Title: Robert S. Sosnay v.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1995AP000814-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 1, 1997

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
95-0814-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Roberst S. Sosnay, Attorney at Law. 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SOSNAY 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
May 1, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
April 10, 1997 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
Geske, J., did not participate 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For Robert S. Sosnay there was a brief by Martin 
E. Kohler and Kohler & Hart, Milwaukee. 
 
 
For the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility there was a brief by Jeananne L. Danner, counsel. 
 
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing 
and modification.  The final version will 
appear in the bound volume of the official 
reports. 
 
 
No. 95-0814-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against ROBERT S. SOSNAY, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
MAY 1, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
Attorney 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney’s 
license 
revoked.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Attorney Robert S. Sosnay appealed from 
the referee’s recommendation that the court revoke his license 
to practice law in Wisconsin as discipline for professional 
misconduct. That misconduct consisted of conversions of client 
funds in his trust account, misrepresentations to clients 
concerning the results of matters he pursued on their behalf, 
paying clients money under false pretenses, failing to exercise 
his professional judgment on behalf of clients and neglecting 
their legal matters, repeatedly ignoring clients’ requests for 
information 
concerning 
their 
legal 
matters, 
and 
numerous 
failures to respond to requests for information from the Board 
of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (Board) and from the 
district professional responsibility committee investigating 
client grievances.  
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
2 
¶2 
In this appeal, Attorney Sosnay did not contest the 
referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning his 
misconduct. He contended, however, that the referee erred in 
determining that his psychological condition –- dysthymia -- was 
not a factor properly to be considered in mitigation of 
discipline to be imposed for that misconduct.  
¶3 
The determination that Attorney Sosnay’s psychological 
condition did not constitute a mitigating factor is based on the 
referee’s factual finding that the condition was not established 
as a cause of that misconduct. Absent a causal connection 
between an attorney’s medical condition and that attorney’s 
professional misconduct, the medical condition may not be 
considered a factor mitigating either the seriousness of the 
misconduct or the severity of discipline to be imposed for it. 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against LeRose, 182 Wis. 2d 595, 603-
04, 514 N.W.2d 412 (1994).  
¶4 
On appeal, we will not reject a referee’s finding of 
fact unless it is clearly erroneous. Here, the referee’s finding 
that the evidence failed to establish that Attorney Sosnay’s 
dysthymia 
caused 
most, 
if 
not 
all, 
of 
his 
professional 
misconduct has ample support in the record. Accordingly, we 
adopt 
that 
finding 
and 
accept 
the 
referee’s 
consequent 
determination that Attorney Sosnay’s psychological condition was 
not a factor to be considered in mitigation of the severity of 
discipline to impose for that misconduct. Before addressing that 
determination at greater length, we set forth the referee’s 
findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning Attorney 
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
3 
Sosnay’s professional misconduct, findings and conclusions that 
are not contested in this appeal.  
¶5 
Attorney Sosnay was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1973 and practices in Milwaukee. He has been 
disciplined for professional misconduct three times. In 1984, 
the Board privately reprimanded him for dishonesty in having 
