Case Title: OLR v. Daniel W. Linehan

Citation: 2015 WI 82

Docket Number: 1989AP001848-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2015-07-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
2015 WI 82 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
1989AP1848-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
Daniel W. Linehan, Attorney at Law: 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility 
n/k/a  
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Daniel W. Linehan, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDNGS AGAINST LINEHAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 15, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, J., concurs. (Opinion Filed.) 
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 82
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   1989AP1848-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Daniel W. Linehan, Attorney at Law: 
 
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility 
n/k/a Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Daniel W. Linehan, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 15, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding.  Reinstatement granted 
upon conditions.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a report filed by Referee 
James G. Curtis, recommending that the court reinstate, with 
conditions, Daniel W. Linehan's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin.  After careful review of the matter, we agree that 
Attorney Linehan's license should be reinstated and that 
conditions should be placed upon his practice of law.  We also 
conclude that Attorney Linehan should be required to pay the 
No. 
1989AP1848-D   
 
2 
 
full 
costs 
of 
this 
reinstatement 
proceeding, 
which 
are 
$15,714.12 as of April 14, 2015. 
¶2 
Attorney Linehan was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1977 and practiced in Madison.  In 1989, this court 
granted Attorney Linehan's petition for license revocation by 
consent and revoked his license to practice law in Wisconsin 
effective November 1, 1989.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Linehan, 151 Wis. 2d 797, 446 N.W.2d 450 (1989).   
¶3 
Attorney Linehan's petition for voluntary revocation 
of his license to practice law stated that he was the subject of 
an investigation of possible misconduct with respect to his 
representation of a client "and is also the subject of an 
investigation 
involving 
possible 
misconduct 
and 
medical 
incapacity due to chronic substance abuse."  Attorney Linehan 
acknowledged that he could not successfully defend against the 
allegations of misconduct.  As additional background, he stated 
that he had been afflicted with a longstanding, chronic sickness 
or disease involving several forms of substance abuse, which 
sickness or disease was a factor which contributed to the 
conduct resulting in the misconduct allegations that were the 
subject of investigations by the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility (BAPR), the predecessor in interest to the Office 
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).  The petition for voluntary 
revocation stated that, despite both inpatient and outpatient 
treatment, Attorney Linehan continued to be afflicted by chronic 
and significant problems involving substance abuse.  Attorney 
Linehan stated that he believed he was unable to obtain the 
No. 
1989AP1848-D   
 
3 
 
long-term treatment needed to effectively recover from his 
medical condition and still practice law at the same time.  He 
stated that his desire to voluntarily surrender his license to 
practice law was based in part upon his belief that he had a 
medical incapacity, and that he desired to obtain further 
treatment for that condition. 
¶4 
The 
two-page 
published 
order 
revoking 
Attorney 
Linehan's license to practice law by consent stated that 
Attorney Linehan was a subject of investigation by BAPR  
in connection with his use of client trust funds for 
his own personal purposes, deposit of personal loan 
proceeds into his client trust account, failure to 
promptly pay settlement proceeds to a client and fully 
account to the client for those proceeds he had 
deposited in his trust account, failure to maintain 
records pertaining to his trust account and record the 
purpose of disbursements from that account and his 
chronic substance abuse.   
Linehan, 151 Wis. 2d at 798.  
¶5 
Attorney Linehan filed petitions for the reinstatement 
of his license to practice law in 1996 and 1998, both of which 
were withdrawn.  His most recent reinstatement petition was 
filed on February 18, 2014.  Referee Curtis was appointed on 
April 8, 2014.  The referee held an evidentiary hearing in 
January of 2015 and issued his report and recommendation on 
March 25, 2015.   
¶6 
The referee said that, as a result of the evidence 
presented at the hearing and the numerous exhibits received by 
stipulation, it was clear that "[t]his is, first and foremost, a 
medical incapacity case."  The referee said there was no doubt 
No. 
1989AP1848-D   
 
