Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Steven J. Sarbacker
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2016AP002486-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: September 15, 2017

2017 WI 86 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP2486-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Steven J. Sarbacker, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Steven J. Sarbacker, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SARBACKER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
September 15, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
 
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
2017 WI 86
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP2486-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Steven J. Sarbacker, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Steven J. Sarbacker, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
SEP 15, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report and recommendation 
of Referee James C. Boll, approving a partial stipulation filed 
by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Steven J. 
Sarbacker and concluding that Attorney Sarbacker committed the 
professional misconduct alleged by the OLR, as stipulated by the 
parties.  The referee determined that a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney Sarbacker's license to practice law is appropriate.  
No. 
2016AP2486-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
Upon careful review of this matter, we uphold the 
referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law and agree that 
a 60-day license suspension is an appropriate sanction for 
Attorney Sarbacker's misconduct.  We also find it appropriate to 
impose the full costs of this proceeding, which are $1,375.83 as 
of June 13, 2017.  The OLR does not seek restitution and no 
restitution is ordered. 
¶3 
Attorney Sarbacker was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1995.  He practices in Portage, Wisconsin.  In 
2013, Attorney Sarbacker received a private reprimand for his 
conduct resulting in a misdemeanor conviction for operating 
while intoxicated.  Private Reprimand No. 2013-15 (electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002634.html).  In 2016, 
he received a private reprimand for his failure to obey a court 
order pertaining to child support.  Private Reprimand No. 2016-9 
(electronic 
copy 
available 
at 
https://compendium.wicourts.gov/app/raw/002899.html).  
¶4 
On December 21, 2016, the OLR filed a six count 
disciplinary complaint alleging five counts of professional 
misconduct involving one client matter and an additional count 
of 
professional 
misconduct 
based 
on 
criminal 
misconduct 
committed by Attorney Sarbacker.  The OLR sought a 60-day 
suspension and costs.   
¶5 
The facts, to which the parties have stipulated, are 
as follows.  In November 2011, D.F. and L.F., a married couple, 
obtained a $5,441.20 money judgment against a tenant in a 
No. 
2016AP2486-D   
 
3 
 
Columbia County circuit court proceeding.  They retained 
Attorney Sarbacker to collect the money judgment.  There was no 
written fee agreement. In July 2012, Sarbacker advised the 
clients in writing that he could no longer pursue their 
collection case.  He did not charge them. 
¶6 
In 2013, the couple again retained Attorney Sarbacker 
to pursue the collection case.  Again, there was no written fee 
agreement.  By June of 2014, Attorney Sarbacker had successfully 
arranged for the Ho-Chunk Nation's Department of Treasury-
Payroll Division (DOT-P) to garnish the wages of the debtor and, 
in 
July 
2014, 
Attorney 
Sarbacker 
began 
receiving 
weekly 
garnishment checks on behalf of his clients.  At this time, the 
outstanding debt was $5,914.45. 
¶7 
Attorney Sarbacker and the clients agreed that his fee 
and costs would total $2,032.73 and that he would take this 
amount from the garnishment checks, then send the balance of the 
garnishment funds to the clients.  Attorney Sarbacker knew the 
total cost of representation exceeded $1,000, a fact relevant to 
whether a written fee agreement was required.  
¶8 
Attorney Sarbacker began depositing garnishment checks 
into both his trust account and operating accounts.  By December 
29, 2014, Attorney Sarbacker had received 24 garnishment checks 
totaling $2,038.30 - $5.57 more than his agreed upon fee of 
$2,032.73.  After December 29, 2014, Attorney Sarbacker received 
25 additional garnishment checks, representing the clients' 
portion of the garnishment but he did not disburse these funds 
to the clients. 
No. 
2016AP2486-D   
 
