  Specifically, the referee 
concluded 
that 
Cavendish-Sosinski's 
conduct 
constituted 
a 
failure to respond to reasonable requests by a client for 
information, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a) and failure to 
cooperate with an OLR investigation and with a district 
committee, in violation of SCR 22.03(2) and 22.04(1).  
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
7 
 
CLIENT J.A.E.——COUNTS 3-5 
¶15 The OLR complaint alleged that Cavendish-Sosinski 
represented J.A.E. in a matter in Waukesha Municipal Court.  
Cavendish-Sosinski informed J.A.E. on August 9, 2000, that 
J.A.E. need not appear at a pretrial conference then set for 
August 21, 2000.  That pretrial was subsequently rescheduled for 
August 23, 2000, but Cavendish-Sosinski was not notified of the 
new date.  
¶16 When neither J.A.E. or Cavendish-Sosinski appeared at 
the rescheduled pretrial conference, a default judgment was 
entered against J.A.E. in the Waukesha Municipal Court.  On 
September 6, 2000, Cavendish-Sosinski asked the court to reopen 
the default judgment asserting lack of notice.  That request was 
granted and a new pretrial was scheduled for October 10, 2000. 
¶17 On September 20, 2000, Cavendish-Sosinski wrote to 
J.A.E. informing her of that new date, but telling J.A.E. that 
she need not appear.  Cavendish-Sosinski also informed J.A.E. 
that informal negotiations were ongoing with the city attorney. 
¶18 Neither 
Cavendish-Sosinski 
nor 
her 
client 
J.A.E. 
appeared at that October 10, 2000, pretrial; as a result, a 
default judgment was again entered against J.A.E. who had not 
appeared based on the respondent's information.  Cavendish-
Sosinski did not inform J.A.E. of that default judgment. 
¶19 The OLR complaint further alleged that during her 
representation of J.A.E. Cavendish-Sosinski failed to respond to 
various requests for information about the status of the case.  
Cavendish-Sosinski later explained her failure on the ground 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
8 
 
that she had no legal assistant and her office systems were in 
disarray at the time.  
¶20 In April of 2001 J.A.E. filed a grievance with the OLR 
against Cavendish-Sosinski.  The OLR staff on April 24, 2001, 
wrote a letter to Cavendish-Sosinski requesting her written 
response to the J.A.E. grievance.  Cavendish-Sosinski did not 
respond nor did she respond to a second OLR request sent to her 
on May 24, 2001.  After personal service of the OLR's third 
request requiring a response by June 14, 2001, Cavendish-
Sosinski finally responded on June 22, 2001.  Thereafter, 
however, she failed to respond to two additional letters from 
OLR staff seeking supplemental information.  
¶21 After the matter was referred to the OLR's district 
committee, the district committee's investigator on May 23, 
2002, and June 5, 2002, wrote to Cavendish-Sosinski requesting 
that she contact him; on May 29, 2002, the investigator also 
attempted to contact her by telephone.  Cavendish-Sosinski did 
not respond to the investigator's letters or to his phone call; 
she 
did 
not 
cooperate 
with 
the 
district 
committee's 
investigation until after she had been personally served with a 
notice to appear.   
¶22 Based on this course of conduct, the referee concluded 
that respondent had committed the violations alleged in Counts 
3, 4, and 5 of the OLR complaint.  Specifically, the referee 
concluded 
that 
Cavendish-Sosinski's 
conduct 
violated 
the 
attorney's duty to act with reasonable diligence as prescribed 
by SCR 20:1.3; constituted a failure to keep a client informed 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
9 
 
