Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Gary R. George
Citation: 2008 WI 21
Docket Number: 2005AP001978-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: March 26, 2008

2008 WI 21 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP1978-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gary R. George,  Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
     v. 
Gary R. George, 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GEORGE 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 26, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
 
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
December 13, 2007   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: PROSSER and BUTLER, Jr., JJ., did not 
participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent-appellant there were briefs by Richard 
J. Cayo and Halling & Cayo, S.C., Milwaukee; and Mark Hazelbaker 
and Hazelbaker & Associates S.C., Madison, and oral argument by 
Richard J. Cayo and Mark Hazelbaker. 
 
For complainant-respondent there was a brief and oral 
argument by Thomas J. Basting, Sr., retained counsel, Madison. 
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 21
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP1978-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Gary R. George,  Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Gary R. George, 
 
          Respondent-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 26, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   Attorney Gary R. George appeals a 
referee's recommendation that his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin be revoked for professional misconduct consisting of 
committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on his honesty, 
trustworthiness and fitness as a lawyer.  The referee also 
recommends 
that 
Attorney 
George 
pay 
the 
costs 
of 
the 
disciplinary proceeding.  The sole issue on appeal is the 
appropriate level of discipline.   
No. 
2005AP1978-D   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We 
approve 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and we adopt them.  We conclude that a 
lengthy suspension is the appropriate level of discipline in 
this proceeding, and we impose the costs of the proceeding. 
¶3 
Attorney George was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1979.  He has no prior disciplinary history.  On 
April 1, 2004, this court summarily suspended Attorney George's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.20(1)1 
upon notification that Attorney George had been convicted in 
federal court, on entry of a guilty plea, of one count of 
conspiracy to commit offenses against federal program funds in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.2  
                                                 
1 SCR 22.20(1) provides: Summary license suspension on 
criminal conviction. 
 
(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. 
2 Title 18 of the United States Code § 371 provides:  
Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States 
 
If two or more persons conspire either to commit 
any offense against the United States, or to defraud 
the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner 
or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do 
any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each 
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more 
than five years, or both.  
No. 
2005AP1978-D   
 
3 
 
¶4 
His license to practice law remains under suspension.   
¶5 
Attorney George served in the Wisconsin Senate for 23 
years. 
 
During 
that 
time, 
he 
developed 
a 
professional 
relationship with Milwaukee attorney Mark Sostarich (Sostarich), 
and Carl Gee (Gee), the former executive director of the 
Opportunities Industrialization Center of Greater Milwaukee 
("OIC"), an entity that held contracts to administer Wisconsin's 
welfare-reform program, popularly known as W-2 (for "Wisconsin 
Works").3    
¶6 
Attorney George, Sostarich, Gee and others entered 
into business arrangements that eventually gave rise to federal 
conspiracy charges.  In 2003 Attorney George was indicted on 
charges that he accepted kickbacks in exchange for exercising 
his political influence over federal grants as well as programs 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
If, however, the offense, the commission of which 
is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor 
only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not 
exceed the maximum punishment provided for such 
misdemeanor. 
3 These contracts brought in about $40 million annually. 
No. 
2005AP1978-D   
 
4 
 
financed by state revenues.4  See United States v. George, 403 
F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2005).  Attorney George pled guilty to the 
first count of the indictment pursuant to a plea agreement.  The 
remaining charges were dismissed but read into the record.  
Attorney George was sentenced to 48 months' imprisonment and was 
ordered to pay $568,596.48 in restitution.5   
¶7 
We summarize the facts underlying the charge to which 
Attorney George pled guilty.  Attorney George and Sostarich 
undertook joint legal representation of the OIC and various OIC 
subsidiaries with the OIC's knowledge and consent.  The parties 
                                                 
4 More specifically, the indictment alleged that Attorney 
George conspired with Sostarich and others to commit offenses 
involving federal program funds under 18 U.S.C. § 666 and to 
commit mail and wire fraud offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
§§ 1341, 1343 and 1346; conspired with Sostarich and others to 
corruptly provide Attorney George with kickbacks from legal fees 
paid by the Police Athletic League ("PAL"), a nonprofit 
subsidiary of the OIC in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 666(a)(1)(B), 
1341 and 1346; knowingly and intentionally misapplied property 
of PAL by rigging the bid process for a $5 million construction 
project in Milwaukee in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 666(a)(1)(A) 
and 2; corruptly solicited and accepted $2,500 from Sostarich 
intending to be rewarded in connection with a State of Wisconsin 
transaction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B); and 
knowingly conducted a financial transaction using the proceeds 
of specified unlawful activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 666, 
1341, 1343, 1346 and 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). 
5 The 
Seventh 
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his 
conviction and sentence, but remanded with directions to review 
the original $613,746.36 restitution award.  The decision after 
remand, reducing the restitution award to $568,596.48, was 
affirmed on appeal.  See United States v. George, No. 03-CR-259, 
Memorandum Decision (E.D. Wis. May 3, 2006), aff'd after remand, 
United States v. George, 198 Fed. Appx. 552 (7th Cir. 2006). 
No. 
2005AP1978-D   
 