accepted full payment of a mortgage and disbursing that payment 
to his client but failing for 10 months thereafter to respond to 
the mortgagor’s request for a mortgage satisfaction. In 1988, 
the court suspended his license to practice law for 90 days as 
discipline for neglect of client legal matters, failure to 
respond to numerous inquiries from the Board during its 
investigation of client grievances and appear before the Board 
in 
those 
matters, 
and 
continuing 
to 
practice 
law 
while 
ineligible to do so as a result of nonpayment of State Bar dues. 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sosnay, 146 Wis. 2d 709, 431 
N.W.2d 673 (1988). In 1991, after the Board had commenced a 
disciplinary proceeding against him, Attorney Sosnay consented 
to a Board-imposed public reprimanded for his neglect of a 
client’s legal matter and failure to respond to the client’s 
numerous 
telephone 
and 
written 
requests 
for 
information 
concerning it.  
¶6 
The referee in this instant proceeding, Attorney Jean 
DiMotto, found that Attorney Sosnay engaged in professional 
misconduct in several matters, based on the allegations of the 
Board’s third amended complaint, to which he pleaded no contest, 
and the parties’ stipulation. The first matter concerned 
Attorney Sosnay’s representation of a client on a personal 
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
4 
injury claim, for which he was retained in November, 1987. 
Despite his belief that he would not be able to prove the 
client’s claim, Attorney Sosnay filed an action on the client’s 
behalf in September, 1990. When he failed to furnish a witness 
list, a permanency report, and an itemization of special damages 
required by the court’s scheduling order, the court precluded 
him from calling any witnesses at trial or asserting any claim 
for permanency or medical expenses and dismissed the action, 
awarding 
costs 
to 
the 
defendants. 
Attorney 
Sosnay 
then 
misrepresented to his client that he had obtained $7500 in the 
action and would pay it to the client in $250 monthly 
installments. 
He 
paid 
the 
client 
some 
$5000 
under 
that 
arrangement and testified that he had done so because he felt 
sorry for the client, thought he would be unable to accept the 
outcome of the litigation, and wanted to encourage the client to 
resume his education.  
¶7 
In April, 1988, that same client had asked Attorney 
Sosnay to represent him on another personal injury claim. 
Notwithstanding advice he had obtained from another attorney to 
the effect that the client had no cause of action against the 
purported defendants and similar advice from an assistant 
district attorney he had asked to review the police file, 
Attorney Sosnay, assertedly “against his better judgment,” 
commenced an action on the client’s claim in September, 1990.  
¶8 
In March, 1993, the client filed a grievance with the 
Board asserting that he had not learned of the dismissal of the 
first personal injury action for two and one-half years and 
after Attorney Sosnay had paid him thousands of dollars and that 
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
5 
Attorney Sosnay would not give him his file in the matter after 
he discharged him. The client also asserted in a separate 
grievance that Attorney Sosnay would not give him copies of the 
court papers in the second action and, despite numerous 
requests, refused to return his file. Attorney Sosnay did not 
respond to the Board’s request for a reply to the grievances or 
to the letters from the district professional responsibility 
committee 
to 
which 
the 
matter 
had 
been 
referred 
for 
investigation. He ultimately replied at the end of September, 
1993 but, despite two letters from the committee’s investigator, 
delayed turning over the client’s file until the middle of 
November, 1993.  
¶9 
The referee concluded that by filing a lawsuit on a 
claim knowing it was unprovable, Attorney Sosnay knowingly 
advanced a factual position which had no basis, in violation of 
SCR 20:3.1(a)(2).1 His filing the second action contrary to his 
own professional judgment and then failing to prosecute it 
constituted a failure to exercise independent professional 
judgment in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:2.1.2 
                     