4 
 
¶9 
By 
June 
2015, 
the 
clients 
had 
demanded 
their 
garnishment 
portion 
from 
Attorney 
Sarbacker 
but 
Attorney 
Sarbacker failed to send them the garnished funds.  Accordingly, 
L.F. contacted the DOT-P and requested that all remaining 
garnishment checks be sent directly to the clients.  On June 26, 
2015, the DOT-P began sending weekly garnishment checks directly 
to the clients. 
¶10 On July 14, 2015, L.F. sent a certified letter to 
Attorney Sarbacker listing the clients' unsuccessful attempts to 
contact him.  She demanded payment plus interest of the clients' 
portion of the garnishment funds in his possession.  Attorney 
Sarbacker failed to respond.   
¶11 Finally, by early October 2015, Attorney Sarbacker 
sent the clients a cashier's check in the amount of $2,171.29 
and a receipt documenting $61.25 of incurred costs.1 
¶12 The clients filed a grievance with the OLR.  Attorney 
Sarbacker failed to promptly respond to the OLR's requests for 
information about the grievance. 
¶13 Based on these events, the OLR alleged and Attorney 
Sarbacker has stipulated to five counts of misconduct in the 
complaint, as follows: 
Count One:  By representing the clients pursuant to an 
unwritten contingent fee agreement, Attorney Sarbacker 
violated SCR 20:1.5(c).2 
                                                 
1 In total, the DOT-P issued 70 garnishment checks totaling 
$5,914.45.  The clients received $3,881.72 ($1,710.43 from the 
DOT-P and $2,171.29 from Attorney Sarbacker). 
No. 
2016AP2486-D   
 
5 
 
Count Two:  By depositing 15 garnishment checks 
totaling $1,273.49 into his business account, that 
were the property of the clients, and by disbursing 
$892.23 of the clients' funds to himself from his 
trust account Attorney Sarbacker, in each instance, 
violated SCR 20:1.15(b)(1).3  
                                                                                                                                                             
2 SCR 20:l.5(c) provides:  
A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the 
matter for which the service is rendered, except in a 
matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by par. 
(d) or other law. A contingent fee agreement shall be 
in a writing signed by the client, and shall state the 
method by which the fee is to be determined, including 
the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the 
lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal; 
litigation and other expenses to be deducted from the 
recovery; and whether such expenses are to be deducted 
before or after the contingent fee is calculated. The 
agreement must clearly notify the client of any 
expenses for which the client will be liable whether 
or not the client is the prevailing party. Upon 
conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer 
shall provide the client with a written statement 
stating the outcome of the matter and if there is a 
recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the 
method of its determination.   
3 Effective July 1, 2016, substantial changes were made to 
Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15, the "trust account rule."  See S. 
Ct. Order 14-07, (issued Apr. 4, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016).  
Because the conduct underlying this case arose prior to July 1, 
2016, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the supreme 
court rules will be to those in effect prior to July 1, 2016.  
Former SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) provided:  
A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer's own property, that property of clients and 
3rd parties that is in the lawyer's possession in 
connection with a representation, All funds of clients 
and 3rd parties paid to a lawyer or law firm in 
connection with a representation shall be deposited in 
one or more identifiable trust accounts. 
No. 
2016AP2486-D   
 
6 
 
Count Three:  By depositing 10 checks totaling $892.23 
into his trust account and then disbursing almost all 
of those funds to himself or his law office, and by 
depositing the remaining 15 checks totaling $1,273.49 
directly 
into 
his 
operating 
account, 
Attorney 
Sarbacker, in each instance, violated SCR 20:8.4(c).4 
Count Four:  By failing to promptly deliver to the 
clients their portion of the garnishment funds, 
Attorney Sarbacker violated former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1).5  
Count Five:  By failing to timely provide the OLR with 
a written response to the clients' grievance, Attorney 
Sarbacker violated SCR 22.03(2),6 enforceable via 
20:8.4(h).7  
                                                 