4 
 
that a medical incapacity in the form of chronic substance abuse 
directly caused Attorney Linehan's trust account misconduct.  
The referee said that, because this case was submitted to the 
court in 1989 as a consensual revocation, the court was 
presented with limited information about the substance abuse 
allegations.   
¶7 
The 
referee 
noted 
that 
an 
attorney 
seeking 
reinstatement after a disciplinary suspension or revocation must 
demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that 
he or she has the moral character necessary to practice law in 
this state, that his or her resumption of the practice of law 
will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or 
subversive of the public interest, and that the attorney has 
complied fully with the terms of the suspension or revocation 
order and the requirements of Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.26.  
In addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c) incorporates the statements that a 
petition 
for 
reinstatement 
must 
contain 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m).  Among other things, an attorney seeking 
the reinstatement of his license has the burden to prove that 
his conduct since revocation has been "exemplary and above 
reproach."  SCR 22.29(4).  The referee noted that Attorney 
Linehan freely admitted that his conduct during the entire 
period of revocation has not been exemplary and above reproach, 
given that he continued to suffer from alcohol and substance 
abuse issues through at least 2009.  Consequently, the referee 
said that if this court were to deem Attorney Linehan's 
reinstatement petition as having been filed under SCR 22.29, the 
No. 
1989AP1848-D   
 
5 
 
referee would have to conclude that Attorney Linehan failed to 
meet his burden of proof in a number of respects, most 
significantly that Attorney Linehan has failed to demonstrate 
that his conduct since the revocation has been exemplary and 
above reproach.  The referee went on to say, "But even if 
Mr. Linehan waited another 10 years to seek reinstatement, and 
exhibited exemplary conduct during that time, he could never 
prove that his conduct since the 1989 revocation has been 
exemplary and above reproach.  His past misdeeds would always 
come back to haunt him."   
¶8 
In the referee's view, Attorney Linehan's revocation 
by consent should be viewed as a revocation based on a medical 
incapacity, meaning that reinstatement is governed by SCR 22.36.  
Under that rule, the petitioner has the burden of showing by 
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that the medical 
incapacity has been removed and that the petitioner is fit to 
resume the practice of law, with or without conditions.  The 
referee 
noted 
that, 
although 
there 
was 
a 
component 
of 
professional misconduct involved in the consensual license 
revocation, in the referee's opinion, the misconduct itself was 
not sufficient to warrant an outright revocation and the more 
significant impetus for the consensual revocation was Attorney 
Linehan's medical incapacity.  The referee said that, in the 
event this case is viewed as a medical incapacity reinstatement 
matter, the referee is satisfied that the medical incapacity has 
been removed and that Attorney Linehan's license to practice law 
in Wisconsin should be reinstated, with conditions. 
No. 
1989AP1848-D   
 
6 
 
¶9 
In reaching this conclusion, the referee noted that 
"[t]his case presents the Jekyll/Hyde paradox in the life and 
times of Daniel W. Linehan, who has been 'characterized as sane 
when he is clean and sober and as insane when he is not.'"  The 
referee found that Attorney Linehan has been afflicted with 
chronic alcohol and substance abuse since approximately age 15.  
In the 1980s, prior to his consensual license revocation, 
Attorney 
Linehan 
received 
both 
inpatient 
and 
outpatient 
treatment but exhibited a tendency for relapses of his chronic 
substance abuse.  The referee found that the chronic substance 
abuse substantially interfered with Attorney Linehan's ability 
to conduct his law practice.  The referee noted that after the 
revocation of his law license, Attorney Linehan spent time in 
the Dane County jail on a drunk driving conviction and his 
driver license was revoked.   
¶10 The referee further noted that in the 1990s, Attorney 
Linehan worked as a clerk for a law firm in Minnesota and as a 
paralegal 
with 
the 
Hennepin 
County 
Attorney's 
Office 
in 
Minneapolis.  The referee found that this employment was not 
deemed contrary to the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.  
While Attorney Linehan remained relatively clean and sober 
between 1992 and 1995, he suffered a relapse in 1995.  He was 
terminated from his job at the Hennepin County Attorney's Office 
in the spring of 1998 due to substance abuse issues.  Attorney 
Linehan filed petitions for the reinstatement of his Wisconsin 
law license in 1996 and 1998 but was not honest about the status 
No. 
1989AP1848-D   
 