as required by SCR 20:1.4(a); and was a failure to cooperate 
with an OLR investigation and with a district committee as 
required by SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6) and SCR 22.04(1).  
CLIENT E.B.——COUNTS 6-8 
¶23 The 
OLR 
complaint 
alleged 
that 
in 
March 
1998 
Cavendish-Sosinski was appointed by the state public defender 
(SPD) to represent E.B. in a postconviction criminal matter.  
Between April 1998 and January 1999 the respondent failed to 
meet with E.B. even though she had repeatedly promised she would 
do so once she had obtained his court file and other information 
and documents.  Cavendish-Sosinski later scheduled a personal 
meeting with E.B. for January 1999 but then cancelled it, citing 
the need for more information. 
¶24 Although Cavendish-Sosinski had written to E.B. 11 
times after her appointment in March 1998 to April 27, 2000, 
most of those letters were in direct response to the state 
public defender's demands that she write to E.B.  On May 10, 
2000, in response to one of those SPD demands, Cavendish-
Sosinski had an hour-long telephone conference with E.B.  That 
was the first and only time she ever talked with E.B.  
¶25 Between January 2001 and August 2001 the SPD's office 
wrote several messages to and left several telephone messages 
for Cavendish-Sosinski; however, she called back only once and 
then only left a message.  In August 2001 the SPD's office wrote 
to Cavendish-Sosinski informing her that she was being replaced 
in the E.B. matter, that steps were being taken to decertify her 
from further SPD appellate appointments and that the matter 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
10 
 
would be referred to the OLR.  E.B. had, however, in June 2001 
already filed his own grievance with the OLR concerning 
Cavendish-Sosinski.  After E.B.'s grievance, the OLR wrote to 
Cavendish-Sosinski three times asking her to respond and supply 
information about the situation.  She did not respond until she 
had been personally served with the OLR's fourth letter 
requesting information.  In her response to that fourth request, 
Cavendish-Sosinski admitted that her representation in the E.B. 
matter had been "lax"; she explained that she had been suffering 
from depression. 
¶26 E.B.'s grievance was subsequently referred to the 
OLR's district committee for investigation.  The district's 
investigator wrote to Cavendish-Sosinski on May 23, 2002, and 
again on June 5, 2002, requesting that she contact him.  In 
addition, on May 29, 2002, the investigator attempted to contact 
her by telephone.  Again, Cavendish-Sosinski did not respond to 
the letters or phone call, and did not cooperate with the 
district committee's investigation until after she had been 
personally served with a notice to appear.  
¶27 Based on this course of conduct, the referee concluded 
that the respondent had committed the violations as alleged in 
Counts 6, 7, and 8 of the OLR complaint.  Specifically, the 
referee concluded that Cavendish-Sosinski's conduct constituted 
a failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3; a failure to promptly respond to 
reasonable requests for information, in violation of SCR 
20:1.4(a); and a failure to cooperate with an OLR investigation 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
11 
 
and a district committee's request for information, in violation 
of SCR 22.03(2) and 22.04(1). 
CLIENT R.G.——COUNT 9 
¶28 The OLR complaint alleged that on July 25, 2000, R.G. 
retained Cavendish-Sosinski to represent him in a criminal 
matter.  Approximately two months later, however, R.G. retained 
successor counsel.  Then, on August 22, 2001, R.G. filed a 
grievance with the OLR against Cavendish-Sosinski alleging 
professional misconduct.  The OLR staff, on two separate 
occasions, requested that Cavendish-Sosinski supply information 
regarding the R.G. matter but she failed to do so.  On November 
14, 2001, she finally responded to the R.G. grievance as 
requested by the OLR.   
¶29 Thereafter, the R.G. matter was referred to the 
district committee for investigation.  Again, Cavendish-Sosinski 
did not respond to the first two letters and telephone call from 
the district's investigator; and again she did not cooperate 
with the district committee until she had been personally served 
with a notice to appear.   
¶30 Based on this course of conduct, the referee concluded 
that the respondent had committed the violations as alleged in 
Count 9 of the OLR complaint.  Specifically, the referee found 
that Cavendish-Sosinski's conduct violated the attorney's duty 
to cooperate with an OLR and district committee investigation as 
required by SCR 22.03(2) and 22.04(1).  
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
12 
 