4 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: "It is professional misconduct for 
a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation." 
5 Former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1) provided: 
Upon receiving funds or other property in which a 
client has an interest, or in which the lawyer has 
received notice that a 3rd party has an interest 
identified by a lien, court order, judgment, or 
contract, the lawyer shall promptly notify the client 
or 3rd party in writing. Except as stated in this rule 
or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the 
client, the lawyer shall promptly deliver to the 
client or 3rd party any funds or other property that 
the client or 3rd party is entitled to receive. 
6 SCR 22.03(2) provides:   
Upon commencing an investigation, the director 
shall notify the respondent of the matter being 
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 
investigation of the matter requires otherwise.  The 
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail 
request for a written response.  The director may 
allow additional time to respond.  Following receipt 
of the response, the director may conduct further 
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP2486-D   
 
7 
 
¶14 The sixth and final count of alleged misconduct does 
not involve representation of a client.  On March 16, 2016, 
Attorney Sarbacker was charged in Sauk County circuit court with 
three misdemeanors: pointing a firearm at or toward another, 
battery, and disorderly conduct.  See State v. Sarbacker, Sauk 
County circuit court case no. 2016CM000113.  Attorney Sarbacker 
eventually pled no contest to the battery and disorderly conduct 
charges and the pointing a firearm charge was dismissed. 
Attorney Sarbacker entered into a 12-month deferred prosecution 
agreement whereby if he successfully complies with specific 
conditions, the charges will be dismissed.   
¶15 After 
the 
court 
appointed 
a 
referee 
in 
this 
disciplinary matter, the parties executed a partial stipulation.  
The stipulation provides that Attorney Sarbacker does not 
contest the facts and that he admits to committing the alleged 
misconduct.  He affirms that: the stipulation did not result 
from plea bargaining; he fully understands the misconduct 
allegations; he fully understands his right to contest this 
matter; he fully understands his right to consult with counsel; 
his 
entry 
into 
this 
stipulation 
is 
made 
knowingly 
and 
                                                                                                                                                             
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation.   
7 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides:  "It is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(6), or SCR 
22.04(1)." 
No. 
2016AP2486-D   
 
8 
 
voluntarily; and, his entry into this stipulation represents his 
decision not to contest the misconduct alleged in the complaint. 
¶16 The 
parties 
agreed 
to 
submit 
the 
question 
of 
appropriate discipline to the referee, without an evidentiary 
hearing.  Both parties filed briefs on the question of 
discipline.  As noted, the OLR sought a 60-day suspension.  
Attorney Sarbacker argued for a public reprimand.  In his brief, 
Attorney Sarbacker offered some personal context for the 
criminal charges against him.  He also stated that a suspension 
would have a very adverse effect on his practice. 
¶17 The 
OLR 
objected 
to 
the 
narrative 
in 
Attorney 
Sarbacker's brief, describing it as impermissible hearsay and an 
effort to present new evidence and new facts beyond the 
complaint and stipulation.  The OLR asked the referee to 
disregard this information.   
¶18 The 
referee 
issued 
a 
thorough 
report 
and 
recommendation on May 25, 2017.  Based upon the parties' 
stipulation, the referee found that the OLR met its burden of 
proof with respect to all six counts of misconduct alleged in 
the complaint.  With respect to the question of appropriate 
discipline, 
the 
referee 
reviewed 
the 
parties' 
respective 
submissions.  The referee observed that Attorney Sarbacker 
submitted no authority that would justify his request for a 
public reprimand.  The referee acknowledged that Attorney 
Sarbacker's brief presented additional facts surrounding the 
incident that led to count six of the complaint. The referee 
noted that he was "not able to determine the veracity and, thus, 
No. 
2016AP2486-D   
 