1  SCR 20:3.1 provides, in pertinent part: Meritorious 
claims and contentions 
(a)  In representing a client, a lawyer shall not: 
. . . 
(2)  knowingly advance a factual position unless there is a 
basis for doing so that is not frivolous;  
2  SCR 20:2.1 provides, in part: Advisor 
In 
representing 
a 
client, 
a 
lawyer 
shall 
exercise 
independent professional judgment and render candid advice. . . 
.  
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
6 
His payments to the client purporting to be settlement proceeds 
from the first action constituted conduct involving dishonesty, 
deceit and misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).3 His 
failure to inform the client for a period of 15 months of the 
dismissal of the second action violated SCR 20:1.4(a)4 as a 
failure to keep a client reasonably informed of the status of a 
matter. His failure to release the client’s files despite 
repeated requests to do so violated SCR 20:1.16(d).5 Finally, his 
repeated failure to respond to inquiries from the Board and his 
delay in turning over the client’s files constituted a failure 
to cooperate with and provide information to the Board during 
                     
3  SCR 20:8.4(c) provides: Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:  
. . . 
(c)  engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation;  
4  SCR 20:1.4(a) provides: Communication 
(a)  A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about 
the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable 
requests for information.  
5  SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: Declining or terminating 
representation  
. . .  
(d)  Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall 
take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a 
client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the 
client, 
allowing 
time 
for 
employment 
of 
other 
counsel, 
surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled 
and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been 
earned. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law.  
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
7 
its investigation of a grievance, in violation of SCR 21.03(4)6 
and 22.07(2) and (3).7  
¶10 In another matter, Attorney Sosnay was retained in 
July, 1989 to investigate a claim of defects in a home a couple 
had purchased. The following month, he told the clients they had 
a cause of action against the sellers and that he could recover 
at least $12,000 in damages for them. He provided no written fee 
agreement, but the clients paid him $600 for filing fees and 
inspection costs in addition to the $50 they had given him for 
                     
6  SCR 21.03(4) provides: General principles.  
. . . 
(4)  Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or 
administrator.  
7  SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
. . . 
(2) 
During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
(3) 
The 
administrator 
or 
committee 
may 
compel 
the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents and present 
any information deemed relevant to the investigation. Failure of 
the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents or present 
relevant information is misconduct. The administrator or a 
committee may compel any other person to produce pertinent 
books, papers and documents under SCR 22.22.  
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
8 
his initial investigation of their claim, all of which he 
deposited into his law office account.  
¶11 For the next two years, Attorney Sosnay did not return 
numerous telephone calls from the clients or meet with them as 
they had arranged. The few times they reached him, he said he 
needed more time to proceed with the case. After the couple left 
the country in August, 1992, the person to whom they had given 
power of attorney was unsuccessful in attempting to reach 
Attorney Sosnay, although the clients had given him that 
person’s name and address. Attorney Sosnay did not respond to an 
April, 1993 registered letter the clients sent him from overseas 
asking about their lawsuit and expressing concern that they had 
not heard of any progress during the preceding four years.  
¶12 It was not until they filed a grievance with the Board 
in November, 1993, that the clients learned that Attorney Sosnay 
had not commenced an action on their behalf. Attorney Sosnay did 
not respond to the Board’s request for information concerning 
that grievance or to the district committee asking for a 
response. At the hearing in this disciplinary proceeding, 
Attorney Sosnay gave the clients a check for $1200 in repayment 
of the $650 they had paid him in 1989, plus interest.  
¶13 The referee concluded that Attorney Sosnay’s failure 
to reduce to writing his fee agreement with the client stating 
the method by which his fee was to be determined violated SCR 
20:1.5(c).8 His failure to perform services other than a brief 
                     
8  SCR 20:1.5 provides, in pertinent part: Fees 
. . . 
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
9 
initial investigation of the client’s claim for over four years 
constituted a failure to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3.9 
His failure for over four years to respond to the client’s 
requests for information and inform them of the status of their 
matter violated SCR 20:1.4(a), and his deposit of the funds they 
advanced for costs into his business account rather than a 
client trust account constituted a failure to hold client 
property in trust separate from his own property, in violation 
of SCR 20:1.15(a).10 Attorney Sosnay’s repeated failure to 
                                                                  
(c)  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 paragraph (d) or other law. A 
contingent fee agreement shall be in writing 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. 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.  
9  SCR 20:1.3 provides: Diligence 
A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness 
in representing a client.  
10  SCR 20:1.15 provides, in pertinent part: Safekeeping 
property. 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the 
lawyer’s own property, property of clients or third persons that 
is 
in 
the 
lawyer’s 
possession 
in 
connection 
with 
a 
representation. All funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law 
firm shall be deposited in one or more identifiable trust 
accounts as provided in paragraph (c) maintained in a bank, 
trust company, credit union or savings and loan association 
authorized to do business and located in Wisconsin, which 
account shall be clearly designated as “Client’s Account” or 
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
10
respond to written inquiries from the Board in this matter 
violated SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3).  
¶14 In 1985, a client retained Attorney Sosnay to recover 
$40,000 he had paid for a store franchise, paying him $200 to 
review the franchise contract and render an opinion. Attorney 
Sosnay was aware of the franchisor’s subsequent filing for 
bankruptcy but filed no claim on behalf of the client because he 
believed it was a no asset bankruptcy. Consequently, any debt 
the franchisor might have had to the client was discharged. 
Attorney Sosnay never told the client that in his opinion  a 
lawsuit would not be successful.  
¶15 Notwithstanding that opinion, Attorney Sosnay, under 
pressure from the client, filed an action on the client’s 
behalf, which was dismissed without prejudice when the complaint 
was served improperly. A second action Attorney Sosnay filed 
three years later was dismissed for failure to prosecute. While 
the second case was still on the dismissal calendar, Attorney 
Sosnay commenced a third action but failed to file a witness 
list and answer requests for admission. He also did not appear 
for trial, with the result that the case was dismissed with 
prejudice and $100 costs awarded to the defendant.  
¶16 Attorney Sosnay then misrepresented to his client that 
he had obtained a $40,000 judgment against the defendant, which 
he had secured by filing a lien against property of a relative 
of the defendant. Although he knew he would be the one making 
                                                                  
