Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Patrick M. Cooper

Citation: 2013 WI 55

Docket Number: 

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2013-06-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
2013 WI 55 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP2334-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Patrick M. Cooper, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Patrick M. Cooper, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COOPER     
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 26, 2013   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
2013 WI 55
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP2334-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Patrick M. Cooper, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Patrick M. Cooper, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 26, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of the referee, 
Attorney Christine Harris Taylor, recommending that Attorney 
Patrick M. Cooper's license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
suspended for a period of two years, retroactive to the 
expiration of his prior disciplinary suspension.  The referee's 
recommendation was based on the stipulation and no contest plea 
entered by Attorney Cooper.  The referee has further recommended 
No. 
2012AP2334-D   
 
2 
 
that Attorney Cooper be required to pay the costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding, which were $913.94 as of April 9, 2013.  
No appeal has been filed in this matter.  Accordingly, our 
review proceeds pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1 
¶2 
The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed the 
present complaint against Attorney Cooper in October 2012.  The 
complaint set forth 42 counts of misconduct arising out of nine 
separate client representations.2  The complaint asked for an 
additional two-year suspension of Attorney Cooper's license. 
Attorney Cooper filed an answer in which he denied all of the 
material factual allegations against him and asserted that the 
delay in bringing the current charges of misconduct violated his 
due process rights.   
¶3 
After the appointment of a referee, Attorney Cooper 
entered into a stipulation with the OLR.  Pursuant to the 
stipulation, Attorney Cooper withdrew his answer, agreed that 
the referee could use the allegations of the complaint as a 
factual basis for a determination of misconduct, and pled no 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) states: 
 
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
2 The OLR and the referee refer to the complaint as 
containing 41 counts.  Because of a numbering error, it actually 
contains 42 counts, which is the number that we will use in this 
decision. 
No. 
2012AP2334-D   
 
3 
 
contest to each of the counts set forth in the OLR's complaint.  
The stipulation requested the referee to recommend that the 
court (1) impose a two-year suspension as sought by the OLR and 
(2) make that suspension retroactive to the date on which 
Attorney Cooper's prior suspension expired.  In the stipulation, 
Attorney Cooper represents that he fully understands the 
allegations of misconduct against him and his right to contest 
those 
charges 
of 
misconduct, 
that 
he 
understands 
the 
ramifications 
of 
entering 
into 
the 
stipulation, 
that 
he 
understands his right to consult with counsel and has decided to 
proceed on a pro se basis, and that he is entering into the 
stipulation knowingly and voluntarily. 
¶4 
Pursuant to the stipulation, the referee made findings 
of fact based on the allegations of the complaint.  Those 
findings are summarized in the following paragraphs. 
¶5 
Attorney Cooper was admitted to the practice of law in 
September 1993.  As discussed below, Attorney Cooper's license 
to practice law is currently suspended.  The most recent address 
he has provided to the State Bar of Wisconsin is in Mequon, 
Wisconsin. 
¶6 
Attorney Cooper's license to practice law in this 
state was administratively suspended on October 31, 2005, for 
failure to pay mandatory bar dues and assessments.3  On 
December 14, 
2005, 
this 
court 
also 
temporarily 
suspended 
                                                 
3 An additional administrative suspension for failure to 
comply with mandatory reporting of continuing legal education 
credits was imposed in June 2006. 
No. 
2012AP2334-D   
 
4 
 
Attorney Cooper's license due to his willful failure to 
cooperate with OLR investigations into his conduct.   
¶7 
Those OLR investigations led to the first disciplinary 
proceeding against Attorney Cooper.  The OLR's amended complaint 
in that matter alleged 33 counts of misconduct.  In light of 
Attorney Cooper's failure to participate in that disciplinary 
proceeding, the referee declared him to be in default and found 
that Attorney Cooper had committed each of the 33 counts of 
misconduct.  Attorney Cooper's misconduct included conversion of 
client funds, multiple misrepresentations to clients, depositing 
client trust funds into his personal account, failing to notify 
others of his receipt of funds belonging to them, failing to 
deliver a client file to successor counsel, failing to act with 
diligence, failing to communicate with clients, and failing to 
cooperate with the OLR's grievance investigations.  Ultimately, 
this court imposed a three-year suspension of Attorney Cooper's 
license to practice law in this state.  In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Cooper, 2007 WI 37, 300 Wis. 2d 61, 729 
N.W.2d 206 (Cooper I) (suspension effective March 23, 2007).   
¶8 
At the time of the Cooper I disciplinary proceeding, 
the 
OLR 
was 
investigating 
each 
of 
the 
nine 
representations/grievances that form the basis for the current 
complaint.  Within a few days after the Cooper I decision was 
released, the OLR sent a letter to Attorney Cooper advising him 
that it was placing its nine pending investigations on hold 
until 
such 
time 
as 
Attorney 
Cooper 
petitioned 
for 
the 
reinstatement of his license and informing him that he should 
No. 
2012AP2334-D   
 