9 
 
the impact of the additional facts" and, accordingly, the 
referee limited his consideration to the stipulated facts in 
determining sanctions. 
¶19 The referee then identified the factors relevant to 
determining the appropriate sanction, which include: 
[T]he seriousness, nature and extent of misconduct, 
the level of discipline needed to protect the public, 
the courts, and the legal system from repetition of 
the attorney's misconduct, the need to impress upon 
the attorney the seriousness of the misconduct and the 
need to deter other attorneys from committing similar 
misconduct. 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan, 2006 WI 38, ¶72, 
290 Wis. 2d 30, 712 N.W.2d 877. 
¶20 The referee observed that the OLR's brief provided 
several instructive cases, including two cases that were 
factually similar, although the lawyers in those cases each had 
more serious prior discipline than Attorney Sarbacker.  In re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Wood, 
2014 
WI 
116, 
358 
Wis. 2d 472, 854 N.W.2d 844, (ninety-day suspension for seven 
counts of misconduct stemming from representation of clients in 
a dispute with a construction company); and In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Steinhafel, 2013 WI 93, 351 Wis. 2d 313, 839 
N.W.2d 404, 
(four-month 
suspension 
for 
seven 
counts 
of 
misconduct stemming from two client matters and lawyer's 
criminal conviction).  The referee found persuasive two cases 
both imposing a 60-day suspension.  See In Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Bartz, 2015 WI 61, 362 Wis. 2d 752, 864 
N.W.2d 881, (lawyer with previous private reprimand suspended 
No. 
2016AP2486-D   
 
10 
 
for 60 days based on five counts of misconduct including failure 
to disburse settlement funds and failure to cooperate); and In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Trowbridge, 177 Wis. 2d 485, 
501 N.W.2d 452 (1993), (lawyer with previous private reprimand 
suspended for 60 days for failure to respond to client 
inquiries, failure to prosecute, and trust account violations, 
including a violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) for converting a $300 
check payable to him as personal representative of his mother's 
estate). 
¶21 In making his recommendation for a 60-day suspension 
here, the referee noted that Attorney Sarbacker had been 
previously disciplined and that the misappropriation of client 
funds occurred over a period of several months.  The referee 
expressed concern about the vulnerability of the clients, who 
are both disabled.  As mitigating factors, the referee noted 
that Attorney Sarbacker reimbursed the clients and has completed 
an 
anger 
management 
program. 
 
On 
balance, 
the 
referee 
recommended this court suspend Attorney Sarbacker's license to 
practice law for a period of 60 days. 
¶22 No appeal was filed so we review this matter pursuant 
to SCR 22.17(2).  This court will adopt the referee's findings 
of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law 
are reviewed de novo.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 
747. The court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit, 
regardless 
of 
the 
referee's 
recommendation. 
See 
In 
re 
No. 
2016AP2486-D   
 
11 
 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 
Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.  
¶23 We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law that Attorney Sarbacker violated the supreme 
court rules as alleged in the six counts of the complaint.  We 
further agree with the referee that a 60-day suspension of 
Attorney Sarbacker's license to practice law in Wisconsin is an 
appropriate level of discipline.  
¶24 No two cases are precisely the same, but we agree with 
the referee that In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Bartz, 
2015 WI 61, 362 Wis. 2d 752, 864 N.W.2d 881 and In re 
Disciplinary Proceeding Against Trowbridge, 177 Wis. 2d 485, 501 
N.W.2d 452 (1993) are instructive.  We find the misconduct at 
issue here to be reasonably analogous to the misconduct in these 
cases, and we agree that a similar suspension is appropriate.  
We deem it appropriate, as is our usual custom, to impose the 
full 
costs 
of 
this 
disciplinary 
proceeding 
on 
Attorney 
Sarbacker.  As Attorney Sarbacker has made restitution to D.F. 
and L.F., the OLR does not seek restitution and we do not impose 
restitution. 
¶25 IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Steven J. Sarbacker's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period 
of 60 days, effective October 27, 2017. 
¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Steven J. Sarbacker shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 
$1,375.83 as of June 13, 2017.  
No. 
2016AP2486-D   
 
12 
 
¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent that he has 
not already done so, Steven J. Sarbacker shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.  
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See SCR 
22.28(3).