Case Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Daynel L. Hooker

Citation: 2014 WI 41

Docket Number: 2014AP000028-D

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2014-06-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
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, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Daynel L. Hooker, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 19, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
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   
 
2 
 
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. 
No. 
2014AP28-D   
 
3 
 
¶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 
No. 
2014AP28-D   
 
4 
 
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 
No. 
2014AP28-D   
 
5 
 
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 
No. 
2014AP28-D   
 
6 
 
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. 
No. 
2014AP28-D   
 
7 
 
¶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 
No. 
2014AP28-D   
 
8 
 
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. 
 
 
No. 
2014AP28-D   
 
9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
2014AP28-D   
 
 
 
1