5 
 
entered into a written fee agreement, whereby Sostarich served 
as the attorney of record.   
¶8 
Between approximately October 1997 and August 2002, 
the OIC paid a monthly retainer to Sostarich, usually in the 
amount of $5,834.  Sostarich, in turn, would deposit the 
retainer check into his bank account and then write two checks——
one to his law firm and one to Attorney George.  The amount 
Attorney George received varied from four-fifths of the total 
monthly retainer ($4,667.20) to one-half of additional legal 
payments the OIC made to Sostarich.  Attorney George performed 
no legal work in exchange for this money; neither the OIC nor 
Sostarich filed tax documents showing how the monthly fee was 
allocated.   
¶9 
The OIC also "invested" $200,000 of an affiliate's 
money in a corporation controlled by Attorney George's family, 
whose sole asset was a television station in the Virgin Islands.  
The "investment" never appeared on the corporation's books.  The 
federal court observed that "[t]he money seems to have gone 
straight to George's pocket, with the OIC receiving his goodwill 
and political patronage rather than an equity interest in a 
business."  United States v. Gee, 432 F.3d 713, 714 (7th Cir. 
2005).  Attorney George eventually received over $400,000 in 
various payments from the OIC.6  In addition, the indictment 
                                                 
6 Gee was convicted of conspiring with Attorney George and 
Sostarich to obtain OIC contracts corruptly and of causing the 
OIC to pay kickbacks to Attorney George, in violation of 18 
U.S.C. §§ 666 and 371.  Gee was sentenced to 24 months' 
imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution of some $473,000.  
See United States v. Gee, 432 F.3d at 714.   
No. 
2005AP1978-D   
 
6 
 
alleged and Attorney George has admitted that he used state 
employees to perform personal work for him, and that he failed 
to disclose the fees received from the OIC arrangement on his 
Statement of Economic Interests. 
¶10 On August 2, 2005, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint against Attorney George 
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."  
¶11 A hearing on the attorney disciplinary matter was 
conducted on April 20, 2006.  On December 12, 2006, the referee, 
Gene B. Radcliffe, filed his report recommending revocation.  
This appeal followed.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court conducted 
oral argument on December 13, 2007. 
¶12 Attorney George does not challenge the referee's 
finding that his federal conviction established a violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(b).  Therefore, the sole question before the court on 
                                                                                                                                                             
Sostarich was convicted, following entry of a plea, to one 
count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud in violation of 18 
U.S.C. § 371.  Sostarich was sentenced in federal court to three 
years probation, conditioned on 150 days of home confinement.  
Sostarich was also ordered to make restitution to an OIC 
subsidiary in the amount of $42,649 and to perform 75 hours of 
community service.  Sostarich’s license to practice law was 
summarily suspended following his conviction, and his license 
was ultimately suspended for 18 months.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Sostarich, 2005 WI 97, 282 Wis. 2d 712, 698 
N.W.2d 711.   
No. 
2005AP1978-D   
 
7 
 
appeal is the appropriate discipline for Attorney George's 
professional misconduct.  The OLR acknowledged at oral argument 
that any discipline should be imposed retroactive to the date 
Attorney 
George's 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
was 
summarily 
suspended. 
¶13 It is this court's responsibility to determine the 
appropriate 
discipline 
to 
be 
imposed 
for 
an 
attorney's 
misconduct.  In making that determination, we are free to impose 
discipline more or less severe than that recommended by the 
referee.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Elliott, 133 
Wis. 2d 110, 
394 
N.W.2d 313 
(1986); 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Reitz, 2005 WI 39, 279 Wis. 2d 550, 694 
N.W.2d 894.  
¶14 We consider the seriousness of the misconduct, the 
need to protect the public, courts and the legal system from 
repetition of misconduct, the need to impress upon the attorney 
the seriousness of the misconduct, and the need to deter other 
attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, 279 
Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910.  
¶15 Attorney George acknowledges the seriousness of his 
misconduct, but asserts that a lesser sanction than revocation 
is warranted.  The crux of Attorney George's argument is that 
the federal court decisions overstate the nature of the 
conspiracy and, while he concedes it was wrong to use state 
employees for personal work and wrong to fail to disclose the 
payments he received on his Statement of Economic Interests, the 
No. 
2005AP1978-D   
 