7 
 
of his substance abuse problems and decided to withdraw both 
petitions.   
¶11 In 1998, Attorney Linehan was charged with theft of a 
motor vehicle and aggravated drunk driving in Minnesota.  He was 
convicted and placed on probation.  Around 1998, Attorney 
Linehan began treating with Dr. Roger Johnson, a psychiatrist.  
Dr. Johnson remained Attorney Linehan's main mental health 
treatment 
provider 
until 
the 
doctor 
retired 
in 
2010.  
Dr. Johnson diagnosed Attorney Linehan with major depression and 
treated him with medication.  With the doctor's support, 
Attorney 
Linehan 
applied 
for 
Social 
Security 
Disability 
benefits, which were awarded around 1998. 
¶12 In December of 1998, Attorney Linehan was arrested for 
intoxication and being in possession of a stolen automobile.  
The 
investigation 
revealed 
that 
he 
had 
burglarized 
his 
neighbor's residence, stole credit cards and their vehicle, and 
made charges with the credit cards without proper consent.  He 
was charged with eight criminal counts.  Because he was already 
on probation, he was incarcerated in the Sherburne County jail 
from December of 1998 until February of 1999.  In January of 
1999, he was also charged with forgery involving a $3,000 check.  
Attorney Linehan entered into a plea agreement on the charges in 
February of 1999 and was convicted and sent to prison.  Around 
June 1, 1999, he was released on an ankle bracelet monitoring 
program.  He suffered a relapse and was arrested and sent back 
to prison for violating the terms of his release.  He was 
released from custody in July of 2000. 
No. 
1989AP1848-D   
 
8 
 
¶13 In 2003, Attorney Linehan was convicted of operating 
after revocation in Wisconsin.  In 2002 and 2003, he was 
sporadically drinking and using drugs.  He engaged in sporadic 
drinking and drug use again between 2006 and 2008.  In December 
of 2009, he was taken into custody for an emergency detention 
when a friend called police to report that Attorney Linehan was 
very intoxicated and was making threats to harm himself or 
others.  He was admitted to Mendota Mental Healthcare Center.  
Following a detention hearing, the court found the least 
restrictive level of care was on an outpatient basis, although 
the court expressed concern over threats that had been made.  
The court ordered daily breathalyzer sampling to ensure that 
Attorney Linehan remained sober and, if he could not, he would 
be taken into custody.   
¶14 The referee said Attorney Linehan maintains that his 
recovery began in a serious way after he was discharged from 
Mendota Mental Healthcare Center, that since that time he has 
worked hard to overcome his medical incapacity, and that, apart 
from a two- or three-week lapse in July of 2011 after a friend 
died, he has maintained sobriety since that time.  The referee 
said: 
Since 
2009 
Linehan 
has 
continued 
to 
make 
important progress in his personal and spiritual 
growth 
and 
character 
change. 
 