5 
 
contact the OLR at any time if he wished to resolve any of the 
investigated matters. 
¶9 
In December 2010 Attorney Cooper filed a petition for 
the reinstatement of his license.  Ultimately, Attorney Cooper 
entered a stipulation with the OLR for the dismissal of his 
reinstatement petition.  Based on the stipulation, this court 
dismissed the reinstatement petition in September 2011. 
¶10 As noted above, the OLR's current complaint addresses 
nine client representations and alleges 42 separate counts of 
professional misconduct.  Describing each of those client 
representations and the accompanying charges of misconduct is 
unnecessary to demonstrate the nature and scope of Attorney 
Cooper's misconduct.  Each of those nine representations 
followed a similar, but not identical pattern. 
¶11 An illustrative example is sufficient to show the 
types of misconduct committed by Attorney Cooper.  In the summer 
of 2004, Attorney Cooper was retained by K.W. to represent him 
regarding a work-related injury.  Over the next year, the 
attorney representing the worker's compensation insurer, or his 
paralegal, asked Attorney Cooper to provide authorizations 
signed by K.W. that would allow them to obtain K.W.'s medical 
records.  Attorney Cooper failed to obtain K.W.'s signature or 
to provide the authorizations to opposing counsel. 
¶12 In April 2005 opposing counsel wrote a letter to the 
Department of Workforce Development (DWD) explaining the actions 
that still needed to be completed before K.W.'s worker's 
compensation case would be ready for a hearing.  Opposing 
No. 
2012AP2334-D   
 
6 
 
counsel stated that the case had not moved forward because of 
Attorney Cooper's failure to respond to his repeated requests 
for the medical records release authorizations.  On June 17, 
2005, the administrative law judge (ALJ) ordered Attorney Cooper 
to provide the authorizations within 45 days or K.W.'s claim 
would be dismissed.  On July 27, 2005, just four days prior to 
the 45-day deadline, Attorney Cooper sent the authorization 
forms to K.W.  He did not, however, advise K.W. of the deadline 
that needed to be met in just a few days in order to avoid 
dismissal of K.W.'s worker's compensation claim.  When the 
authorization forms were not provided, opposing counsel sought 
dismissal of K.W.'s claim for failure to prosecute, which the 
ALJ granted on August 15, 2005. 
¶13 During the representation, K.W. had approximately five 
or six discussions with Attorney Cooper regarding his case.  On 
the few occasions when K.W. was able to reach Attorney Cooper by 
telephone, Attorney Cooper would cut off the conversation, 
stating that he needed to get off the telephone but would call 
K.W. back.  Attorney Cooper, however, never made the promised 
return 
calls. 
 
In 
addition, 
at 
one 
point 
during 
the 
representation, Attorney Cooper told K.W. that he had received a 
settlement offer from opposing counsel and would forward it to 
K.W.  This was a false statement, however, as there was no 
evidence of any such settlement offer. 
¶14 After K.W. learned that his case had been dismissed, 
he called Attorney Cooper's office numerous times, but Attorney 
Cooper failed to return any of K.W.'s calls.  K.W. then 
No. 
2012AP2334-D   
 
