Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Daynel L. Hooker ( 2014 )

2014 WI 41
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2014AP28-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Daynel L. Hooker, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Daynel L. Hooker,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HOOKER
OPINION FILED: June 19, 2014
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2014 WI 41
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2014AP28-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Daynel L. Hooker, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
JUN 19, 2014
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Daynel L. Hooker,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. Attorney Daynel L. Hooker has filed a
petition for the consensual revocation of her license to
practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to SCR 22.19.1 Attorney
1
SCR 22.19 provides as follows:
Petition for consensual license revocation.
(1) An attorney who is the subject of an
investigation for possible misconduct or the
respondent in a proceeding may file with the supreme
court a petition for the revocation by consent or his
or her license to practice law.
No. 2014AP28-D
Hooker's petition states that she cannot successfully defend
against seven Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) grievance
investigations in which the Preliminary Review Committee (PRC)
found cause to proceed as to 35 counts of misconduct. Attorney
Hooker's petition further states that she cannot successfully
defend against the misconduct described in an October 18, 2013
Opinion and Decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, which
disbarred Attorney Hooker for misconduct involving various
client matters.
(2) The petition shall state that the petitioner
cannot successfully defend against the allegations of
misconduct.
(3) If a complaint has not been filed, the
petition shall be filed in the supreme court and shall
include the director's summary of the misconduct
allegations being investigated. Within 20 days after
the date of filing of the petition, the director shall
file in the supreme court a recommendation on the
petition. Upon a showing of good cause, the supreme
court may extend the time for filing a recommendation.
(4) If a complaint has been filed, the petition
shall be filed in the supreme court and served on the
director and on the referee to whom the proceeding has
been assigned. Within 20 days after the filing of the
petition, the director shall file in the supreme court
a response in support of or in opposition to the
petition and serve a copy on the referee. Upon a
showing of good cause, the supreme court may extend
the time for filing a response. The referee shall
file a report and recommendation on the petition in
the supreme court within 30 days after receipt of the
director's response.
(5) The supreme court shall grant the petition
and revoke the petitioner's license to practice law or
deny the petition and remand the matter to the
director or to the referee for further proceedings.
2
No. 2014AP28-D
¶2 Attorney Hooker was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 2001. She primarily practiced in Colorado, though
she has never been licensed to practice law in Colorado. She
maintained a federal law practice concentrating on immigration,
bankruptcy, and intellectual property law.
¶3 Under Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 8.5, a
lawyer who provides or offers to provide any legal services in
Colorado is subject to the disciplinary authority of that state
even if the attorney is not licensed in that state. Attorney
Hooker has been disciplined twice by the Colorado Supreme Court,
resulting in two reciprocal discipline matters in Wisconsin. In
2010 this court suspended Attorney Hooker for six months,
effective February 8, 2009, as discipline reciprocal to that
imposed by the Colorado Supreme Court. In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Hooker, 2010 WI 13, 322 Wis. 2d 552, 779
N.W.2d 419. In 2012 this court again suspended Attorney Hooker
for six months, retroactive to March 1, 2011, as discipline
reciprocal to that imposed by the Colorado Supreme Court. In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hooker, 2012 WI 100, 343
Wis. 2d 397, 816 N.W.2d 310.
¶4 Attorney Hooker's Wisconsin law license is under
administrative suspension. She has failed to cooperate with OLR
grievance investigations, failed to pay State Bar of Wisconsin
dues, and failed to comply with continuing legal education
requirements.
¶5 Attached to Attorney Hooker's petition for revocation
are the following two documents: (1) a completed but unfiled
3
No. 2014AP28-D
OLR disciplinary complaint alleging 35 counts of misconduct
involving seven client matters; and (2) a certified copy of an
October 18, 2013 Opinion and Decision of the Colorado Supreme
Court ("Colorado disciplinary decision"). The Colorado
disciplinary decision concerns misconduct involving eight client
matters, two of which are also presented in the OLR's unfiled
disciplinary complaint. The Colorado disciplinary decision
disbars Attorney Hooker from the practice of law in Colorado.
¶6 It is not necessary to describe the particular factual
allegations of each representation. A synopsis of the
information contained in the attachments to Attorney Hooker's
petition for revocation will provide a sufficient description of
the nature and scope of her professional misconduct.
¶7 The completed but unfiled OLR disciplinary complaint
alleges violations of the following rules, many of which the OLR
alleges Attorney Hooker violated on multiple occasions:
SCR 20:1.1 (failing to provide competent representation to a
client); SCR 20:1.3 (failing to act with reasonable diligence
and promptness in representing a client); SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)
(failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status
of a matter); SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) (failing to promptly comply with
reasonable requests by the client for information);
SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) (failing to adequately explain the basis on
which lawyer's fee would be calculated); SCR 20:1.5(b)(2)
(failing, where the total cost of the representation is more
than $1,000, to communicate in writing to the client the purpose
and effect of any retainer or advance fee that is paid to the
4
No. 2014AP28-D
lawyer); SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) (failing to deposit advanced payments
of fees and costs into trust account); SCR 20:1.16(d) (failing
to take steps to protect a client's interests upon termination
of representation); SCR 20:5.5(a)(1) (practicing law in a
jurisdiction where doing so violated the regulation of the legal
profession in that jurisdiction); SCR 20:8.4(a) (violating the
Rules of Professional Conduct); SCR 20:8.4(c) (engaging in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation); SCR 22.03(2) (failing to cooperate with an
OLR investigation); and SCR 22.03(6) (failing to provide
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish
documents in the course of an OLR investigation).
