Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Sean D. Cooper ( 2013 )

2013 WI 97SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 2012AP2321-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Sean D. Cooper, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Sean D. Cooper,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COOPER
OPINION FILED: December 10, 2013
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED:
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2013 WI 97NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 2012AP2321-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Sean D. Cooper, Attorney at Law:
Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant,
DEC 10, 2013
v.
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Sean D. Cooper,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license
revoked.
¶1 PER CURIAM. On June 6, 2013, Referee Richard C.
Ninneman filed a report recommending that Attorney Sean D.
Cooper be declared in default, concluding that Attorney Cooper
engaged in numerous counts of professional misconduct, and
recommending that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be
revoked.
¶2 We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence. Since
No. 2012AP2321-D
Attorney Cooper failed to present a defense despite being given
multiple opportunities to do so, we declare him to be in
default. We further agree with the referee that the seriousness
of Attorney Cooper's misconduct warrants the revocation of his
license to practice law in Wisconsin. In addition, we conclude
that the full costs of this proceeding, which are $7,401.14 as
of June 26, 2013, should be assessed against Attorney Cooper.
¶3 Attorney Cooper was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 2009. His license to practice law in Wisconsin was
temporarily suspended, pursuant to SCR 22.03(4), on October 17,
2012. His license remains suspended.
¶4 On October 24, 2012, the Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR) issued a complaint against Attorney Cooper alleging 39
counts of professional misconduct arising out of ten different
matters. On December 17, 2012, Attorney Cooper filed a one-page
answer denying all allegations and facts contained in the
complaint.
¶5 On January 23, 2013, the OLR filed an amended
complaint alleging 78 counts of misconduct in 18 separate
matters.
¶6 In a February 1, 2013 telephone conference between the
referee, Attorney Cooper, and retained counsel for the OLR,
Attorney Cooper was encouraged to retain counsel and was given
until February 28, 2013, to respond to the amended complaint. A
further telephone conference was scheduled for March 4, 2013.
Attorney Cooper was directed to call the referee in advance of
the telephone conference in order to participate. Attorney
2
No. 2012AP2321-D
Cooper failed to make such contact and the telephone conference
was cancelled.
¶7 On March 21, 2013, the OLR filed a motion for default
judgment. Attached to the supporting affidavit was a letter
from Attorney Cooper dated March 19, 2013, addressed to the
referee and the OLR's counsel. The letter stated, "I have
decided to voluntary [sic] surrender my license to practice law
in the State of Wisconsin due to personal reasons."
¶8 On April 8, 2013, the referee issued a notice that the
OLR's motion for a default judgment would be heard on May 21,
2013. At the May 21 hearing, the OLR's counsel and an OLR
investigator appeared by videoconference and a record was made.
Neither Attorney Cooper nor any attorney or representative made
an appearance on his behalf. As a result, the referee granted
the OLR's motion for default judgment and found the OLR proved
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence all allegations
in its amended complaint.
¶9 The allegations in the amended complaint, which are
discussed in detail in the referee's report, will not be
extensively recited or repeated here. We will briefly summarize
the incidents giving rise to the misconduct.
Multiple Bankruptcy Proceedings (Counts 1 through 8)
¶10 Judge Pamela Pepper, Chief Bankruptcy Judge for the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, made a submission to the OLR on May 13, 2011,
reporting that, pursuant to the unanimous decision of the
Eastern District of Wisconsin bankruptcy judges, Attorney Cooper
3
No. 2012AP2321-D
had been barred from filing any new bankruptcy petitions for a
period of six months. The prohibition on his filing any new
cases arose out of his repeated mishandling of multiple
bankruptcy matters, including failing to respond to
communications from the bankruptcy court and trustee, failing to
communicate with clients regarding court appearances, filing
schedules in bankruptcy proceedings without prior client review,
and filing bankruptcy petitions during times he was barred from
doing so.
Matter of R.F. (Counts 9 through 14)
¶11 In May of 2010, R.F. hired Attorney Cooper to
represent her with respect to charges of discrimination that she
had already filed with the United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC). R.F. paid Attorney Cooper $4,000
for the representation. After requesting a postponement of a
mediation, Attorney Cooper failed to respond to telephone calls
from the mediator, failed to file a lawsuit within 90 days after
receipt of the notice of dismissal of R.F.'s claims, causing
R.F. to lose her rights to sue, failed to return R.F.'s file,
and failed to timely respond to R.F.'s grievance.