7 
 
terminated Attorney Cooper's representation and requested in 
writing that Attorney Cooper send his file to him.  Attorney 
Cooper failed to respond. 
¶15 K.W. subsequently filed a grievance with the OLR 
against Attorney Cooper.  In February and April 2006, the OLR 
sent letters to Attorney Cooper advising him of K.W.'s grievance 
and asking him to submit a written response to the grievance.  
See SCR 22.03(2).  Attorney Cooper did not respond to the OLR's 
requests.  Indeed, he did not provide a response to K.W.'s 
grievance until after he filed his December 2010 petition for 
reinstatement.  At that time Attorney Cooper informed the OLR 
that he no longer had K.W.'s file and that a different law firm 
might have the file.  The OLR discovered no evidence, however, 
that this other law firm had ever represented K.W. in his 
worker's compensation case or that K.W. had consented for 
Attorney Cooper to transfer his file to any other attorney or 
law firm. 
¶16 On the basis of these stipulated facts, the referee 
concluded that Attorney Cooper had committed six counts of 
professional misconduct related to his representation of K.W.  
First, Attorney Cooper violated SCR 20:1.3 due to his lack of 
diligence 
in 
obtaining 
the 
medical 
records 
release 
authorizations from K.W., providing those authorizations to 
opposing counsel, or otherwise preparing K.W.'s case to be ready 
for a hearing before the ALJ.  Attorney Cooper's failure to 
communicate adequately with K.W. or to respond to K.W.'s 
reasonable 
requests 
for 
information 
violated 
former 
No. 
2012AP2334-D   
 
8 
 
SCR 20:1.4(a). 
 
Attorney 
Cooper 
also 
violated 
former 
SCR 20:1.16(d) by failing to provide K.W. with a copy of his 
file when requested.  The referee further concluded that 
Attorney Cooper had made a misrepresentation to K.W., in 
violation of SCR 20:8.4(c), when he had falsely stated that he 
had received a settlement offer from opposing counsel.  In 
addition, by failing to notify K.W. of the October and December 
2005 suspensions of his license to practice law, Attorney Cooper 
violated SCRs 22.26(1)(a) and (b), which are enforced via 
SCR 20:8.4(f).  Finally, the referee found that Attorney Cooper 
had failed to provide a timely response to K.W.'s grievance, as 
requested in two letters from the OLR, in violation of 
SCRs 22.03(2) 
and 
(6), 
which 
are 
also 
enforced 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(f). 
¶17 In total, based on the stipulation and the allegations 
of the OLR's complaint, the referee concluded that Attorney 
Cooper had committed the following violations: 
• Four 
counts 
of 
violating 
SCR 
20:1.34 
(lack 
of 
diligence); 
• Seven counts of violating former SCR 20:1.4(a)5 (lack 
of communication with client); 
                                                 
4 SCR 20:1.3 states, "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
5 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided that "[a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with 
reasonable requests for information." 
No. 
2012AP2334-D   
 
9 
 
• One count of violating former SCR 20:1.2(a)6 and 
SCR 20:1.4(b)7 (failing to explain matters to client 
and to consult with client regarding means of pursuing 
objectives of representation); 
• Four counts of violating SCR 20:8.4(c)8 (engaging in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit 
or 
misrepresentation); 
• Nine 
counts 
of 
violating 
former 
SCR 
20:1.16(d)9 
(failing to deliver files to clients or successor 
counsel); 
                                                 
6 Former SCR 20:1.2(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided, in relevant part, as follows:   
 
A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation, . . . and 
shall consult with the client as to the means by which 
they are to be pursued.  A lawyer shall inform a 
client of all offers of settlement and abide by a 
client's decision whether to accept an offer of 
settlement of a matter . . . . 
7 SCR 20:1.4(b) states, "A lawyer shall explain a matter to 
the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation." 
8 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
9 Former SCR 20:1.16(d) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
stated as follows: 
 
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
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 that has not been earned.  
No. 
2012AP2334-D   
 
10 
 
• Six counts of violating SCRs 22.26(1)(a) and (b)10 
(failing to notify clients, tribunals, or opposing 
counsel of suspension of law license); 
• One count of violating SCRs 22.26(2)11 and 10.03(6)12 
(practicing law while license suspended); 
                                                                                                                                                             
The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to 
the extent permitted by other law. 
10 SCRs 22.26(1)(a) and (b) state: 
 
On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
 
(a)  Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
 
(b)  Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere.  
11 SCR 22.26(2) provides as follows: 
 
An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
12 SCR 10.03(6) states:  Penalty for nonpayment of dues.   
 
