In the Matter of Howard L. Sosnik

Howard L. Sosnik, a Georgia lawyer admitted to the bar in 1984, was disciplined in New York after his law firm's escrow account had checks bounce for insufficient funds. An investigation revealed that a nonlawyer office manager had been shifting money between the firm's escrow, operating, and payroll accounts and had misappropriated client funds, which the firm later repaid. New York suspended Sosnik for six months for failing to review and supervise the account and the employee handling it. Sosnik asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to impose the same six-month suspension in Georgia as reciprocal discipline. The State Bar of Georgia agreed this was appropriate given similar past cases. The court accepted the petition, finding a six-month suspension consistent with precedent, and noted Sosnik had already been reinstated in New York, so no further action was needed for his Georgia suspension to expire automatically.

The court held that a six-month reciprocal suspension is the appropriate discipline for violating Rules 1.15(I) and 5.3(b), which require proper oversight of client trust funds and supervision of nonlawyer staff, given the mitigating circumstances and precedent imposing similar sanctions for comparable misconduct.

The case reminds Georgia lawyers, especially those running trust or escrow accounts, that they remain responsible for supervising nonlawyer staff and monitoring client funds, and shows how discipline imposed by another state's bar can automatically carry over into Georgia.

Six-month suspension imposed

1. The court reviewed New York's disciplinary order, which found Sosnik failed to properly review, audit, and reconcile his firm's escrow account (a trust account holding client funds) and failed to supervise the nonlawyer office manager who managed it, violating Georgia Rules 1.15(I) and 5.3(b).
2. Under Georgia's reciprocal discipline rule (Bar Rule 9.4, found in Bar Rule 4-102(d)), a lawyer disciplined in another state can receive matching discipline in Georgia, so the court looked to the New York suspension as the basis for Georgia's sanction.
3. The court weighed mitigating factors identified in the New York order, including Sosnik's acceptance of responsibility, lack of selfish intent, the firm's repayment of misappropriated client funds, cooperation with investigators, and lack of any prior discipline, against the absence of specific aggravating factors beyond the firm's failure to catch early warning signs.
4. Comparing this case to prior Georgia precedent imposing six-month suspensions for similar violations of Rules 1.15(I) and 5.3 where clients had been made whole, the court concluded a six-month suspension matched the appropriate sanction for this conduct.
5. Because Sosnik had already been reinstated in New York and Georgia imposed no additional conditions on his return to practice, the court ordered the suspension to run automatically from the date of the opinion and expire six months later without further action.

• attorney suspension
• escrow account mismanagement
• reciprocal discipline
• State Bar of Georgia
• client fund misappropriation