CLIENT R.T.——COUNTS 10-13 
¶31 The 
OLR 
complaint 
alleged 
that 
in 
April 
2001 
Cavendish-Sosinski was appointed by the SPD to represent R.T. on 
his appeal from a felony conviction.  Cavendish-Sosinski 
initially made several contacts with R.T. promising to visit him 
to personally discuss his case.  R.T., who was incarcerated, 
then 
made 
several 
attempts 
to 
contact 
Cavendish-Sosinski 
including several telephone calls.  He also sent nine or ten 
letters to her to which she did not respond.  Although R.T. 
could only place collect calls from prison, Cavendish-Sosinski 
instructed her legal assistant not to accept any collect 
telephone calls.  
¶32 Beginning on July 10, 2001, R.T. made several requests 
to Cavendish-Sosinski for his transcripts; however, she never 
provided the transcripts to him. Although Cavendish-Sosinski 
claimed that she had ordered the transcripts, she never followed 
up with the court reporter to obtain the transcripts in a timely 
manner.  As a result of her failure to file the transcripts with 
the court of appeals in a timely manner, R.T.'s right to appeal 
was thwarted.   
¶33 R.T. filed a grievance with the OLR.  The OLR staff 
subsequently sent Cavendish-Sosinski three requests that she 
respond to the R.T. grievance; she did not respond to any of the 
OLR's requests.  After a fourth request was personally served on 
her, she finally submitted a response to R.T.'s grievance. 
¶34 Subsequently, the R.T. matter was referred to the 
OLR's district committee for investigation.  The district's 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
13 
 
investigator wrote two letters to Cavendish-Sosinski requesting 
that she contact him and he also made one attempt to contact her 
by telephone.  Cavendish-Sosinski did not respond to the letters 
or the telephone call; she only cooperated with the district 
committee's investigation after she had been personally served 
with a notice to appear.   
¶35 The referee, describing the R.T. grievance as "the 
most serious matter" in the OLR complaint, concluded that 
Cavendish-Sosinski had committed the violations as alleged in 
Counts 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the OLR complaint.  Specifically, 
the referee found that Cavendish-Sosinski's conduct constituted 
a failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in a 
client matter as required by SCR 20:1.3; a failure to respond to 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information 
as 
required 
by 
SCR 
20:1.4(a); a failure to protect a client's interest as required 
by SCR 20:1.16(d); and a failure to cooperate with an OLR 
investigation and with the district committee as required under 
SCR 22.03(2) and 22.04(1).  
CLIENT L.C.——COUNTS 14-16 
¶36 The OLR complaint alleged that in late summer of 2000 
L.C. hired Cavendish-Sosinski to represent him after a bench 
warrant for L.C.'s arrest had been issued.  Cavendish-Sosinski 
thereafter sent L.C. a retainer agreement and obtained from him 
payment of an additional $750 fee telling L.C. that she would 
attempt to quash the warrant.  However, Cavendish-Sosinski 
thereafter took no action in the L.C. matter.  
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
14 
 
¶37 L.C. attempted to contact her on several occasions to 
learn the status of his case but was unsuccessful.  Cavendish-
Sosinski did not speak with L.C. until March of 2001.  L.C. 
wrote to her in April and June 2001 informing her that the 
continued existence of the bench warrant was interfering with 
his livelihood as an over-the-road trucker, and with his plans 
to marry and have his new wife join him in the trucking 
business. 
¶38 L.C. subsequently filed a grievance against Cavendish-
Sosinski with the OLR in January of 2002; he later submitted 
written 
materials 
substantiating 
his 
allegations 
against 
Cavendish-Sosinski.  
¶39 Thereafter, Cavendish-Sosinski failed to respond to 
two OLR requests for information concerning L.C.'s grievance.  
Finally, she acknowledged that she had done no work on the L.C. 
matter and attributed that failure to her depression.  The 
respondent thereafter refunded L.C. the $750 fee he had paid 
her.  
¶40 Based on this course of conduct, the referee concluded 
that the respondent had committed the violations as alleged in 
Counts 14, 15, and 16 of the OLR complaint.  Specifically, the 
referee concluded that Cavendish-Sosinski had failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3; had failed to promptly respond to 
reasonable requests for information and to keep her client 
informed about the status of the matter, in violation of SCR 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
15 
 
