Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Mark Austin Cross

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2023 WI 14 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2022AP1221-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark Austin Cross, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Mark Austin Cross, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CROSS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 24, 2023   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per curiam.  
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2023 WI 14
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2022AP1221-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mark Austin Cross, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Mark Austin Cross, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
FEB 24, 2023 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney’s 
license 
suspended.  
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   This is a reciprocal discipline matter.  
On July 20, 2022, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a 
two-count complaint against Attorney Mark Austin Cross.  Count 
one alleged that by virtue of Attorney Cross’s recent 150-day 
license suspension by the Supreme Court of Oregon, Attorney 
Cross should be subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin 
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.22.  Count two alleged 
that by failing to notify OLR of his discipline in Oregon within 
No. 
2022AP1221-D   
 
2 
 
20 days of its effective date, Attorney Cross violated SCR 22.22 
(1).1   
¶2 
On November 2, 2022, this court issued an order 
directing Attorney Cross to show cause, in writing, by January 
16, 2023, why the imposition of discipline identical to that 
imposed in Oregon would be unwarranted, and of the factual basis 
for any such claim.  Attorney Cross has not responded to this 
court’s order.  Accordingly, we find it appropriate to impose 
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of 
Oregon. 
¶3 
Attorney Cross was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1973.  He was admitted to practice law in Oregon in 
1979.  His Wisconsin law license was suspended in 1983 for 
failure to pay State Bar dues and remains suspended.  He has no 
prior disciplinary history in Wisconsin. 
¶4 
An attorney disciplinary case in Oregon arose out of 
Attorney Cross’s representation of a client in a case where 
Attorney Cross was paid a $25,000 retainer.  The retainer 
agreement required Attorney Cross to refund any unused portion 
of the retainer at the conclusion of the matter.   
¶5 
At the conclusion of the representation, the client 
asked Attorney Cross for an accounting of the fees earned and a 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 (1) states: “An attorney on whom public 
discipline of misconduct or a license suspension for medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction shall 
promptly notify the director of the matter. Failure to furnish 
the notice within 20 days of the effective date of the order or 
judgment of the other jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.” 
No. 
2022AP1221-D   
 
3 
 
description of the work performed.  Attorney Cross failed to 
provide that information.  Instead, he refunded $10,000 with no 
explanation for that amount.  The client subsequently sued 
Attorney Cross for an additional $10,000 of the original 
retainer.  Attorney Cross defaulted in that lawsuit, and a money 
judgment for $10,000 was entered against him.   
¶6 
The client subsequently submitted a claim to Oregon’s 
Client Security Fund for the $10,000 awarded to the client in 
the lawsuit, and the fund paid the client $10,000.  That payment 
prompted an investigation by Oregon’s Disciplinary Counsel’s 
Office.  Attorney Cross ignored the investigation, and his 
Oregon law license was suspended on March 30, 2021 for his 
failure to respond to the investigation. 
¶7 
On June 21, 2021, the Oregon State Bar initiated a 
disciplinary proceeding against Attorney Cross by filing a 
formal complaint.  Attorney Cross was personally served with the 
complaint and notice to answer on August 6, 2021. 
¶8 
The complaint charged Attorney Cross with failure to 
promptly deliver funds a client is entitled to and failure to 
render a full accounting at the client’s request; failure to 
take reasonable steps to protect a client upon termination of 
representation; and failure to respond to inquiries from a 
regulatory authority. 
¶9 
On August 24, 2021, Attorney Cross was served with a 
notice of intent to take default judgment.  A motion for default 
judgment was filed on September 16, 2021.  Attorney Cross filed 
No. 
2022AP1221-D   
 
4 
 
no objection, and an order for default was entered on September 
22, 2021. 
¶10 On January 10, 2022, a Trial Panel Opinion was issued 
in the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon ordering the 
suspension of Attorney Cross’s license to practice law in Oregon 
for 150 days for the alleged violations, effective 30 days from 
the date the decision became final, which was March 12, 2022.  
It was further ordered that Attorney Cross reimburse the fund 
for the $10,000 it paid to the client and that in order to 
reinstate his Oregon law license, Attorney Cross must undergo a 
formal reinstatement process. 
¶11 Supreme Court Rule 22.22 (3) states as follows:  
The 
supreme 
court 
shall 
impose 
the 
identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was so 
lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process. 
b) There was such an infirmity of proof establishing 
the misconduct or medical incapacity that the supreme 
court could not accept as final the conclusion in 
respect to the misconduct or medical incapacity. 
c) The misconduct justifies substantially different 
discipline in this state. 
¶12    Attorney Cross failed to respond to this court’s 
November 2, 2022 order to show cause and has not claimed that 
any of the defenses found in SCR 22.22 (3) apply.  
¶13 The OLR asks this court to suspend Attorney Cross’s 
Wisconsin law license for 150 days.  It also asks this court to 
order Attorney Cross to pay the restitution ordered by the 
No. 
2022AP1221-D   
 
5 
 
Oregon Supreme Court and, despite the fact that the suspension 
is less than six months, which is the length of suspension that 
triggers a formal reinstatement proceeding in Wisconsin. See SCR 
22.28 (3).  OLR asks this court to order that Attorney Cross be 
required 
to 
petition 
for 
reinstatement 
in 
Wisconsin, 
as 
discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Oregon Supreme 
Court.  We agree with OLR that it is appropriate to impose 
discipline identical to that imposed by the Supreme Court of 
Oregon, including requiring Attorney Cross to pay the $10,000 
restitution ordered by the Oregon court and requiring him to 
file a formal petition for reinstatement of his Wisconsin law 
license. 
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Mark Austin Cross to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 150 days, 
effective the date of this order. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mark Austin Cross is 
ordered to reimburse the Oregon Client Security Fund for its 
$10,000 payment to Attorney Cross’s client. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mark Austin Cross shall be 
required to file a formal petition for reinstatement pursuant to 
SCR 22.29 in the event he wishes to reinstate his Wisconsin law 
license.
No. 
2022AP1221-D   
 
 
 
1