“Trust Account” or words of similar import, and no funds 
belonging to the lawyer or law firm except funds reasonably 
sufficient to pay account service charges may be deposited in 
such an account. . . .  
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
11
the payments, Attorney Sosnay told his client the $40,000, plus 
interest, would be paid in monthly installments over several 
years and “negotiated” with the client the amount of the monthly 
payments, “settling” on $600. Attorney Sosnay made those 
payments from funds in his client trust account. He asserted 
that he undertook to pay the client because he felt sorry for 
him and because the client was pressuring him by repeatedly 
calling him for information on the progress of his claim.  
¶17 When the client did not receive the monthly payments 
regularly, he told Attorney Sosnay to commence foreclosure 
proceedings on the property securing the judgment. He also wrote 
Attorney Sosnay in January, 1992 complaining that many of the 
payment checks were late and that two of them had been returned 
for insufficient funds. In March, 1994, when the payments were 
$3000 in arrears, the client told Attorney Sosnay that he had 
retained other counsel to represent him in the matter and asked 
him to send his file to that attorney. Attorney Sosnay did not 
do so, and when he received a demand for the client’s file from 
successor counsel, he insisted he would not release it until the 
attorney met with him in person so he could explain what had 
transpired in the matter, but the attorney refused to meet with 
him.  
¶18 When 
he 
responded 
to 
the 
Board’s 
requests 
for 
information concerning the client’s grievance and for his trust 
account records, Attorney Sosnay’s tardy reply did not furnish 
those records or answer the Board’s question regarding the 
delivery of the client’s file to successor counsel. When he 
brought the client’s file to an investigative meeting with Board 
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
12
staff, he said he was unable to locate the requested trust 
account records but asserted that he had paid the client 
approximately $22,000 from his client trust account but had not 
kept an accounting of those payments. He did not respond, 
however, to the Board’s inquiry concerning his payment of the 
client from trust account funds when he never had received funds 
belonging to the client and asking whose funds were used to make 
those payments. Although he had used trust account funds to pay 
the client, Attorney Sosnay certified on his State Bar dues 
statement in each of five relevant years that he had maintained 
his client trust account in accordance with the court’s rules.  
¶19 The referee concluded that by filing an action on 
behalf of the client against his own professional judgment and 
in response to client pressure, an action he then failed to 
prosecute because of his professional doubts about its merits 
and the collectibility of any judgment, Attorney Sosnay failed 
to exercise independent professional judgment in representing 
the client, in violation of SCR 20:2.1. His failure to inform 
the client that the case had been dismissed and $100 costs 
assessed against him, misrepresenting to him that he obtained a 
$40,000 judgment, together with the judgment debtor’s agreement 
to pay the judgment, and a lien against the relative’s real 
estate, and making payments of almost $22,000 purportedly from 
the defendant, Attorney Sosnay engaged in conduct involving 
dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 
20:8.4(c). His failure to promptly return the client’s file 
after the client terminated his representation, despite repeated 
requests from the client, successor counsel, and the Board, 
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
13
violated SCR 20:1.16(d). His failure to reply fully to the 
Board’s inquiries concerning the client’s grievance and respond 
at all to subsequent inquiries about trust account payments to 
the client violated SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3). Attorney 
Sosnay’s failure to keep complete trust account records in 
respect to payments to this client and his false certifications 
that he maintained his client trust account in accordance with 
the applicable rules violated SCR 20:1.15(e) and (g).11 
                     