If the annual dues or assessments of any member 
remain unpaid 120 days after the payment is due, the 
membership of the member may be suspended in the 
manner provided in the bylaws; and no person whose 
membership is so suspended for nonpayment of dues or 
No. 
2012AP2334-D   
 
11 
 
• One count of violating SCR 20:3.4(c)13 (failing to 
comply with order of ALJ); and 
• Nine counts of violating SCRs 22.03(2) and (6)14 
(failing to submit written response to grievance). 
¶18 In its memorandum in support of the stipulation, the 
OLR argued that a two-year suspension, retroactive to the end of 
the prior, three-year suspension, would be an appropriate level 
                                                                                                                                                             
assessments may practice law during the period of the 
suspension. 
13 SCR 20:3.4(c) states 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 SCRs 22.03(2) and (6) provide as follows: 
 
(2)  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 questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
 
. . .  
 
(6)  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. 
No. 
2012AP2334-D   
 
12 
 
of discipline.  The OLR indicated that a two-year suspension was 
supported by this court's decision in the case of In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Haberman, 126 Wis. 2d 411, 376 
N.W.2d 852 (1985), where we suspended Attorney Haberman's 
license for two years for misconduct that included neglect of 
his duties in seven estates, engaging in a prohibited conflict 
of interest, and failing to cooperate with the investigations of 
his conduct with respect to two estates.  It also concluded that 
a two-year suspension was supported by the fact that Attorney 
Cooper's misconduct was more extensive and/or serious than the 
misconduct in two cases where we imposed one-year suspensions.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woodard, 190 Wis. 2d 
487, 526 N.W.2d 510 (1995) (one-year suspension imposed for 
misconduct 
including failing to communicate with clients, 
failing to return file to client, and failing to cooperate with 
two grievance investigations); In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Kennedy, 119 Wis. 2d 261, 349 N.W.2d 483 (1984) (one-
year suspension imposed for misconduct consisting of neglecting 
two client matters and failing to cooperate in the ensuing 
investigations).   
¶19 The OLR further noted that there were a number of 
aggravating factors in the present case, including Attorney 
Cooper's prior discipline, the presence of a pattern of 
misconduct, the presence of multiple violations, the fact that a 
number of violations involved intentional failure to comply with 
his obligations to the disciplinary agency and to tribunals, his 
substantial experience at the time of the violations, and his 
No. 
2012AP2334-D   
 
13 
 
refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct.  On 
the mitigating side, the OLR noted that the misconduct had 
occurred during substantially the same time period as the 
misconduct that formed the basis for the three-year suspension 
imposed in 2007, and that Attorney Cooper had alleged that 
stress and emotional problems had essentially caused him to 
"check out" of his law practice during the relevant time period. 
¶20 The OLR's memorandum also provided its rationale for 
requesting 
that 
any 
suspension 
be 
imposed 
retroactively.  
Because the misconduct here occurred during the same time as the 
misconduct that resulted in the prior three-year suspension, the 
OLR contended that it would be unfair to make a new suspension 
prospective.   
¶21 The referee considered the parties' joint request for 
a two-year, retroactive suspension, as well as the purposes of 
discipline in attorney disciplinary proceedings, the court's 
general 
preference 
for 
progressive 
discipline, 
and 
the 
aggravating and mitigating factors present in this case.  The 
referee agreed with the parties that a two-year suspension, 
retroactive to the expiration of the prior suspension, would be 
an appropriate level of discipline for Attorney Cooper's 
misconduct.  The referee further recommended that the court 
impose the full costs of the disciplinary proceeding on Attorney 
Cooper. 
¶22 When reviewing a referee's report and recommendation 
in an attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's 
findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous, 
No. 
2012AP2334-D   
 