8 
 
payments he received from the OIC were fairly obtained.  He 
maintains that he did not exert his influence improperly on 
behalf of the OIC.  He maintains that the payments he received 
were for legitimate services rendered to the OIC.  Despite 
Attorney 
George's 
protestations 
to 
the 
contrary, 
this 
characterization of the events was clearly not accepted by the 
referee who stated, "In spite of his arguments that he was 
convicted because of technicalities and the general coercive 
nature of the criminal  . . .  system and that he really did 
provide legal services to the entities for which he received 
kickbacks, the record clearly indicates otherwise."  (Emphasis 
added). 
¶16 We decline to disturb the referee's factual finding on 
this point and note that it is fully consistent with Attorney 
George's statements made at his plea hearing, where the federal 
court described the allegations contained in count one of the 
indictment and asked, "Are those the facts to which you are 
pleading guilty here today as they——as those facts relate to 
you?"  Attorney George responded, "Yes, your Honor."   
¶17 Similarly, we are not persuaded by Attorney George's 
suggestion that his discipline should not be significantly more 
severe than that imposed on Sostarich.  There is substantial 
record evidence that both Sostarich and Gee benefited far less 
than Attorney George from the scheme.  Attorney George's effort 
to characterize his culpability as on par with that of Sostarich 
is simply not compelling.   
No. 
2005AP1978-D   
 
9 
 
¶18 Attorney 
George 
also 
suggests 
that 
the 
referee 
erroneously assumed that revocation is automatically warranted 
when an attorney has committed any serious felony.  However, it 
does not appear the referee erroneously assumed that commission 
of a serious felony automatically requires revocation.  In his 
report, the referee referenced section 5.11(a) of the ABA 
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions which states that 
disbarment is generally appropriate when: 
[A] lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct a 
necessary 
element 
of 
which 
includes 
intentional 
interference with the administration of justice, false 
swearing, 
misrepresentation, 
fraud, 
extortion, 
misappropriation, or theft; . . . or an attempt or 
conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit any of 
these offenses[.] 
¶19 The referee stated, "In imposing discipline in these 
cases, most courts impose disbarment on lawyers who are 
convicted on serious felonies."  The referee added that Section 
5.21 of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions provides 
that "disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an 
official or governmental position, such as [Attorney George], 
knowingly 
misuses 
the 
position 
with 
intent 
to 
obtain 
a 
significant benefit or advantage for himself."   
¶20 We are not persuaded that by these statements, the 
referee erroneously assumed revocation was the only sanction he 
could recommend to this court.   
¶21 However, while we decline to accept Attorney George's 
characterization of the events giving rise to his conviction, 
No. 
2005AP1978-D   
 
10 
 
neither are we persuaded that revocation is a necessary sanction 
in this instance. 
¶22 In considering the appropriate discipline, we consider 
prior Wisconsin precedent, the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer 
Sanctions, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances involved 
in this matter, and the specific circumstances of Attorney 
George's misconduct. 
¶23 Ultimately, each disciplinary case turns on its 
specific facts.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against O'Byrne, 2002 WI 123, 257 Wis. 2d 8, 653 N.W.2d 111.  We 
have considered the cases cited by both parties and commend 
counsel for providing the court with a thorough analysis of 
relevant case law.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Burke, 2007 WI 46, 300 Wis. 2d 198, 730 N.W.2d  651 
(suspension); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Chvala, 
2007 WI 47, 300 Wis. 2d 206, 730 N.W.2d 648 (suspension); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Paulus, 2004 WI 71, 272 
Wis. 2d 143, 682 N.W.2d 326 (consensual revocation); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hausmann, 2005 WI 131, 285 
Wis. 2d 608, 699 N.W.2d 923 (suspension); O'Byrne, 2002 WI 123 
(revocation); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kortsch, 
225 Wis. 2d 235, 591 N.W.2d 841 (1999) (revocation); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hinnawi, 202 Wis. 2d 113, 549 
N.W.2d 245 (1996) (revocation); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Wright, 180 Wis. 2d 492, 509 N.W.2d (1994) (revocation); 
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Smith, 145 Wis. 2d  632, 
428 N.W.2d 547 (1988) (revocation). 
No. 
2005AP1978-D   
 