20:1.4(a); 
and 
had 
failed 
to 
cooperate 
with 
an 
OLR 
investigation, in violation of SCR 22.03(2). 
CLIENT A.J.——COUNTS 17-19 
¶41 The OLR complaint alleged that on November 8, 2001, 
A.J. retained Cavendish-Sosinski to represent him after he had 
been charged with a Town of Brookfield ordinance violation and 
two Waukesha County misdemeanor criminal counts.  A.J.'s mother 
paid $500 to Cavendish-Sosinski as an initial retainer to 
represent him.  Cavendish-Sosinski sent notices of the retainer 
to each court and filed discovery requests.   
¶42 On December 17, 2001, Cavendish-Sosinski told A.J.'s 
mother that A.J. did not have to be present for a hearing in the 
Town of Brookfield Municipal Court scheduled for December 20, 
2001; as a result, A.J. did not attend that hearing nor did 
Cavendish-Sosinski.  On December 22, 2001, A.J. received notice 
that a default judgment had been entered against him for his 
failure to appear at the December 20 hearing. 
¶43 The OLR complaint further alleged that on December 27, 
2001, a hearing was scheduled in the Waukesha County cases.  
When A.J.'s mother called Cavendish-Sosinski for the location 
for 
that 
hearing, 
Cavendish-Sosinski 
told 
her 
that 
an 
adjournment had been requested and granted.  Because of the 
experience with the prior default judgment in the municipal 
court matter, A.J. called the Waukesha Court to confirm that the 
hearing had been adjourned.  A.J. was informed that the matter 
was still on the court's calendar and that no adjournment had 
been requested or granted.  A.J. appeared at the hearing pro se 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
16 
 
and was then told that had he not appeared, a bench warrant for 
his arrest would have been issued.  The court rescheduled that 
hearing to January 8, 2002.  
¶44 On December 27, 2001, the day of the Waukesha County 
hearing, the court's calendar clerk called Cavendish-Sosinski.  
Cavendish-Sosinski told the clerk that she believed that that 
hearing had been adjourned.  Cavendish-Sosinski thereafter left 
on a trip to Louisiana but did not check the court file in order 
to confirm whether or not A.J.'s hearing had been adjourned.  
¶45 On January 7, 2002, A.J. retained new counsel.  By 
certified letter, A.J. requested a refund of his retainer from 
Cavendish-Sosinski and she thereafter withdrew as his counsel.  
¶46 On January 14, 2002, A.J. and his mother filed a 
grievance with the OLR, and subsequently provided further 
written materials to substantiate their allegations against 
Cavendish-Sosinski.  On April 3, 2002, the OLR staff requested 
Cavendish-Sosinski's written response to A.J.'s grievance; she 
failed to respond.  Then on April 29, 2002, the OLR staff, via 
first-class, certified mail, sent Cavendish-Sosinski a second 
request for a response noting that she had failed to respond to 
the OLR's initial letter.  Cavendish-Sosinski's secretary signed 
the certified receipt on May 7, 2002; however, again Cavendish-
Sosinski did not respond to the OLR's request.  
¶47 Subsequently, on May 13, 2002, the OLR staff, via 
certified letter and personal service, requested that Cavendish-
Sosinski submit her written response, in person, at the OLR 
offices on May 20, 2002. Instead, Cavendish-Sosinski submitted a 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
17 
 
