In the Matter of Howard L. Sosnik

843 S.E.2d 402, 308 Ga. 823

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decided: May 18, 2020
• Docket: S20Y1078
• Status: Published

Opinion

308 Ga. 823 FINAL COPY

S20Y1078. IN THE MATTER OF HOWARD L. SOSNIK.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the petition for

voluntary discipline filed by Howard L. Sosnik (State Bar No.

667258) under Bar Rule 4-227 (b), in which he seeks a six-month

suspension as reciprocal discipline for a six-month suspension

imposed in New York. See In the Matter of Sosnik, 173 AD3d 137

(N.Y. App. Div., May 29, 2019) (suspension effective June 28, 2019);

see also Rule 9.4 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found

in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). In his petition, Sosnik, who was admitted to

the Bar in 1984, admits that he failed properly to review, audit, and

reconcile his firm’s escrow account; and that he failed properly to

supervise the work of a nonlawyer employee of the firm, specifically

with respect to the firm’s escrow account. He admits that this

conduct constitutes violations of Rules 1.15 (I) and 5.3 (b). The

maximum sanction for a violation of both rules is disbarment. The New York order of suspension provides the following

additional details: Sosnik, along with two law partners (collectively

“the Firm”), performed estate planning and estate administration

work for clients, which sometimes involved ancillary real estate

work. The Firm entrusted the banking and bookkeeping

responsibilities to a nonlawyer office manager, but did not carefully

supervise her or provide appropriate oversight of the Firm’s escrow

account. Shortly after the office manager left her employment in

2013, the Firm learned that two checks issued from the Firm’s

escrow account, totaling approximately $98,000, had been

dishonored for insufficient funds. The Firm reviewed the account

and deposited sufficient funds to cover the checks and also self-

reported the matter to the appropriate New York Grievance

Committee. The Firm engaged an auditor, who determined that over

the previous several years the office manager had been transferring

money among the Firm’s escrow, operating, and payroll accounts,

that the office manager had misappropriated client funds, and that the Firm’s escrow balance remained deficient. The Firm then made

additional deposits to correct the deficiency.

The order also identifies numerous mitigating circumstances:

Sosnik’s acceptance of responsibility and candor, the absence of

selfish intent, the Firm’s replenishment of the misappropriated

client funds, the Firm’s cooperation with the disciplinary

investigation, the remedial actions taken to institute proper bank

and bookkeeping practices, and Sosnik’s remorse, good character,

and lack of a prior disciplinary record. The order identified no

aggravating circumstances specifically but noted that at the time of

the underlying events Sosnik and his law partners were experienced

practitioners, all of whom had a background in accounting, and that

the record showed there were “early warning signs” of the problem

with the escrow account that Sosnik and his partners did not detect

due to their failure to provide proper oversight of the account.

The State Bar has filed a response recommending that the

Court accept the petition and notes that previous cases have

imposed a suspension for violations of Rules 1.15 (I) and 5.3. See In the Matter of Copeland, 297 Ga. 144 (772 SE2d 634) (2015) (six-

month suspension for violation of several rules, including Rules 1.15

(I) and 5.3 (b), where client had been made whole); In the Matter of

Calomeni, 293 Ga. 673 (748 SE2d 926) (2013) (six-month suspension

for violations of several rules, including 1.15 (I) and 5.3 (d), where

client had been made whole).

Having reviewed the petition and response, the Court agrees

that imposition of a six-month suspension is appropriate under

these circumstances and is consistent with our precedent.

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Howard L. Sosnik be

suspended from the practice of law in the State of Georgia for a

period of six months. Because Sosnik has been reinstated in New

York, see In the Matter of Sosnik, 181 AD3d 681 (N.Y. App. Div.,

Mar. 11, 2020), and because there are no conditions on Sosnik’s

reinstatement in this State other than the passage of time, there is

no need for him to take any action either through the State Bar or

through this Court to effectuate his return to the practice of law.

Instead, the suspension based on this opinion will take effect as of the date this opinion is issued and will expire by its own terms six

months later. Sosnik is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule

4-219 (b).

Six-month suspension. All the Justices concur.

DECIDED MAY 18, 2020. Suspension. Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, William D. NeSmith III, Deputy General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Andreea N. Morrison, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.