11 
 
¶24 Revocation is the most extreme sanction this court can 
impose upon an attorney who has violated the Rules of 
Professional Conduct for Attorneys.  It is reserved for the most 
egregious cases of professional misconduct, cases where we 
conclude that the nature and extent of the misconduct renders an 
attorney wholly unfit to be licensed by this court to represent 
others in the legal system.   
¶25 Revoking a lawyer's license to practice law does not, 
however, preclude that person from ever practicing law in 
Wisconsin again.  One whose license has been revoked may seek 
reinstatement "at any time commencing five years after the 
effective date of the revocation."  SCR 22.29(2).   
¶26 In seeking a lesser sanction than revocation, Attorney 
George offered, as a mitigating factor, his lengthy public 
service, including 23 years in the Wisconsin Senate, and his 
involvement since the 1970s in Wisconsin Special Olympics and 
other 
charitable 
and 
professional 
works 
benefiting 
underprivileged youth.   
¶27 At the oral argument on this matter, however, counsel 
for the OLR persuasively argued the other side of that same 
coin, emphasizing that Attorney George was not only acting as an 
attorney, but also as an elected official when he committed the 
misconduct at issue here.  As such, Attorney George's misconduct 
not only involved dishonesty, it violated the public's trust and 
served to undermine the public's confidence in its elected 
officials.  
No. 
2005AP1978-D   
 
12 
 
¶28 This is a difficult case and one this court considered 
very seriously.  We share the OLR's concerns about the serious 
violation of public trust committed by Attorney George, and we 
agree that substantial discipline is warranted to address that 
misconduct.  At the same time, we are mindful that our role is 
not to duplicate the punishment Attorney George has already 
received for his actions, which includes a felony conviction, a 
lengthy prison sentence, and a very substantial restitution 
obligation that must be paid.   
¶29 Ultimately, we have concluded that while Attorney 
George's misconduct was, indeed, extremely serious, it does not 
warrant the harshest penalty of revocation.  We are influenced 
by the fact that this is the only disciplinary complaint filed 
against Attorney George since he was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin some 29 years ago.  We are influenced by Attorney 
George's public service to the citizens of Wisconsin.  His 
service 
long 
preceded 
the 
events 
giving 
rise 
to 
this 
disciplinary matter.  Ultimately, while we agree that Attorney 
George has committed serious misconduct, we are persuaded that 
his prospects for rehabilitation are real.   
¶30 Therefore, we have concluded that a lengthy suspension 
is appropriate discipline for Attorney George's violation of SCR 
20:8.4(b). Attorney George's license to practice law will be 
suspended for a period of four years and three months.  This is, 
perhaps, the most lengthy suspension imposed by this court in an 
attorney disciplinary matter.  
No. 
2005AP1978-D   
 
13 
 
¶31 Consistent with our past practice in other cases 
involving 
criminal 
convictions, 
we 
make 
the 
suspension 
retroactive to the date on which Attorney George's license was 
summarily suspended.  We further conclude that Attorney George 
should be required to pay the costs of the proceeding which 
total $14,064.72 as of December 17, 2007.7  
¶32 We 
emphasize, 
moreover, 
that 
a 
petition 
for 
reinstatement, whether it follows a suspension or a revocation, 
is not an automatic procedure.  See, e.g., Reinstatement of 
Eisenberg, 206 Wis. 2d 264, 556 N.W.2d 749 (1996).  In all cases 
of revocation or license suspension of six months or more, the 
individual's 
eligibility 
and 
fitness 
to 
practice 
law 
is 
carefully scrutinized, first by the OLR, then by a referee, and 
finally by this court.  The person seeking reinstatement must 
demonstrate that he or she has the moral character to practice 
law, that his or her resumption of the practice of law will not 
be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of 
the public interest, and the person seeking reinstatement must 
also demonstrate compliance with various other conditions as set 
forth in the rules or by order of the court.  See, e.g., SCRs 
22.29-22.33.   
¶33 IT IS ORDERED that Gary R. George's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of four 
                                                 
7 An objection to the specific amount of costs is not 
presently before this court.  See SCR 22.24. 
No. 
2005AP1978-D   
 
14 
 
years and three months, retroactive to the date of his summary 
license suspension imposed April 1, 2004.   
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if he has not already done 
so, Gary R. George comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 
concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law 
in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Gary R. George 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 Gary R. George to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the 
court. 
¶36 DAVID T. PROSSER, J., and LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J., 
did not participate. 
 
No. 
2005AP1978-D   
 
 
 
1