He 
returned 
to 
attendance 
at 
local 
[Alcoholics 
Anonymous 
(AA)] 
meetings 
multiple 
times 
per 
week 
and 
obtained 
significant support from friends in the Black River 
Falls community. 
No. 
1989AP1848-D   
 
9 
 
Linehan's recovery status over the last five 
years has progressively improved.  His viewpoint and 
attitude have changed so that he is better able to 
enjoy life.  His depression is in a state of remission 
and he has stopped believing that his life wasn't 
worth living.  He has experienced a growing awareness 
of 
happiness 
and 
joy, 
rather 
than 
a 
grudging 
resistance to recovery. 
The referee finds that Linehan's sworn testimony 
and his presentation at the hearing was credible, 
forthright and open.  He has a very strong desire to 
return to the practice of law.  He describes himself 
as a clean and sober person and in that state, he 
believes he is a person who can be relied upon to 
uphold the standards of the legal profession because 
they are right and because he's asking permission for 
reinstatement.  . . . .  As long as he is clean and 
sober, 
Linehan 
believes 
that 
he 
can 
be 
safely 
recommended to the public, the courts and the legal 
profession as a person fit to consult on legal 
matters. 
¶15 In 
November 
of 
2011, 
Attorney 
Linehan 
obtained 
employment with the Hixton Travel Plaza as a maintenance man and 
dishwasher.  He has worked two shifts per week, approximately 16 
hours, and has been a reliable and dependable employee.   
¶16 In October of 2012, Attorney Linehan contacted the 
Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program (WisLAP) to inquire about 
voluntary monitoring of his substance abuse.  Attorney Linehan 
voluntarily disclosed his July 2011 relapse in the course of his 
WisLAP monitoring and in the course of this reinstatement 
proceeding.  The referee found that if Attorney Linehan had not 
made this voluntary disclosure, the relapse would never have 
been known.  The referee noted that WisLAP Manager Linda Albert 
described Attorney Linehan's participation in the program as 
exemplary.  Ms. Albert testified at the reinstatement hearing 
No. 
1989AP1848-D   
 
10 
 
that Attorney Linehan has come to grips with his deplorable 
history and seems ready to make a change.  Beginning in late 
November of 2012, Attorney Linehan has undergone nail drug and 
alcohol testing every 90 days and all tests have been negative.  
His participation in the WisLAP program has been voluntary, and 
he has paid for the testing at the rate of approximately $1,400 
per year.  The monitoring contract requires attendance at AA 
meetings at least three times per week.  Attorney Linehan has 
exceeded that standard by attending three to five meetings per 
week.  The monitoring contract requires daily check-ins, and 
Attorney Linehan has been highly compliant, making 765 daily 
check-ins out of a possible total of 767.  Ms. Albert recommends 
that Attorney Linehan continue with monitoring whether or not 
his law license is reinstated, since monitoring will detect any 
relapse episode and it will be promptly reported to the OLR.  
Although Attorney Linehan's current monitoring contract ends in 
October of 2015, it can be continued indefinitely.  The referee 
noted that Attorney Linehan is asking this court to consider 
indefinite monitoring as a condition of reinstatement. 
¶17 The referee said that although Dr. Johnson lost his 
clinic notes on Attorney Linehan, the doctor wrote a letter in 
July 
of 
2013 
summarizing 
Attorney 
Linehan's 
psychiatric 
treatment from 1998 until 2010.  Dr. Johnson said:  
Based upon my involvement with Dan over the years 
it is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical 
certainty, that he is not a threat to society, 
criminally or otherwise if he is clean and sober.  
This 
coupled 
with 
his 
gradual 
improvement 
of 
depressive symptoms over the years, also leads me to 
No. 
1989AP1848-D   
 