response via fax on that date.  She also sent A.J. a copy of her 
response along with a $500 fee refund check.  That refund was 
not made until May 21, 2002.  Because Cavendish-Sosinski had not 
refunded 
A.J.'s 
fee 
immediately 
upon 
termination 
of 
the 
representation, A.J. had difficulty paying successor counsel. 
¶48 Based on this course of conduct, the referee concluded 
that the respondent had committed the violations as alleged in 
Counts 17, 18, and 19 of the OLR complaint.  Specifically, the 
referee concluded that Cavendish-Sosinski had failed to act with 
reasonable promptness and diligence, in violation of SCR 20:1.3; 
had failed to protect a client's interest, in violation of SCR 
20:1.16(d); 
and 
had 
failed 
to 
cooperate 
with 
an 
OLR 
investigation, in violation of SCR 22.03(2).  
CLIENT S.H.——COUNTS 20-21 
¶49 The OLR complaint alleged that in December of 2001 
S.H. retained Cavendish-Sosinski to represent her on a Town of 
Lisbon municipal charge, and that on December 20, 2001, S.H. 
paid Cavendish-Sosinski a retainer of $750.   
¶50 Subsequently, Cavendish-Sosinski appeared in court on 
behalf of S.H. on two occasions and forwarded to S.H. copies of 
relevant police reports.  S.H. also met with Cavendish-Sosinski 
several times including a meeting at Cavendish-Sosinski's office 
on March 11, 2002.  
¶51 In April 2002, S.H. received a letter from the 
municipal court stating that a default judgment had been entered 
against her for her failure to appear at a scheduled March 15, 
2002, hearing.  Thereafter, S.H. and her husband repeatedly 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
18 
 
tried to contact Cavendish-Sosinski about the default judgment; 
Cavendish-Sosinski never returned their calls.  
¶52 On May 24, 2002, S.H. sent a certified letter asking 
Cavendish-Sosinski why she had not appeared on S.H.'s behalf at 
the March 15, 2002, hearing.  In that letter, S.H. stated that 
she had tried to call Cavendish-Sosinski several times regarding 
the status of the case including its disposition, but that 
Cavendish-Sosinski failed to return any of the calls.  S.H. also 
noted that Cavendish-Sosinski had told her that she (Cavendish-
Sosinski) had sent a letter to the court regarding resolution of 
S.H.'s case; however, according to S.H., her court file 
contained no such a letter.  In addition, in her certified 
letter, 
S.H. 
pointed 
out 
she 
and 
Cavendish-Sosinski 
had 
discussed favorable factors that could be pointed out to the 
court in S.H.'s case.  S.H. wrote that Cavendish-Sosinski had 
not followed through on those items.  
¶53 The OLR complaint further alleged that Cavendish-
Sosinski was aware that S.H.'s husband had attempted to contact 
her several times about the case.  Cavendish-Sosinski told him, 
however, that confidentiality rules prevented her from speaking 
to him about S.H.'s case; she also asserted that she had been 
unable to speak with S.H. directly.  Cavendish-Sosinski also 
claimed that she thought S.H. had agreed to a resolution and 
sentence in her case at the March 11, 2002, meeting in 
Cavendish-Sosinski's office.  Consequently, Cavendish-Sosinski 
considered S.H.'s file closed and had not associated S.H.'s May 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
19 
 