Matter of N.L. (Counts 15 through 18)
¶12 In October of 2010, N.L. hired Attorney Cooper to file
a Wis. Stat. chapter 128 petition in Milwaukee County for
voluntary amortization of debts. Attorney Cooper filed the
petition but never informed N.L. of the appointment of a
trustee. The petition was later dismissed due to N.L.'s failure
to make the initial payment to the trustee as ordered by the
4
No. 2012AP2321-D
court. Attorney Cooper filed a second petition in April of
2011. The court sent Attorney Cooper a checklist of missing
items and told him if the petition was not corrected within 30
days, it would be dismissed. Attorney Cooper failed to inform
N.L. of the missing items and failed to contact the trustee or
the court, so the second petition was also dismissed.
Matter of C.D. (Counts 19 through 21)
¶13 In September of 2010, C.D. hired Attorney Cooper to
represent her in a chapter 128 proceeding in Milwaukee County.
The petition incorrectly stated the debtor's name and listed an
incorrect address. After appointment of a trustee, the trustee
filed an affidavit and order for dismissal based on the fact
that the debtor had made no plan payments. The trustee's
documents listed the wrong address for C.D., and there was no
correspondence from Attorney Cooper to C.D. informing the client
that a trustee had been appointed.
Matter of Y.D. (Counts 22 through 26)
¶14 In December of 2010, Y.D. hired Attorney Cooper to
represent her in a chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. Attorney
Cooper electronically filed the voluntary bankruptcy petition
and a meeting of creditors was scheduled. Attorney Cooper
appeared at the hearing but Y.D. did not. The trustee filed a
motion to dismiss the bankruptcy petition based on Y.D.'s
failure to attend the meeting of creditors and failure to
provide tax returns and other information. Attorney Cooper
failed to obtain Y.D.'s signature on any of the documents he
electronically filed with the bankruptcy court as required by
5
No. 2012AP2321-D
local court rules. He also altered the original date on the
bankruptcy petition prior to submitting a copy of it to the OLR,
failed to have Y.D. review and sign the petition before filing
it, failed to object to the trustee's motion to dismiss, and
failed to keep Y.D. apprised of the status of her case.
Matter of S.J. (Counts 27 and 28)
¶15 On April 1, 2011, S.J. engaged Attorney Cooper to
represent her in a chapter 128 petition in Milwaukee County for
the voluntary amortization of debts. Attorney Cooper filed the
petition. The court advised him that his proposed trustee was
not presently in compliance with a local rule and directed
Attorney Cooper to resubmit appropriate materials to the court
within 30 days or the case would be dismissed. Attorney Cooper
failed to respond within that time period and the proceeding was
dismissed.
Matter of V.H. (Counts 29 through 33)
¶16 In March of 2011, V.H. hired Attorney Cooper to
represent her in a chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. Attorney
Cooper electronically filed the voluntary bankruptcy petition
but failed to gather the required documents from V.H. prior to
filing it. He also failed to have V.H. review and sign the
petition and related schedules prior to filing, failed to keep
V.H. informed about the status of the proceeding, represented to
the bankruptcy court that V.H. had signed the documents when she
had not, and changed the dates on some documents after they had
been filed.
Matter of T.M. (Counts 34 and 35)
6
No. 2012AP2321-D
¶17 In March of 2010, T.M. hired Attorney Cooper to defend
T.M. in various criminal matters pending in Racine County. T.M.
paid Attorney Cooper $5,000 and a purported fee agreement letter
was signed. T.M. claimed he terminated Attorney Cooper's
representation in June 2010 but Attorney Cooper refused to
withdraw. T.M. also claimed that Attorney Cooper failed to
return his telephone calls and did nothing to defend him.
Matter of M.D. (Counts 36 through 38)
¶18 On February 1, 2011, M.D. hired Attorney Cooper to
represent her in a chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. She paid
him $255. She signed her voluntary petition, and Attorney
Cooper electronically filed it. Attorney Cooper altered the
date on the petition and failed to obtain documents and
information from M.D. which were needed to prepare and file the
chapter 13 schedules and plan.
Matter of T.C. (Count 39)
¶19 T.C. hired Attorney Cooper in October 2010 to
represent her and her husband in a chapter 128 petition in
Milwaukee County for the voluntary amortization of debts. The
proceeding was dismissed based on the failure of the debtors to
make the initial payment to the trustee as ordered by the court.
