Court Opinion

ID: 9374885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 15:12:10.225163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:53.769429
License: Public Domain

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,                                        FILED
            Complainant,                                       FEB 24, 2023
      v.                                                          Sheila T. Reiff
                                                               Clerk of Supreme Court
Mark Austin Cross,

            Respondent.

      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

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

       SCR 22.22 (1) states: “An attorney on whom public
        1

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.”

                                           2
                                                                         No.     2022AP1221-D

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

                                              3
                                                                  No.     2022AP1221-D

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

                                            4
                                                                  No.   2022AP1221-D

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.

                                           5
    No.   2022AP1221-D

1