24, 2002, certified letter with any necessity to act on S.H.'s 
case.   
¶54 S.H. thereafter filed a grievance with the OLR.  
Again, the OLR requested a written response from Cavendish-
Sosinski, and again Cavendish-Sosinski did not respond.  Then by 
certified letter on September 17, 2002, the OLR again requested 
Cavendish-Sosinski 
to 
provide 
information 
regarding 
S.H.'s 
grievance.  The certified mail receipt was returned showing that 
that second letter had been received and signed for by 
Cavendish-Sosinski's secretary on September 25, 2002.  
¶55 Even 
though the 
OLR's certified 
letter directed 
Cavendish-Sosinski to file her written response to S.H.'s 
grievance no later than September 27, 2002, it wasn't until 
October 18, 2002, that Cavendish-Sosinski faxed a request to the 
OLR for an extension of time to respond to S.H.'s grievance.  
The OLR granted that request giving the respondent until 
November 8, 2002, to respond.  Cavendish-Sosinski, however, did 
not respond by that deadline. 
¶56 The OLR complaint further alleged that on November 22, 
2002, Cavendish-Sosinski was personally served with another OLR 
request for a response; on November 29, 2002, she faxed the OLR 
acknowledging that she had received the requests and she again 
asked for an extension of time to respond.  She was granted 
another extension and finally, on December 12, 2002, Cavendish-
Sosinski faxed her formal response to the OLR.  
¶57 In that December 12, 2002, response Cavendish-Sosinski 
explained that during the time S.H. had attempted to contact her 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
20 
 
by certified letter, Cavendish-Sosinski was recovering from a 
year long clinical depression.  She further reported that she 
had taken S.H.'s file home so she could work on it because she 
considered S.H.'s case, along with others, as one that needed to 
be dealt with "delicately" because the problems had been created 
or 
exacerbated 
by 
Cavendish-Sosinski's 
depressed 
state.  
According to Cavendish-Sosinski's response, those cases involved 
clients who were persistent or involved issues that had caused 
Cavendish-Sosinski to have panic attacks.  This response further 
reported that there had been a fire at Cavendish-Sosinski's home 
in June of 2002 and that S.H.'s file had been destroyed in that 
fire, including the unopened May 24, 2002, certified letter from 
S.H.  According to Cavendish-Sosinski, when S.H.'s husband began 
contacting her, her depression then manifested itself into an 
"ignore the situation as the case is closed" attitude.  
¶58 Based on this course of conduct, the referee concluded 
that the respondent had committed the violations as alleged in 
Counts 20 and 21 of the OLR complaint.  Specifically, the 
referee concluded that Cavendish-Sosinski had failed to respond 
promptly to a client's request for information, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.4(a) 
and 
had 
failed to 
cooperate 
with an OLR 
investigation, in violation of SCR 22.03(2).   
CLIENT J.K.——COUNTS 22-24 
¶59 The OLR complaint alleged that in June 2001 Cavendish-
Sosinski was appointed by the state public defender to represent 
J.K. 
in 
two 
postconviction 
appeal 
matters. 
 
Later 
J.K. 
complained to the SPD office that Cavendish-Sosinski had failed 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
21 
 
to respond to his repeated inquiries regarding the status of his 
cases and that she had had no contact with him for almost a 
year.  J.K. also contacted the court of appeals reporting his 
concerns about Cavendish-Sosinski's representation.   
¶60 On May 9, 2002, and again on June 13, 2002, the SPD's 
office wrote to Cavendish-Sosinski about her lack of contact 
with J.K.  Cavendish-Sosinski failed to respond to either 
letter.  She also failed to respond to telephone calls from the 
SPD's office on August 6, 2002, and September 5, 2002.   
¶61 The court of appeals subsequently ordered the SPD to 
file a report with the court addressing J.K.'s eligibility for 
appointment of substitute counsel in his two cases.  In its 
response, the SPD's office advised the court that it believed 
J.K. was entitled to new postconviction counsel and that the SPD 
would appoint new counsel for him.  In addition, the SPD asked 
the court to order Cavendish-Sosinski to immediately forward 
copies of J.K.'s court records and transcript to the SPD's 
appellate division so that that material could then be provided 
to his new counsel.   
¶62 On September 9, 2002, and again on September 10, 2002, 
the court of appeals issued orders granting the SPD's request 
and ordering Cavendish-Sosinski to file affidavits of service 
with the court no later than September 20, 2002, proving that 
she had forwarded the requested items in both of J.K.'s cases.  
In these orders, the court of appeals warned that if she failed 
to provide the requested items, sanctions would be imposed.  
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
22 
 