11  SCR 20:1.15 provides, in pertinent part: Safekeeping 
property  
. . . 
(e)  Complete records of trust account funds and other 
trust property shall be kept by the lawyer and shall be 
preserved for a period of at least six years after termination 
of the representation. Complete records shall include: (i) a 
cash receipts journal, listing the sources and date of each 
receipt, (ii) a disbursements journal, listing the date and 
payee of each disbursement, with all disbursements being paid by 
check, (iii) a subsidiary ledger containing a separate page for 
each person or company for whom funds have been received in 
trust, showing the date and amount of each receipt, the date and 
amount of each disbursement, and any unexpended balance, (iv) a 
monthly schedule of the subsidiary ledger, indicating the 
balance of each client’s account at the end of each month, (v) a 
determination of the cash balance (checkbook balance) at the end 
of 
each 
month, 
taken 
from 
the 
cash 
receipts 
and 
cash 
disbursements journals and a reconciliation of the cash balance 
(checkbook balance) with the balance indicated in the bank 
statement, and (vi) monthly statements, including canceled 
checks, vouchers or share drafts, and duplicate deposit slips. A 
record of all property other than cash which is held in trust 
for clients or third persons, as required by paragraph (a) 
hereof, shall also be maintained. All trust account records 
shall be deemed to have public aspects as related to the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice.  
. . . 
(g)  A member of the State Bar of Wisconsin shall file with 
the State Bar annually, with payment of the member’s State Bar 
dues or upon such other date as approved by the Supreme Court, a 
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
14
¶20 In October, 1992, a client Attorney Sosnay represented 
on appointment by the State Public Defender (SPD) was found 
guilty and sentenced to prison. After the client informed the 
court of his intent to seek postconviction relief, the SPD wrote 
Attorney Sosnay to file a formal notice for the client and 
offered to assist him in doing so. Even though the SPD told him 
it could not appoint counsel to represent the client in 
postconviction matters until the proper form had been filed with 
the trial court, Attorney Sosnay never filed that form. In 
addition, he did not respond to three requests from the Board 
for a reply to the client’s grievance. The referee concluded 
that Attorney Sosnay failed to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness in representing this client, in violation of SCR 
20:1.3, and his failure to respond to the Board violated SCR 
21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3).  
¶21 In the summer of 1994, Attorney Sosnay was retained to 
represent a client seeking postconviction relief following 
conviction on an Alford plea. Attorney Sosnay reviewed the trial 
court file, spoke to the prosecutor, met once with the client 
while he was incarcerated, and spoke with the client’s wife by 
telephone and in person. He did not, however, obtain or review 
the hearing transcript or contact trial counsel to obtain 
                                                                  
