Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Steven J. Sarbacker
2017 WI 86
| Wis. | 2017Background
- Steven J. Sarbacker, admitted 1995, practiced in Portage, WI; had prior private reprimands (2013, 2016).
- D.F. and L.F. retained Sarbacker to collect a money judgment; no written contingent-fee agreement although fee exceeded $1,000.
- Sarbacker arranged wage garnishments (total recovery $5,914.45); he agreed to take $2,032.73 in fees and forward the balance to clients.
- He deposited garnishment checks into both trust and operating accounts, failed to disburse many client funds for months, and delayed responding to client demands; ultimately reimbursed clients $2,171.29 and clients received other payments directly from the garnishing agency.
- He failed to timely respond to OLR inquiries. Separately, Sarbacker pled no contest to battery and disorderly conduct in a criminal matter and entered a deferred prosecution agreement.
- Parties stipulated to the facts and misconduct; referee found six rule violations and recommended a 60-day suspension; the Supreme Court adopted findings and imposed a 60-day suspension plus costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OLR) | Defendant's Argument (Sarbacker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of unwritten contingent-fee agreement | Fee agreement was contingent and exceeded $1,000 so writing required under SCR 20:1.5(c) | Argued for mitigation and lesser discipline (public reprimand); did not contest stipulated facts | Violation of SCR 20:1.5(c) admitted and adopted by court |
| Improper handling/deposit of client funds into operating account | Deposited client garnishment checks into business account and misapplied client funds, violating trust-account rule (former SCR 20:1.15(b)(1)) | No factual contest in stipulation; sought mitigation | Violation of former SCR 20:1.15(b)(1) found and adopted |
| Conversion/dishonesty (disbursement of funds to self) | Deposited checks into trust then disbursed nearly all to himself and/or office, violating SCR 8.4(c) | Offered background and mitigation; did not contest stipulated conduct | Violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) found and adopted |
| Failure to promptly deliver client funds and to cooperate with OLR | Failed to promptly deliver clients' share (former SCR 20:1.15(d)(1)) and failed to timely respond to OLR (SCR 22.03(2)/SCR 20:8.4(h)) | Argued disciplinary impact and personal context; urged public reprimand | Violations found and adopted; court imposed 60-day suspension and costs |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bartz, 362 Wis. 2d 752, 864 N.W.2d 881 (Wis. 2015) (60-day suspension for failure to disburse client funds and failure to cooperate)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Trowbridge, 177 Wis. 2d 485, 501 N.W.2d 452 (Wis. 1993) (60-day suspension for client communication, prosecution, and trust-account violations)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Wood, 358 Wis. 2d 472, 854 N.W.2d 844 (Wis. 2014) (significant suspension for multiple client-related misconducts)
- In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Steinhafel, 351 Wis. 2d 313, 839 N.W.2d 404 (Wis. 2013) (multi-month suspension for multiple client matters and criminal conviction)