Cavendish-Sosinski mailed the requested items to the SPD on 
October 18, 2002.  
¶63 After the SPD's office forwarded to the OLR a copy of 
the SPD's report filed in the court of appeals regarding 
Cavendish-Sosinski, the OLR commenced an informal inquiry into 
the matter and requested that Cavendish-Sosinski provide a 
written response on or before October 16, 2002.  She did not 
respond.  
¶64 Thereafter, by certified letter on October 18, 2002, 
the 
OLR 
again 
requested 
that 
Cavendish-Sosinski 
provide 
information regarding her conduct in the J.K. matter.  That 
certified 
letter 
was 
signed 
for 
by 
Cavendish-Sosinski's 
secretary on October 21, 2002, but Cavendish-Sosinski did not 
respond to that request.  
¶65 On 
November 
22, 
2002, 
Cavendish-Sosinski 
was 
personally served with the OLR's third request for a response in 
the J.K. matter.  On November 29, 2002, Cavendish-Sosinski 
contacted OLR by fax acknowledging that she had received the 
requests and she asked for an extension of time to respond.  The 
OLR granted her an extension until December 13, 2002. 
¶66 On that date, Cavendish-Sosinski faxed her formal 
response to the OLR's investigation of the J.K. matter.  In that 
response, Cavendish-Sosinski asserted that when she accepted the 
appointment to represent J.K., she was overworked and exhausted 
and suffering from clinical depression.  She also acknowledged 
that she should not have accepted new clients during that 
period; she claimed that during the time of her appointment in 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
23 
 
the J.K. matter, she had relied too heavily on a new assistant 
to log in and file documents as they were received in the mail.  
According 
to 
Cavendish-Sosinski's 
response, 
had 
she 
been 
operating at her normal mental capacity during that time, she 
would have been "on top" of the situation and would have ensured 
that all time limits were recorded and met; however, because she 
was so overextended with other cases and scheduled court 
hearings, she said she had not paid proper attention to cases——
like 
J.K.'s——that 
she 
thought 
did 
not 
require 
immediate 
attention.  
¶67 Based on this course of conduct, the referee concluded 
that the respondent had committed the violations as alleged in 
Counts 22, 23, and 24 of the OLR's complaint. Specifically, the 
referee concluded that Cavendish-Sosinski had failed to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in 
violation of SCR 20:1.3; also, she had failed to promptly 
respond to reasonable requests for information and to keep her 
client informed about the status of a matter, in violation of 
SCR 20:1.4(a); and finally she had failed to cooperate with an 
OLR investigation, in violation of SCR 22.03(2).  
NONCOOPERATION WITH OLR INQUIRY——COUNT 25 
¶68 The OLR complaint noted that based on information 
concerning 
Cavendish-Sosinski's 
personal 
situation 
that 
potentially impaired her ability to practice law——including her 
depression, and events like her secretary quitting, her spouse 
filing for divorce, her house being destroyed by fire, and her 
need for medical treatment——the OLR had opened an investigative 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
24 
 