Attorney Cooper failed to provide T.C. with any correspondence
regarding the status of the proceeding.
Matter of R.C. (Counts 40 through 45)
¶20 In February of 2011, R.C. hired Attorney Cooper to
represent him in a criminal proceeding in Dane County. R.C.
paid an advance fee of $2,500 which Attorney Cooper deposited
7
No. 2012AP2321-D
directly into his operating account rather than his trust
account. In June of 2011, R.C. terminated the attorney-client
relationship and asked Attorney Cooper to return any unearned
portion of the $2,500 advanced fee. Attorney Cooper failed to
respond to this request in an appropriate manner.
Matter of D.Co. (Counts 46 through 50)
¶21 In February of 2011, D.Co. paid Attorney Cooper $295
to represent her in a chapter 128 proceeding for the
amortization of debts. Attorney Cooper never filed the
petition. D.Co. repeatedly called Attorney Cooper's office
regarding the status of the filing, but Attorney Cooper never
returned her phone calls.
Matter of D.Cu. (Counts 51 through 57)
¶22 In April of 2012, D.Cu. hired Attorney Cooper to
represent him in a bankruptcy action and paid him $1,500.
Attorney Cooper failed to confirm the fee agreement with D.Cu.
in writing, failed to file the bankruptcy petition, failed to
keep D.Cu. informed about the status of the matter, and closed
his office without notifying D.Cu.
Matter of C.H. (Counts 58 through 60)
¶23 In early 2011 C.H. hired Attorney Cooper to represent
him regarding workplace discrimination claims in proceedings
before the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division and the United States
EEOC. C.H. paid Attorney Cooper an advance fee of $749.
Attorney Cooper failed to confirm the fee agreement in writing.
In January of 2012, C.H. and his employer reached a settlement,
which Attorney Cooper approved, and the discrimination
8
No. 2012AP2321-D
complaints with the two agencies were dismissed. Attorney
Cooper failed to have a contingent fee agreement in writing and
signed by C.H., failed to deliver the case file documents to
C.H. when requested, and failed to provide the OLR with a
written response to C.H.'s grievance.
Matter of D.H. (Counts 61 through 65)
¶24 In April of 2011, D.H. hired Attorney Cooper to
represent him in a motion to modify a sentence imposed as the
result of a 1998 conviction for five felonies. The original
sentence imposed was 45 years in prison. Attorney Cooper was
paid an advance fee of $2,500. Attorney Cooper failed to return
telephone calls inquiring as to the status of the matter, nor
did he file any motion to modify the sentence. D.H. terminated
Attorney Cooper's representation in February of 2012 and
requested a refund of the $2,500 and the return of all
documents. Following the commencement of a small claims action
for replevin to obtain the file and a small claims action for
refund of the advanced fee, D.H. accepted a settlement of
$1,500.
Matter of P.T. (Counts 66 through 71)
¶25 In February of 2012, P.T. hired Attorney Cooper to
represent her in a petition for guardianship. P.T. agreed to a
flat fee of $700 and paid $400 toward that fee. P.T. made
numerous requests to Attorney Cooper for a copy of the petition
for guardianship, which Attorney Cooper did not provide. She
left telephone calls and text messages to which Attorney Cooper
never responded. Attorney Cooper never filed the guardianship
9
No. 2012AP2321-D
petition. When P.T. asked for a refund of the $400 she had paid
toward the fee, Attorney Cooper offered her a credit for future
legal services and did not refund any portion of the fee. In
September 2012 the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection
approved payment of $350 to P.T. for reimbursement of funds
arising out of Attorney Cooper's refusal to refund any part of
the advanced fee.
Matter of A.R. and I.G. (Counts 72 through 76)
¶26 In February of 2011, A.R. and I.G. hired Attorney
Cooper to modify a birth certificate for their son and paid him
$1,100 for his services. Attorney Cooper filed a motion to
change the birth certificate but failed to appear at a hearing
on the motion. The court subsequently entered an order
dismissing the matter.
Matter of E.W. (Counts 77 and 78)
¶27 In February of 2012, E.W. hired Attorney Cooper to
represent him in a chapter 7 bankruptcy matter and paid Attorney
Cooper $300 pursuant to a written engagement letter. The
following month, E.W. informed Attorney Cooper he had decided
not to file the bankruptcy petition and asked for a full refund.