certificate stating whether the member is engaged in the private 
practice of law in Wisconsin and, if so, the name of each bank, 
trust company, credit union or savings and loan association in 
which the member maintains a trust account, safe deposit box, or 
both, [and] shall explicitly certify therein that he or she has 
complied with each of the record-keeping requirements set forth 
in paragraph (e) hereof. . . . The filing of a false certificate 
is unprofessional conduct and is grounds for disciplinary 
action. . . . 
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
15
documents he had requested. Despite his belief that there was no 
factual basis for it, he filed a motion to withdraw the client’s 
Alford plea, alleging that the client had been represented 
ineffectively at trial. He testified that he had taken that 
action because the client’s wife repeatedly insisted that he 
file something in the matter. The motion was denied in December, 
1994 without a hearing, as it raised no factual issue but set 
forth only conclusory allegations. Attorney Sosnay did not 
respond to three letters from the Board asking for a reply to 
the 
client’s 
grievance 
and, 
although 
he 
appeared 
at 
an 
investigative interview, he did not return to that interview 
after it was adjourned at his request.  
¶22 The referee concluded that by filing a motion because 
of pressure to do so from the client’s wife, when in his 
professional judgment there was no basis for it, Attorney Sosnay 
failed 
to 
exercise 
independent 
professional 
judgment 
in 
representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:2.1. His repeated 
failure to respond to Board requests for information about the 
client’s grievance violated SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3).  
¶23 In 
May, 
1994, 
Attorney 
Sosnay 
was 
retained 
to 
represent a man on three traffic citations. He resolved two of 
them with a plea, resulting in his client’s conviction and 
incarceration. After the client appeared on his own behalf and 
entered a not guilty plea on the third citation and, following 
several adjournments at Attorney Sosnay’s request, the case was 
called for trial, Attorney Sosnay did not appear. As a result, 
the court issued a bench warrant for the client and forfeited 
the bail he had posted. When the client was released from 
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
16
incarceration on the other charges, he was arrested immediately 
on the bench warrant and held in jail over the Thanksgiving 
weekend.  
¶24 When the client’s father called Attorney Sosnay to 
tell him his son was in jail on the bench warrant, Attorney 
Sosnay said he would obtain his release the following Monday. On 
that day, he faxed the court a request for the client’s release 
on the ground that neither he nor the client had received notice 
of the adjourned court date. The court released the client and 
set a new hearing date, but Attorney Sosnay did not appear, and 
another bench warrant was issued for the client. Shortly 
thereafter, the case was again called, and successor counsel 
appeared on the client’s behalf.  
¶25 Attorney Sosnay did not reply to two letters from the 
Board requesting a reply to the client’s grievance, which 
alleged, among other things, that he had told the client and his 
father that he had arranged with the prosecutor that his client 
would receive a 10-day jail sentence on the third citation to be 
served concurrently with his incarceration on the other two 
charges. The prosecutor informed the Board that there never had 
been 
communication 
from 
Attorney 
Sosnay 
in 
which 
that 
disposition was discussed or offered. The referee concluded that 
Attorney Sosnay misrepresented the arrangement to resolve the 
traffic charge, in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c), and that his 
failure to respond to Board requests for information about the 
client’s grievance violated SCR 21.03(4) and 22.07(2) and (3).  
¶26 Between January, 1993 and May, 1994, Attorney Sosnay 
did not respond to requests from the Board and from the district 
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
17
professional responsibility committee for information concerning 
the grievances of four clients. The referee concluded that 
Attorney Sosnay’s failure to respond to the requests of the 
Board and the district committee violated SCR 21.03(4) and 
22.07(2) and (3).  
¶27 On 
seven 
occasions 
between 
December, 
1991 
and 
November, 1993, Attorney Sosnay deposited a total of $2664 
belonging to him or to his wife into his trust account and 
deposited an additional $5650 in cash into that account. None of 
those deposits was designated as belonging to any client. The 
referee concluded that the commingling of funds belonging to 
Attorney Sosnay and to his wife with client funds in his trust 
account violated SCR 20:1.15(a).  
¶28 In mid-August, 1991, Attorney Sosnay deposited into 
his trust account a $56,000 personal injury settlement he had 
obtained for a client. He disbursed $35,000 of that amount to 
the client, paid himself fees of $8900, and paid medical 
expenses and other costs related to the matter. Thereafter, he 
disbursed from the remainder of the proceeds $10,000 to a person 
unconnected with the client’s matter but to whom Attorney Sosnay 
owed money on  a personal loan. A portion of that $10,000 
represented legal fees to which Attorney Sosnay was entitled.  
¶29 Attorney Sosnay did not produce all of the trust 
account records requested by the Board during its investigation. 
Records he did produce and those obtained by the Board from the 
bank where his trust account was maintained showed that as of 
June 3, 1994, there was a negative balance in that account for 
23 clients amounting to $28,225, thus establishing that Attorney 
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
18
Sosnay had disbursed money on behalf of a client either when 
there were no funds for that client in the account or when the 
client’s funds in the account were less than the amount he 
disbursed. An audit also revealed that as of that date, 31 
clients had positive balances totaling $46,316, but the actual 
balance in that account on that date was only $124. Between 
November, 1991 and April, 1994, Attorney Sosnay overdrew his 
client trust account 32 times, in amounts of up to $4596. On 
numerous occasions, he paid money from his trust account to 
third parties who had no money on deposit in that account but 
were persons to whom he personally owed money. Attorney Sosnay 
did not keep a record or ledger of deposits made to his trust 
account, a complete and accurate ledger of disbursements from 
it, or a subsidiary ledger for each client having funds on 
deposit in that account.  
¶30 The referee concluded that by failing to submit 
complete trust account records to the Board at its request, 
Attorney Sosnay violated SCR 20:1.15(f).12 His failure to keep 
required trust account records violated SCR 20:1.15(e). His use 
                     