11 
 
conclude that he is capable of making an attempt to 
return to work, particularly in the area of his 
original training, the law.   
¶18 The 
referee 
noted 
that 
as 
part 
of 
the 
OLR's 
investigation of the reinstatement petition, the OLR scheduled 
an independent psychiatric and addiction evaluation, which was 
performed by Dr. Matthew Felgus on October 1, 2014.  Dr. Felgus 
concluded that Attorney Linehan's substance abuse disorder was 
currently in full remission.  Dr. Felgus said, "Like all 
individuals with substance dependence, there is an ongoing 
chance of relapse that in Mr. Linehan's case would warrant 
indefinite 
monitoring 
should 
he 
meet 
the 
standard 
of 
reinstatement."  The referee noted that under SCR 22.36(6), 
"fitness" encompasses a physically, mentally, and morally sound 
state and a "state of preparedness to render competent legal 
services; that is, to be prepared to provide the measure of 
expertise to ensure the attorney may be safely recommended to 
the community as a person to be consulted by and to represent 
others in legal matters."  In re Medical Incapacity Proceedings 
Against Schlieve, 2010 WI 22, ¶24, 323 Wis. 2d 654, 780 N.W.2d 
516.  Based on this standard, the referee said he is satisfied 
that Attorney Linehan's medical incapacity has been removed.  He 
said that Attorney Linehan deserves a great deal of credit for 
the effort made to turn his life around.  The referee said: 
A 
decision 
by 
this 
court 
to 
reinstate 
Mr. Linehan's license will enhance his self-esteem, 
his confidence, and his overall recovery.  Mr. Linehan 
shows true remorse for his prior bad behavior.  A 
decision granting reinstatement would be a recognition 
by the court that even after a lengthy period of 
No. 
1989AP1848-D   
 
12 
 
revocation and bad behavior, an attorney can benefit 
from the effort necessary to straighten out and fly 
right.  
So long as Mr. Linehan remains clean and sober, 
the medical incapacity has been removed.  But Mr. 
Linehan's history suggests that a relapse episode, 
while unlikely, remains a possibility.  Therefore, any 
decision to reinstate Mr. Linehan's license should be 
strictly conditioned on his continued participation in 
the WisLAP monitoring program until such time as 
WisLAP determines that ongoing monitoring is no longer 
necessary.  In the event of a relapse, WisLAP would 
immediately report to OLR and Mr. Linehan's license 
could be summarily suspended pending any further 
investigation. 
¶19 The referee said that the "fitness" requirement of 
SCR 22.36(6) was more troubling, given that Attorney Linehan has 
not practiced law for over 25 years and that there have been 
significant changes in the law during that time.  In addition, 
he has not held full-time employment in any capacity since 1998.  
The referee noted, however, that Attorney Linehan has maintained 
learning in the law by completing the required continuing legal 
education (CLE) credits needed for reinstatement.  Attorney 
Linehan has also consulted with an accountant to prepare a 
system for accounting of his income and expenses should his 
license to practice law be reinstated.  In addition, the referee 
noted that Attorney Terry Davis acts as Attorney Linehan's 
monitor through the WisLAP program, and if Attorney Linehan is 
granted reinstatement, he will be able to call on Attorney Davis 
on a weekly basis to discuss issues and problems in the practice 
of law.  In the referee's opinion, this ongoing monitoring will 
provide some assurance that Attorney Linehan is handling matters 
No. 
1989AP1848-D   
 
13 
 
within his sphere of competence and is adequately addressing his 
clients' needs.  
¶20 In addition, the referee noted that Attorney Lawrence 
Hanson, who has honorably practiced law for 54 years and has 
been very involved with Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers and with 
WisLAP, got to know Attorney Linehan in the 1980s and has had 
frequent contacts with him in the last two and one-half years.  
The referee said that Attorney Hanson knows the perils of 
chronic substance abuse and, in Attorney Hanson's opinion, 
Attorney Linehan is absolutely qualified to practice law based 
on his background and knowledge, so long as he stays away from 
drugs and alcohol.   
¶21 The referee also noted that, if reinstated, Attorney 
Linehan says he will not look for full-time employment with a 
law firm but believes there would be a significant amount of 
small legal business in his community.  Prior to 1989, Attorney 
Linehan had a general practice with over 100 criminal jury 
trials and 25 or 30 civil trials.  The referee said that 
Attorney 
Linehan 
does 
have 
substantial 
legal 
experience, 
although it is dated.  The referee said that, considering 
Attorney Linehan's age and circumstances, he would probably 
practice on a part-time basis, and with the WisLAP monitoring, 
his practice will be subject to some measure of oversight and 
control.  The referee said: 
In a case involving a lengthy suspension, it is always 
difficult for a lawyer to affirmatively prove the 
fitness element.  Having witnessed Mr. Linehan's 
presentation at the hearing and with the benefit of 
No. 
1989AP1848-D   
 