¶8 In the Colorado disciplinary decision, the Colorado
Supreme Court disbarred Attorney Hooker based on the following
ethical violations under the Colorado Rules of Professional
Conduct, many of which the Colorado Supreme Court determined
Attorney Hooker committed on multiple occasions: practicing
law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the applicable
regulations of the legal profession; failing to hold property in
a trust account separate from the lawyer's own property;
failing, upon a client's request, to promptly render a full
accounting regarding funds in which the client has an interest;
failing to protect the client's interest by surrendering papers
and property to which the client is entitled and to refund any
unearned fees or expenses; committing conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; failing to act
with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing a
5
No. 2014AP28-D
client; failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the
status of a matter; failing to promptly comply with reasonable
requests for information; failing to communicate to a client, in
writing, the basis or rate of the fee and expenses within a
reasonable time after commencing the representation; and failing
to respond to a lawful demand for information from a
disciplinary authority.
¶9 Attorney Hooker's petition for consensual revocation
states that she cannot successfully defend against the
professional misconduct alleged in the OLR's unfiled complaint
and described in the Colorado disciplinary decision. She states
that she is seeking consensual revocation freely, voluntarily,
and knowingly. She confirms her understanding that she is
giving up her right to contest the OLR's allegations and to have
a public hearing at which she could present evidence in her
defense. She further acknowledges that she has been given the
opportunity to consult with counsel and that she has declined to
do so.
¶10 The OLR's report and recommendation in support of the
petition contains a restitution request. Specifically, the OLR
requests that Attorney Hooker be ordered to pay restitution in
the amount of $1,130 to former client D.W.; $2,720 to former
client J.T.S.; $4,610 to former client G.K.; $2,310 to former
client H.O.; and $1,660 to former client K.V. Attorney Hooker's
petition states that she agrees that she should be ordered to
pay these restitution amounts.
6
No. 2014AP28-D
¶11 Having reviewed Attorney Hooker's petition, the OLR's
completed but unfiled disciplinary complaint, and the
October 18, 2013 Opinion and Decision of the Colorado Supreme
Court, we conclude that the petition for consensual revocation
should be granted. It is clear from the descriptions of the
various representations that Attorney Hooker has engaged in a
widespread pattern of serious professional misconduct that has
harmed her clients. It is also clear that Attorney Hooker is
currently unwilling or unable to conform her conduct to the
standards that are required to practice law in this state.
¶12 Attorney Hooker asks the court to make her revocation
go into effect retroactively, to a date in March 2012 when the
Colorado Supreme Court temporarily suspended the Colorado
disciplinary proceedings due to Attorney Hooker's allegation
that a disability impaired her ability to defend herself. We
note that the Colorado Supreme Court later lifted the stay of
the Colorado disciplinary proceedings and proceeded to disbar
Attorney Hooker, without making her disbarment retroactive.
¶13 We deny Attorney Hooker's request for a retroactive
revocation date. Customarily, the effective date of a license
revocation to be imposed for a lawyer's misconduct is the date
of this court's order imposing the revocation. We see no reason
to depart from that practice here.
¶14 We further determine, in light of the OLR's report and
Attorney Hooker's agreement, that Attorney Hooker should be
required to pay restitution in the amount of $1,130 to former
client D.W.; $2,720 to former client J.T.S.; $4,610 to former
7
No. 2014AP28-D
client G.K.; $2,310 to former client H.O.; and $1,660 to former
client K.V.
¶15 We note that the OLR does not seek costs. Accordingly,
no costs will be imposed.
¶16 Finally, we note that Attorney Hooker states in her
petition for consensual license revocation that "a medical
incapacity impaired my ability to represent my clients during
the period of time in which my misconduct occurred." Because
Attorney Hooker is seeking a consensual revocation, and not an
indefinite suspension for medical incapacity (see SCR 22.34), we
deem irrelevant the details of her alleged medical issues.
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license
revocation is granted.
¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Daynel L.
Hooker to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the
date of this order.
¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order Daynel L. Hooker shall pay restitution in the
amount of $1,130 to former client D.W.; $2,720 to former client
J.T.S.; $4,610 to former client G.K.; $2,310 to former client
H.O.; and $1,660 to former client K.V.
¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent she has not
already done so, Daynel L. Hooker shall comply with the
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.
8
No. 2014AP28-D
9
No. 2014AP28-D
1