12  SCR 20:1.15 provides, in pertinent part: Safekeeping 
property 
. . . 
(f)  Upon request of the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility, or upon direction of the Supreme Court, the 
records shall be submitted to the board for its inspection, 
audit, use and evidence under such conditions to protect the 
privilege of clients as the court may provide. The records, or 
an audit thereof, shall be produced at any disciplinary 
proceeding involving the attorney wherever material. Failure to 
produce the records shall constitute unprofessional conduct and 
grounds for disciplinary action.  
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
19
of funds from his trust account to pay third parties to whom he 
was 
personally 
indebted 
constituted 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation, in violation of SCR 
20:8.4(c).  
¶31 In January, 1993, Attorney Sosnay filed an application 
for informal administration of the estate of an elderly 
relative. He took no further action in the matter for the next 
eight months, prompting the court to issue an order to show 
cause for his failure to file an inventory. Between February 1 
and March 25, 1993, Attorney Sosnay deposited over $268,000 of 
estate proceeds into his trust account, and on March 26, 
disbursed $210,000 of those proceeds to the principal heir.  
¶32 Between the end of January, 1993, when the informal 
probate was commenced, and the end of August, 1993, when the 
court issued the order to show cause, Attorney Sosnay disbursed 
to himself on seven occasions a total of $15,500 of estate funds 
from his trust account, of which $6300 was designated as fees 
and $200 as a reimbursement. The remaining $9000 was disbursed 
to him without documenting any basis for it. The referee found 
that this amount could not reasonably be considered legal fees 
in light of the amount of fees Attorney Sosnay already had taken 
and the small amount of legal work done during this period.  
¶33 Between March and October, 1993, Attorney Sosnay made 
16 disbursements of estate funds from his trust account to 
himself and to the client to whom he was making monthly payments 
purportedly as a result of a $40,000 judgment obtained in the 
action on the franchise contract. Those disbursements totaled 
$31,735 and were for purposes unrelated to the estate. During 
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
20
the same period, Attorney Sosnay disbursed $1392 of other client 
funds held in his trust account for matters unrelated to 
clients. During the course of this disciplinary proceeding, 
after he had filed his answer to the third amended complaint in 
November, 1995, Attorney Sosnay gave the principal heir of the 
estate a promissory note for $29,000, representing the remaining 
funds of the estate to which the heir was entitled and which he 
had used for unrelated purposes.  
¶34 The referee concluded that by repeatedly converting 
estate funds to his own purposes, disbursing estate funds to 
himself without any documented basis and when they could not 
reasonably be considered legal fees that he had earned, and 
disbursing funds belonging to other clients for purposes 
unrelated 
to 
those 
clients’ 
matters 
constituted 
conduct 
involving dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation, in violation 
of SCR 20:8.4(c).  
¶35 In this appeal, Attorney Sosnay argued that the 
referee erred in refusing to consider the evidence he had 
presented to support his contention that his psychological 
condition is a mitigating factor on the issue of discipline to 
be imposed for his professional misconduct. This argument has no 
merit, as the referee’s report addresses that evidence at 
length.  
¶36 The psychologist whom he had consulted in July, 1995, 
several months after this proceeding was commenced, testified 
that he had diagnosed Attorney Sosnay as suffering dysthymia –- 
a depression that had gone on for many years. He also testified 
that Attorney Sosnay has been erratic in attendance at the 
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
21
therapy sessions the psychologist had prescribed, did not engage 
at all in prescribed therapy sessions with his wife, and has 
been 
unwilling 
to 
undertake 
a 
course 
of 
anti-depressant 
medication the psychologist also had recommended.  
¶37 The record disclosed that the psychologist had not 
seen Attorney Sosnay until long after his misconduct occurred. 
Moreover, he did not review the records of treatment Attorney 