14 
 
the WisLAP monitoring, Attorney Davis' mentoring, and 
Attorney 
Hanson's 
opinion 
on 
qualifications, 
the 
referee concludes that Mr. Linehan has met his burden 
of proving that he is fit to resume the practice of 
law, with conditions, under SCR 22.36(6). 
¶22 The referee noted that during the course of the 
reinstatement proceedings, the OLR contended that Attorney 
Linehan failed to acknowledge his obligation to reimburse the 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Fund) and failed 
to fairly characterize that obligation in his petition.  The 
referee noted that the trust account violations mentioned in the 
1989 
consensual 
revocation 
proceeding 
involved 
Attorney 
Linehan's client, S.W.  S.W.'s personal injury case was settled 
for $20,000.  Attorney Linehan was entitled to a contingent fee 
and expenses.  At the time, Attorney Linehan was using drugs and 
alcohol and his practice was out of control.  Various checks 
were written out of the trust account, both to S.W. and to 
Attorney Linehan.  Attorney Linehan maintains that he and S.W. 
met and agreed to resolve the matter.  Attorney Linehan contends 
that he obtained a loan from his father and paid S.W. the agreed 
upon balance owed.  Because of the hopeless state of his trust 
accounting and business records, Attorney Linehan has no 
documentary proof of the agreement or of the final payment to 
S.W.   
¶23 In addition to filing a grievance with the OLR, S.W. 
submitted a claim to the Fund and ultimately received $4,513.33 
from the Fund, in return for which he signed a subrogation 
agreement.  The administrator of the Fund resurrected the file 
but acknowledged that it may not be complete.  The administrator 
No. 
1989AP1848-D   
 
15 
 
testified that the Fund does not actively seek restitution from 
attorneys unless this court has ordered restitution.  The 
court's 1989 revocation order did not mention restitution.   
¶24 Attorney Linehan said that he first became aware that 
the Fund had paid a claim to S.W. in 2005.  At the time he filed 
his reinstatement petition, although he believed that the Fund 
had paid S.W., it was his position that he did not need to pay 
the Fund back since the Fund never notified him and since he 
believed he had already paid S.W.  Prior to the hearing in this 
matter, however, Attorney Linehan entered into an agreement to 
reimburse the Fund at the rate of $75 per month.  The referee 
said that since Attorney Linehan has made suitable arrangements 
for installment payments that are acceptable to the Fund, the 
restitution issue should not stand as an impediment to Attorney 
Linehan's request for reinstatement.   
¶25 In summary, the referee recommends that Attorney 
Linehan's petition for reinstatement from his medical incapacity 
be granted, with the following conditions:  a) that he continue 
participation in the WisLAP monitoring program on an indefinite 
basis, until such time as WisLAP determines that ongoing 
monitoring is no longer necessary; b) that he continue with 
monitoring/mentoring with either Attorney Terry Davis or some 
other appropriate attorney as determined by WisLAP; c) that he 
remain fully compliant with the WisLAP monitoring program, with 
any noncompliance detected by WisLAP to be immediately reported 
to the OLR which, in turn, may petition this court for a summary 
and immediate suspension of Attorney Linehan's license to 
No. 
1989AP1848-D   
 
