Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mark E. Sostarich

Citation: 2005 WI 97

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
2005 WI 97 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP1911-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark A. Sostarich, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Mark A. Sostarich, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SOSTARICH 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 29, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: PROSSER and BUTLER, JR., J.J., did not 
participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2005 WI 97
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP1911-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark E. Sostarich, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Mark E. Sostarich, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 29, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.     
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review, pursuant to SCR 22.17(2),1 the 
report and recommendation filed by referee, John Decker, in this 
disciplinary proceeding involving Attorney Mark E. Sostarich.   
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides:  Review; appeal.   
(2) If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme 
court shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject 
or modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2004AP1911-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Attorney Sostarich was admitted to practice in 1978.  
He has no prior disciplinary history.  On May 18, 2004, this 
court summarily suspended 
Attorney 
Sostarich's 
license to 
practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.20(1),2 upon 
learning that he had pled guilty in federal court to one count 
of conspiracy to commit offenses involving federal program funds 
under Title 18, U.S.C. §§ 371, 666, 1341 and 1346.  United 
States v. Sostarich, No. 03 CR 260 (E.D. Wis. 2005). 
¶3 
On July 19, 2004, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint against Sostarich alleging 
that by virtue of his conviction in federal court he had 
violated SCR 20:8.4(b), which provides that it is professional 
misconduct to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on 
the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in 
other respects."  The parties jointly agreed that the referee 
would defer his recommendation until Sostarich was sentenced in 
federal district court, which, after some procedural delays, 
occurred in March 2005.   
                                                 
2 SCR 22.20(1) provides: Summary license suspension on 
criminal convictions. 
 
(1) 
Summary 
suspension. 
 
Upon 
receiving 
satisfactory proof that an attorney has been found 
guilty or convicted of a serious crime, the supreme 
court may summarily suspend the attorney's license to 
practice 
law 
pending 
final 
disposition 
of 
a 
disciplinary proceeding, whether the finding of guilt 
or the conviction resulted from a plea of guilty or no 
contest or from a verdict after trial and regardless 
of the pendency of an appeal. 
No. 
2004AP1911-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
On May 16, 2005, the referee filed his report and 
recommendation.  The parties have agreed not to appeal the 
report.   
¶5 
The factual background giving rise to Sostarich's 
conviction will be summarized briefly.  The complaint filed 
against Sostarich in the federal court alleged that Sostarich 
improperly provided former State Senator Gary George (George) 
with a portion of funds Sostarich obtained in connection with 
legal work he performed for the Police Athletic League (PAL), a 
non-profit organization providing educational and recreational 
opportunities for youth in Milwaukee. The complaint alleged 
further that George, who was on the PAL board of directors, 
received more than $50,000 as a result of this arrangement.3  
George's participation and receipt of fees relating to the PAL 
legal work was not disclosed to other PAL board members until 
October 2003, when the matter was already the subject of a 
criminal investigation.  Sostarich accepted a plea agreement and 
entered a guilty plea to the charge on January 30, 2004. 
¶6 
On March 11, 2005, Sostarich was sentenced in federal 
court to three years probation, conditioned on 150 days of home 
                                                 
3 Former Senator George was indicted in 2003 on charges that 
he accepted kickbacks in exchange for exercising political 
influence, which extended over federal grants as well as 
programs financed by state revenues. He pled guilty to violating 
Title 18, U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy to defraud the United States) 
as part of a bargain in which the prosecutor dismissed all other 
charges, and he was sentenced to 48 months of imprisonment, plus 
restitution.  See United States v. George, 403 F.3d 470 (7th 
Cir. 2005).  His license to practice law was summarily suspended 
by order of this court on March 9, 2004. 
No. 
2004AP1911-D   
 
4 
 
confinement under the usual conditions of home confinement, 
including electronic monitoring.  Sostarich was also ordered to 
make restitution to PAL in the amount of $42,649 and to perform 
75 hours of community service.   
¶7 
A hearing was conducted in the disciplinary matter on 
April 12 and 13, 2005.  The referee made his recommendations at 
the close of the hearing and filed his formal report on May 16, 
2005. 
¶8 
After 
enumerating 
the 
circumstances, 
the 
referee 
concluded that the OLR had established by clear and convincing 
evidence 
that, 
by 
engaging 
in 
conduct 
resulting 
in 
his 
conviction of one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud in 
violation of Title 18, U.S.C. § 371, Sostarich committed a 
criminal 
act 
that 
reflects 
adversely 
on 
his 
honesty, 
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(b).  We conclude that the referee's 
findings of fact are supported by satisfactory and convincing 
evidence. We also agree with the referee's conclusions of law 
that Attorney Sostarich engaged in professional misconduct and 
turn to the question of the appropriate discipline for this 
misconduct. 
¶9 
The 
referee 
incorporated 
into 
his 
report 
the 
recommendation statements he made on the record at the close of 
the 
disciplinary 
hearing, 
recommending 
that 
Sostarich 
be 
suspended for a period of one year, retroactive to the date of 
his summary suspension on May 18, 2004. We consider these 
statements together with the report and recommendation. 
No. 
2004AP1911-D   
 
5 
 
¶10 The referee noted at the hearing that the OLR had 
recommended an 18-month suspension, and Attorney Sostarich 
requested a suspension of 90 days.  The referee proceeded to 
discuss 
the 
nature 
of 
Sostarich's 
violation, 
noting 
the 
seriousness of the charge to which Sostarich pled guilty.   
¶11 The referee also considered Sostarich's poor health, 
his family commitments, and remarked on Sostarich's very 
extensive community and volunteer service, particularly his 
"long and distinguished record of pro bono service to individual 
clients."  He noted that Sostarich accepted full responsibility 
for his actions and has cooperated fully with federal and OLR 
investigators and prosecutors.  
¶12 While 
acknowledging 
the 
"substantial 
amount 
of 
seriousness" of Sostarich's misconduct, the referee explained 
that he was influenced by the many mitigating circumstances and 
by testimony of one of the injured clients, who volunteered "I 
think Mark [Sostarich] got snookered, just as we did."  The 
referee was clearly moved by Sostarich's sincere remorse. 
¶13 We 
have 
carefully 
considered 
the 
referee's 
recommendation as to discipline.  However, Attorney Sostarich 
pleaded guilty to a serious felony charge; we are not persuaded 
that a retroactive suspension of 12 months is sufficient 
discipline for the serious misconduct committed in this matter. 
¶14 We conclude that the OLR's recommended suspension of 
18 months is more appropriate to the serious nature of the 
underlying conviction, but agree with the referee that the 
suspension should be imposed retroactive to the date on which 
No. 
2004AP1911-D   
 
6 
 
Sostarich's license to practice law was summarily suspended 
based on the criminal conviction.  We further conclude that 
Attorney Sostarich should be required to pay the costs of the 
proceeding.4 
¶15 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Mark E. Sostarich's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of 18 months, retroactive to May 18, 2004.   
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if he has not already done 
so, Attorney Mark E. Sostarich comply with the provisions of SCR 
22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 
practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Attorney Mark E. Sostarich pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, provided that if 
the costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a 
showing to this court of his inability to pay those costs within 
that time, the license of Attorney Mark E. Sostarich to practice 
law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of 
the court. 
¶18 DAVID T. PROSSER and LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J.J. did 
not participate. 
                                                 
4 Final costs have yet to be determined in this matter. 
No. 
2004AP1911-D   
 
 
 
1