file regarding Cavendish-Sosinski's situation.  The OLR staff 
sent her its initial investigative letter on November 15, 2001, 
but Cavendish-Sosinski did not respond within the 20 days as 
directed.  The OLR then sent her a second request on December 
17, 2001, and again, she failed to respond.  The OLR's third 
investigative 
request was 
served 
on 
Cavendish-Sosinski on 
January 7, 2002.  On January 13, 2002, Cavendish-Sosinski 
responded 
stating 
that 
she 
would 
provide 
the 
requested 
information addressing the issue of her depression and its 
effect on her ability to practice law; however, she never 
submitted such a written response.  According to the OLR, the 
matter 
was 
then 
referred 
to 
the 
district 
committee 
for 
investigation.   
¶69 The district investigator, as had occurred in the 
other matters, attempted to contact Cavendish-Sosinski three 
times including one attempt to contact her by phone.  Again, she 
did not respond to the letters or the phone call; she only 
responded after being personally served with a notice to appear. 
¶70 Based on this course of conduct, the referee concluded 
that the respondent had committed the violation as alleged in 
Count 25 of the OLR complaint.  Specifically, the referee 
concluded that Cavendish-Sosinski had failed to cooperate with 
an OLR investigation and with a district committee, in violation 
of SCR 22.03(2) and 22.04(1).  
¶71 Finally, the OLR complaint noted that on February 5, 
2003, the OLR received a letter from Cavendish-Sosinski stating 
that due to her depression, she was abandoning the practice of 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
25 
 
law and moving to Louisiana to pursue an alternate graduate 
degree.  In this letter, Cavendish-Sosinski claimed that she 
had, in effect, closed her law practice; however, she reported 
that she still employed a staff person to forward legal mail and 
messages and to retrieve items from her files to permit 
Cavendish-Sosinski to respond to other requests for information.  
In addition, Cavendish-Sosinski informed the OLR that as of 
January 2003, her practice was limited to six clients with 
active files, and that four of those files would be resolved by 
March 2003.  The remaining two, Cavendish-Sosinski claimed, were 
proceeding 
through 
the 
criminal 
postconviction 
system.  
Cavendish-Sosinski also asserted that she did not intend to 
apply for a license to practice law in Louisiana. 
¶72 With respect to Cavendish-Sosinski's claim that her 
conduct was attributable to her chronic clinical depression, the 
referee wrote:  
Her failure to participate in this matter makes it 
impossible to place much, if any, weight on this as a 
mitigating factor.  There is no way to determine what 
role 
such 
depression 
may 
have 
played 
in 
her 
misconduct.  However, claimed depression, combined 
with, not only neglect of clients' interest, but of 
her own interest in cooperating with the OLR to avoid 
exacerbation of her situation, suggests an inability 
to conform her conduct to that required of her.  In 
this light, protection of the public dictates that she 
be required to address any mental health issues she 
might have prior to resuming the practice of law.  I 
recommend, therefore, that the OLR's request that she 
demonstrate, as a condition of reinstatement, that any 
mental health problems that might impair her ability 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
accordance 
with 
accepted 
professional standards are appropriately controlled, 
be granted.   
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
26 
 
¶73 We adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
set forth in the referee's report and we determine that the 
seriousness of Cavendish-Sosinski's misconduct as established in 
this proceeding warrants the suspension of her license to 
practice law in this state for a period of nine months.  We also 
determine that prior to any reinstatement of her license, 
Cavendish-Sosinski must demonstrate that her depression or 
mental health problems that might impair her ability to practice 
law are under sufficient control so that she would be able to 
practice law in accordance with accepted professional standards.  
Finally, we direct that Cavendish-Sosinski be ordered to pay the 
costs of these disciplinary proceedings now totaling $1373.77. 
¶74 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Elizabeth A. 
Cavendish-Sosinski to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for 
a period of nine months commencing as of the date of this 
opinion. 
¶75 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
as 
a 
condition 
of 
reinstatement of her license to practice law following the 
period 
of 
suspension, 
Elizabeth 
A. 
Cavendish-Sosinski 
be 
required to submit a report from a psychiatrist approved by the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation concerning her mental condition and 
demonstrating that her depression or mental health problems that 
might impair her ability to practice law are sufficiently 
controlled so that she would be able to practice law in 
accordance with accepted professional standards. 
¶76 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski pay to the Office 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
27 
 
of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding totaling 
$1373.77, provided that if the costs are not paid within the 
time specified and absent a showing to this court of her 
inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of 
Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of this court.  
¶77 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if she has not already done 
so, Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski must comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.    
 
No. 
03-1697-D   
 
 
 
1