16 
 
practice law pending any further investigation or proceedings 
that may be necessary under the circumstances; d) that, within 
the next 12 months, he successfully complete 15 hours of CLE 
ethics courses, at least eight of which focus on trust account 
administration; e) that, upon reinstatement of his license, he 
consult with an appropriate accountant to develop an effective 
business and trust accounting system; f) that he cooperate with 
the OLR's efforts to monitor his business and trust accounting 
for a period of one year; and g) that he fully comply with the 
terms of his restitution agreement with the Fund. 
¶26 No appeal has been filed, so this court considers this 
matter pursuant to SCR 22.33(3).  A referee's findings of fact 
will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous.  In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 
269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  We independently review the 
referee's legal conclusion, noting that whether the petitioner 
has demonstrated fitness to resume the practice of law presents 
a legal question which we review de novo.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Chavez, 2012 WI 83, ¶14, 342 Wis. 2d 419, 
816 N.W.2d 265.   
¶27 We agree with the referee that, although this court's 
cursory 1989 order revoking Attorney Linehan's license to 
practice law by consent did not explicitly state that the 
revocation was due to a medical incapacity, the petition for 
voluntary revocation clearly identified medical incapacity as 
the primary driving force behind Attorney Linehan's decision to 
relinquish his law license.  Accordingly, we deem it appropriate 
No. 
1989AP1848-D   
 
17 
 
to treat his petition for reinstatement of his license as having 
been filed under SCR 22.36.  We further conclude that the 
referee's findings support a determination that Attorney Linehan 
has met his burden under SCR 22.36(6) to establish by clear, 
convincing, 
and 
satisfactory 
evidence 
that 
his 
medical 
incapacity is removed and that he is fit to resume the practice 
of law.  We agree that conditions on Attorney Linehan's license 
to practice law are necessary to ensure that he continues to 
receive appropriate treatment.  Finally, we deem it appropriate 
to require Attorney Linehan to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding, $15,714.12. 
¶28 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 
the license of Daniel W. Linehan to practice law in Wisconsin is 
granted, effective the date of this order.  
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as conditions of the 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, 
Daniel W. Linehan shall comply with the following mandatory 
conditions:  a) he shall continue participation in the Wisconsin 
Lawyers Assistance Program monitoring program on an indefinite 
basis, until such time as the program determines that ongoing 
monitoring is no longer necessary; b) he shall continue with 
monitoring/mentoring with either Attorney Terry Davis or some 
other appropriate attorney as determined by the Wisconsin 
Lawyers Assistance Program; c) he shall remain fully compliant 
with 
the 
Wisconsin 
Lawyers 
Assistance 
Program 
monitoring 
program, with any noncompliance detected by the program to be 
immediately reported to the Office of Lawyer Regulation which, 
No. 
1989AP1848-D   
 
18 
 
in turn, may petition this court for a summary and immediate 
suspension of Attorney Linehan's license to practice law pending 
any further investigation or proceedings that may be necessary 
under the circumstances; d) within the next 12 months, he shall 
successfully complete 15 hours of continuing legal education 
ethics courses, at least eight of which focus on trust account 
administration; e) upon reinstatement of his license, he shall 
consult with an appropriate accountant to develop an effective 
business and trust accounting system; f) he shall cooperate with 
the Office of Lawyer Regulation's efforts to monitor his 
business and trust accounting for a period of one year; and 
g) he shall fully comply with the terms of his restitution 
agreement 
with 
the 
Wisconsin 
Lawyers' 
Fund 
for 
Client 
Protection. 
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 120 days of the date 
of this order, Daniel W. Linehan shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the 
terms of this order remain a condition of Daniel W. Linehan's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
 
 
No.  1989AP1848-D.ssa 
 
1 
 
¶32 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.   (concurring).  I agree 
with the majority that Attorney Linehan's license to practice 
law should be reinstated and that numerous conditions should be 
imposed to ensure that he continues to receive appropriate 
treatment and monitoring.  I part company with the majority as 
to condition c.  Rather than authorizing the OLR to petition 
this court for a summary and immediate suspension of Attorney 
Linehan's license to practice law in the event it receives 
notice of noncompliance from WisLAP, I would direct the OLR to 
seek the issuance of an order to show cause why the attorney's 
license should not be summarily suspended.  
 
 
No.  1989AP1848-D.ssa 
 
 
 
1