Attorney Cooper failed to respond to the request for a refund
and failed to provide a written response to the OLR's grievance.
¶28 The referee concluded that Attorney Cooper committed
the misconduct alleged in the complaint. The OLR alleged, and
the referee found, that Attorney Cooper committed the following
misconduct:
10
No. 2012AP2321-D
 One violation of SCR 20:1.11 (Count 1)
 Fourteen violations of SCR 20:1.32 (Counts 2, 9, 15, 19,
22, 27, 29, 36, 40, 46, 51, 61, 66, 72)
 Twelve violations of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)3 (Count 3, 10, 16,
20, 23, 28, 30, 37, 39, 41, 62, 73)
 One violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)(4)4 (Count 67)
 Two violations of SCRs 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) (Counts 47,
52)
 Four violations of SCR 20:1.5(a)5 (Counts 11, 53, 68, 74)
1
SCR 20:1.1 states, "A lawyer shall provide competent
representation to a client. Competent representation requires
the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation
reasonably necessary for the representation."
2
SCR 20:1.3 states as follows: "A lawyer shall act with
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."
3
SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides that a lawyer shall "keep the
client reasonably informed about the status of the
matter; . . . ."
4
SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) states that a lawyer shall "promptly
comply with reasonable requests by the client for
information; . . . ."
5
SCR 20:1.5(a) provides as follows:
A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge,
or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable
amount for expenses. The factors to be considered in
determining the reasonableness of a fee include the
following:
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and
difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill
requisite to perform the legal service properly;
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client,
that the acceptance of the particular employment will
preclude other employment by the lawyer;
11
No. 2012AP2321-D
 One violation of SCR 20:1.5(b)(1)6 (Count 34)
 Two violations of SCRs 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2)7 (Counts 54,
63)
 One violation of SCR 20:1.5(b)(3)8 (Count 42 )
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality
for similar legal services;
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or
by the circumstances;
(6) the nature and length of the professional
relationship with the client;
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of
the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
6
SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) states:
The scope of the representation and the basis or
rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will
be responsible shall be communicated to the client in
writing, except before or within a reasonable time
after commencing the representation when the lawyer
will charge a regularly represented client on the same
basis or rate as in the past. If it is reasonably
foreseeable that the total cost of representation to
the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000
or less, the communication may be oral or in writing.
Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or
expenses shall also be communicated in writing to the
client.
7
SCR 20:1.5(b)(2) provides as follows: "If the total cost
of representation to the client, including attorney's fees, is
more than $1000, the purpose and effect of any retainer or
advance fee that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in
writing."
12
No. 2012AP2321-D
 One violation of SCR 20:1.5(c)9 (Count 58)
 One violation of SCR 20:1.15(b)(4)10 (Count 43)
 Seven violations of SCR 20:1.16(d)11 (Counts 12, 48, 55,
59, 69, 75, 77)
8
SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) states, "A lawyer shall promptly respond
to a client's request for information concerning fees and
expenses."
9
SCR 20:1.5(c) provides:
A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the
matter for which the service is rendered, except in a
matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by par.
(d) or other law. A contingent fee agreement shall be
in a writing signed by the client, and shall state the
method by which the fee is to be determined, including
the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the
lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal;
litigation and other expenses to be deducted from the
recovery; and whether such expenses are to be deducted
before or after the contingent fee is calculated. The
agreement must clearly notify the client of any
expenses for which the client will be liable whether
or not the client is the prevailing party. Upon
conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer
shall provide the client with a written statement
stating the outcome of the matter and if there is a
recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the
method of its determination.
10
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) states as follows: Unearned fees and
cost advances.
Except as provided in par. (4m), unearned fees
and advanced payments of fees shall be held in trust
until earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to
sub. (g). Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for
payment of costs shall be held in trust until the
costs are incurred.
11
SCR 20:1.16(d) states as follows:
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable
13
No. 2012AP2321-D
 Three violations of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1)12 (Counts 4, 24, 31)
 Three violations of SCR 20:3.4(c)13 (Counts 5, 6, 7)
 Six violations of SCR 20:8.4(c)14 (Counts 5, 6, 7, 38,
56, 70)
 Six violations of SCR 22.03(2),15 enforced via
SCR 20:8.4(h)16 (Counts 8, 13, 17, 44, 49, 64)
to protect a client's interests, such as giving
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and
property to which the client is entitled and refunding
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers
relating to the client to the extent permitted by
other law.