Sosnay had sought in 1988 and 1989, at the time of the prior 
disciplinary proceeding, although he acknowledged that it would 
have been appropriate to do so. The psychologist did no testing 
of Attorney Sosnay; his impressions and diagnosis were based 
solely on his observations of him and the information Attorney 
Sosnay gave him. The psychologist obtained no corroboration of 
that information from third persons or from prior treatment 
records. Further, the psychologist’s testimony regarding a 
connection 
between 
Attorney 
Sosnay’s 
dysthymia 
and 
his 
misconduct was limited to Attorney Sosnay’s failure to respond 
to the Board and to the district committee when asked for 
information regarding client grievances and to produce his trust 
account records. It did not address the numerous other incidents 
of misconduct established in this proceeding.  
¶38 Based on the testimony of the psychologist and 
Attorney Sosnay’s own testimony, the referee found that while 
the dysthymia “contributed, in varying degrees at varying times, 
to some of his misconduct,” it had not caused any of it. 
Accordingly, the referee properly declined to consider that 
psychological condition in mitigation either of the seriousness 
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
22
of Attorney Sosnay’s misconduct or the severity of discipline it 
warrants.  
¶39 Having determined that Attorney Sosnay’s psychological 
condition was not properly considered a mitigating factor, the 
referee recommended that Attorney Sosnay’s license to practice 
law be revoked as discipline for his professional misconduct. 
The 
referee 
also 
recommended 
that 
the 
court 
condition 
reinstatement of his license on his showing that he no longer 
suffers from the psychological condition to the extent that it 
would impair his practice of law and put clients, the courts and 
the public at risk, that he has paid the promissory note he gave 
to the heir of the estate whose assets he had converted, and 
that he submit to monitoring and audit of his client trust 
account for a period of at least two years.  
¶40 We determine that the seriousness of Attorney Sosnay’s 
professional misconduct, its nature and extent, and the degree 
of 
harm 
it 
has 
caused 
warrant 
the 
recommended 
license 
revocation. 
The 
referee 
considered 
an 
aggravating 
factor 
Attorney Sosnay’s “almost complete absence of appreciation of 
the seriousness of his misconduct.” The referee expressed 
concern that Attorney Sosnay has established a pattern of not 
acknowledging his wrongdoing but rationalizing it instead as the 
result of feeling sorry for clients, trying to protect them, 
trying to escape from pressure they were exerting on him, and 
“sloppy” bookkeeping. The referee also considered an aggravating 
factor Attorney Sosnay’s prior disciplines for misconduct, some 
of which was the same kind as established in this proceeding. 
Finally, the referee considered in aggravation of the misconduct 
 
 
No.  95-0814-D 
 
 
23
Attorney Sosnay’s demonstrated disrespect for the Board and the 
court’s disciplinary process, noting the attitude he expressed 
during his testimony that he had been singled out by the Board, 
held to a standard different from that applied to other 
attorneys, and in general treated unfairly.  
¶41 We 
adopt 
the 
referee’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law concerning Attorney Sosnay’s professional 
misconduct and order the recommended license revocation as 
discipline for it. In light of his prior discipline, Attorney 
Sosnay has demonstrated a propensity to repeat and aggravate 
that misconduct, and his continued practice of law jeopardizes 
the interests, as well as the property, of his clients. 
¶42 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Robert S. Sosnay to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective June 10, 1997.  
¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that reinstatement of the 
license of Robert S. Sosnay to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
be subject to the conditions set forth in the referee’s report 
in this proceeding.  
¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Robert S. Sosnay pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility the costs of this proceeding.  
¶45 IT IS FURTHER ORDERD that Robert S. Sosnay comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.  
JANINE P. GESKE, J., did not participate.  
 
 
 
No. 16997.rtf 
 
24 
 
1 
 
2