14 
 
but we review the referee's conclusions of law on a de novo 
basis.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 
126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125.  We determine the 
appropriate level of discipline given the particular facts of 
each case, independent of the referee's recommendation, but 
benefiting from it.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. 
¶23 In light of Attorney Cooper's stipulation and no 
contest plea, we adopt the referee's findings of fact, which are 
based on the OLR's complaint.  We also agree with the referee 
that those findings of fact support a legal conclusion that 
Attorney Cooper committed each of the 42 counts of professional 
misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint. 
¶24 We now turn to the appropriate level of discipline.  
The facts alleged in the complaint with respect to the nine 
client representations demonstrate a clear pattern by Attorney 
Cooper of neglect and of failure to pursue the objectives of his 
clients.  In addition, while he failed to move their claims 
forward, 
Attorney 
Cooper 
also 
essentially 
shut 
down 
communications with his clients, leaving them in the dark, even 
when some of their claims were dismissed.  Moreover, by failing 
to provide the clients with their case files, Attorney Cooper 
impaired their ability to correct or mitigate his misconduct by 
retaining new counsel.  This is a disturbing pattern of serious 
misconduct that goes to the core of an attorney's obligations. 
¶25 We recognize, however, that the misconduct alleged in 
this case occurred nearly a decade ago, during the same period 
No. 
2012AP2334-D   
 
15 
 
as the misconduct that was at issue in the previous disciplinary 
proceeding.  If all of Attorney Cooper's misconduct from that 
time period had been addressed in a single proceeding, the most 
severe discipline that could have been imposed would have been a 
revocation of Attorney Cooper's license to practice law in this 
state, which would have allowed him to petition for the 
reinstatement of his license after a period of five years.  
Imposing 
an 
additional 
suspension 
of 
two 
years 
in 
this 
proceeding, retroactive to the end of the prior three-year 
suspension, would similarly result in a five-year period of 
ineligibility to seek reinstatement.  A retroactive suspension 
would also comport with our prior cases, where we have said that 
retroactive suspensions may be appropriate in situations, like 
the one here, where the "misconduct occurred prior to the 
[earlier] disciplinary proceeding and [the attorney's] license 
has remained suspended well beyond the period of suspension 
previously imposed."  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against and 
Reinstatement of Mandelman, 182 Wis. 2d 583, 592, 514 N.W.2d 11 
(1994).  Moreover, there is support in our prior decisions for a 
two-year suspension given the nature and scope of Attorney 
Cooper's misconduct, regardless of the fact that the misconduct 
at issue here occurred at the same time as the misconduct 
charged in the prior disciplinary proceeding.  Accordingly, we 
conclude that Attorney Cooper's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin should be suspended for a period of two years, 
No. 
2012AP2334-D   
 
16 
 
retroactive to March 23, 2010, the date on which the prior 
three-year suspension expired.15 
¶26 Finally, we turn to the issue of costs. Our general 
policy is to impose the full costs of a disciplinary proceeding 
on the respondent attorney who is found to have committed 
professional misconduct.  See SCR 22.24(1m).  We see no reason 
to depart from that policy in this matter.  Although Attorney 
Cooper did ultimately enter into a stipulation and no contest 
plea, he initially filed an answer that denied each of the 
material allegations of misconduct in the OLR's complaint, which 
required the appointment of a referee and the accompanying costs 
of litigating this matter.  It is therefore appropriate that he 
pay those costs. 
¶27 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Patrick M. Cooper to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two 
years, effective March 23, 2010. 
                                                 
15 The referee's report recommends that the suspension be 
made retroactive to March 25, 2010, as the date on which 
Attorney Cooper was eligible to petition for reinstatement.  The 
three-year suspension, however, was effective on the date of the 
court's order, March 23, 2007, which meant that it expired on 
March 23, 2010.  Cooper I, 300 Wis. 2d 61, ¶21.  We make the new 
suspension retroactive to that date.  We do not make the new 
suspension retroactive to the date on which Attorney Cooper 
would have been eligible to file a petition for reinstatement.  
Under SCR 22.29(1), an attorney whose license has been suspended 
for a definite period of time of six months or more is eligible 
to file a reinstatement petition three months prior to the 
expiration of the period of suspension. 
No. 
2012AP2334-D   
 
17 
 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Patrick M. Cooper shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Patrick M. Cooper shall 
continue compliance with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning 
the duties of a person whose license to practice law in 
Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 
conditions of this order is required for reinstatement.  See 
SCR 22.29(4)(c).