12
SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) states that a lawyer shall not knowingly
"make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously
made to the tribunal by the lawyer; . . . ."
13
SCR 20:3.4(c) provides that a lawyer shall not "knowingly
disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for
an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation
exists; . . . ."
14
SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit
or misrepresentation; . . . ."
15
SCR 22.03(2) states as follows:
Upon commencing an investigation, the director
shall notify the respondent of the matter being
investigated unless in the opinion of the director the
investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The
respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts
and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct
within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a
request for a written response. The director may
allow additional time to respond. Following receipt
of the response, the director may conduct further
investigation and may compel the respondent to answer
14
No. 2012AP2321-D
 Eleven violations of SCR 22.03(6),17 enforceable via
20:8.4(h) (Counts 14, 18, 21, 25, 26, 32, 33, 35, 45,
50, 65)
 Five violations of SCRs 22.03(2) and (6), enforceable
via SCR 20:8.4(h) (Counts 57, 60, 71, 76, 78)
¶29 In his report and recommendation, the referee noted
that although there was no indication Attorney Cooper had
previously been the subject of professional discipline, the
referee said he "cannot recall a prior disciplinary proceeding
in which the respondent attorney demonstrated such a complete
disregard of clients' rights in multiple matters and a total
lack of respect for the legal profession as [Attorney] Cooper
has in this proceeding." Accordingly, the referee recommends
that this court revoke Attorney Cooper's license to practice law
in the State of Wisconsin. The referee also recommends that
Attorney Cooper be required to make restitution as follows:
questions, furnish documents, and present any
information deemed relevant to the investigation.
16
SCR 20:8.4(h) provides that it is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6),
or SCR 22.04(1); . . . ."
17
SCR 22.03(6) states, "In the course of the investigation,
the respondent's wilful failure to provide relevant information,
to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents and the
respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure are misconduct,
regardless of the merits of the matters asserted in the
grievance."
15
No. 2012AP2321-D
D.Co. $295; D.Cu. $1,500; P.T. $50; Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for
Client Protection $350; A.R. and I.G. $1,100; and E.W. $200.
¶30 Attorney Cooper has not filed an appeal from the
referee's report and recommendation.
¶31 Although Attorney Cooper was given multiple
opportunities to present a defense to the OLR's complaint, he
failed to do so. As noted above, in a March 19, 2013 letter to
the referee and the OLR's retained counsel, Attorney Cooper
stated he had decided to surrender his license to practice law.
Under the circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to
declare Attorney Cooper in default.
¶32 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless
clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI
14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. The court may impose
whatever sanction it sees fit regardless of the referee's
recommendation. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.
¶33 There is no showing that any of the referee's detailed
findings of fact are clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we adopt
them. We also agree with the referee's conclusions of law that
Attorney Cooper violated all of the supreme court rules set
forth above.
¶34 Revocation of an attorney's license to practice law is
the most severe sanction this court can impose. It is reserved
for the most egregious cases. Although Attorney Cooper was not
licensed to practice law until 2009, during the short time that
16
No. 2012AP2321-D
he was a practicing attorney, he engaged in repeated misconduct
in his handling of numerous client matters. Based on the state
of the record before us, it appears that Attorney Cooper is
unable to conform his conduct to the standards expected of all
members of the Wisconsin bar. We agree with the referee that no
sanction short of revocation would be sufficient to protect the
public, achieve deterrence, and impress upon Attorney Cooper the
seriousness of his misconduct. We also agree with the referee
that Attorney Cooper should be required to make restitution to
various clients and that he should be assessed the full costs of
this proceeding.
¶35 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Sean D. Cooper to
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this
order.
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Sean D. Cooper shall make restitution as follows:
Client D.Co. $295;
Client D.Cu. $1,500;
Client P.T. $50;
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection $350;
Clients A.R. and I.G. $1,100; and
Client E.W. $200.
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date
of this order, Sean D. Cooper shall pay to the Office of Lawyer
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.
17
No. 2012AP2321-D
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not
already done so, Sean D. Cooper shall comply with the provisions
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license
to practice law has been revoked.
18
No. 2012AP2321-D
1