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

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2012 WI 100 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2011AP737-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: 
July 18, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2012 WI 100
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2011AP737-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 
 
JUL 18, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   In this reciprocal discipline matter, we 
review whether to impose a six-month suspension and conditions 
on the license of Attorney Daynel L. Hooker to practice law in 
Wisconsin, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the State 
of Colorado.   
¶2 
Consistent 
with 
our 
decision 
imposing 
reciprocal 
discipline 
on 
Attorney 
Hooker 
in 
a 
prior 
case, 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hooker, 2010 WI 13, 322 
No. 
2011AP737-D   
 
2 
 
Wis. 2d 552, 779 N.W.2d 419 ("Hooker I"), we determine that 
Attorney Hooker's license to practice law in Wisconsin should be 
suspended for a period of six months, retroactive to the date of 
her Colorado suspension; that she should be required to comply 
with the terms and conditions of the probation imposed in 
Colorado; that despite the six-month suspension, she should be 
reinstated without having to complete the formal reinstatement 
process; and that she should not be required to pay the costs of 
this proceeding. 
¶3 
The 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation 
(OLR) 
filed 
a 
complaint against Attorney Hooker and an order to answer on 
April 4, 2011.  Embedded within the complaint was a motion 
asking this court to issue an order directing Attorney Hooker to 
show cause why any of the exceptions to reciprocal discipline in 
SCR 22.22(3)1 applies and why reciprocal discipline should not be 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22(3) states:   
 
The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
 
(a)  The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process. 
 
(b)  There 
was 
such 
an 
infirmity 
of 
proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity. 
 
(c)  The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
No. 
2011AP737-D   
 
3 
 
imposed.  The complaint and order to answer were personally 
served on Attorney Hooker on June 9, 2011. 
¶4 
Ordinarily, when an OLR complaint seeks reciprocal 
discipline, the court immediately issues an order to show cause.  
In most instances, after the respondent attorney has filed a 
response to the order or the time to respond has expired, this 
court 
then 
considers 
the 
matter 
directly 
(without 
the 
appointment of a referee) and issues a final decision.  In this 
case, however, a referee was inadvertently appointed. 
¶5 
After his appointment, the referee sent a letter to 
the parties directing them to consult about some proposed times 
for a telephonic scheduling conference.  The OLR's counsel sent 
a letter to Attorney Hooker at two different addresses proposing 
four dates for the scheduling conference.  Neither letter was 
returned, but Attorney Hooker did not respond. 
¶6 
Because Attorney Hooker had also not filed an answer 
or other responsive pleading to the complaint, the OLR then 
filed a motion for a declaration of default.  The referee sent 
out an order scheduling the default motion for a hearing on 
September 14, 2011.  At the hearing, the referee indicated that 
he had sent the order to two addresses in Colorado and that 
while one of the envelopes had been returned as undeliverable, 
the other envelope had not been returned.  Attorney Hooker did 
not file any response to the OLR's default motion nor did she 
appear at the September 14, 2011 hearing.  The referee therefore 
declared Attorney Hooker to be in default and proceeded on the 
basis of the allegations in the OLR's complaint. 
No. 
2011AP737-D   
 
4 
 
¶7 
The 
referee 
subsequently 
issued 
his 
report 
and 
recommendation.  No appeal from that report has been filed, 
which brings the matter to us for consideration pursuant to 
SCR 22.17(2).2  Accordingly, we turn to Attorney Hooker's 
disciplinary history and the referee's factual findings as to 
Attorney Hooker's conduct. 
¶8 
Attorney Hooker was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in June 2001.  She is not licensed in Colorado, but 
has nonetheless maintained a law office in that state for a 
number of years.  Colorado law permits an attorney to operate a 
law office in that state even if licensed only in another state 
as long as the attorney practices solely in areas of federal 
law.  Attorney Hooker's practice focused on federal immigration 
law, bankruptcy law, and intellectual property law.  Under 
Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct (Colo. RPC) 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.  
¶9 
Attorney Hooker has received public discipline in 
Wisconsin on one previous occasion.  In Hooker I this court was 
                                                 
2 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. 
No. 
2011AP737-D   
 
5 
 
confronted with the situation where the Colorado disciplinary 
authorities 
had 
suspended 
Attorney 
Hooker's 
privilege 
to 
practice law in Colorado for a period of one year and one day, 
but had stayed six months and one day of that suspension period 
so long as Attorney Hooker successfully completed a two-year 
period of probation.  322 Wis. 2d 552, ¶1.  Attorney Hooker's 
misconduct in that case involved failing to return unearned 
advance fees to her former clients in a timely manner, failing 
to maintain client funds in a trust account, temporarily 
converting client funds to her own personal use, and misleading 
a former associate attorney about the return of the unearned 
fees.  Id., ¶¶4-8.   
¶10 In order to impose an effectively identical sanction, 
this court suspended Attorney Hooker's license for a period of 
six months.  Id., ¶14.  Because of Attorney Hooker's unique 
situation where she was practicing in Colorado on the basis of a 
Wisconsin license, we made her suspension retroactive to the 
date of the suspension imposed in Colorado, and we eliminated 
the usual requirement of a formal reinstatement proceeding for 
suspensions of six months or more.  Id., ¶¶10, 12; see also 
SCRs 22.29 to 22.33.  Because this court does not utilize 
probation as a form of discipline, we further directed Attorney 
Hooker to comply with the terms and conditions of the Colorado 
probation.  322 Wis. 2d 552, ¶15.  Finally, we did not impose 
the costs of that proceeding on Attorney Hooker as it had 
followed the normal procedure for reciprocal discipline cases 
where no referee is appointed.  Id., ¶13.   
No. 
2011AP737-D   
 
6 
 
¶11 In addition to the prior disciplinary suspension, 
Attorney Hooker's license was temporarily suspended in March 
2012 due to her willful failure to cooperate with another 
grievance investigation by the OLR.  Her Wisconsin license was 
also administratively suspended in October 2011 due to her 
failure to pay bar dues and assessments and her failure to file 
the required trust account certification, and in June 2012 due 
to her failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal 
education reporting requirements.  Her license remains subject 
to these temporary and administrative suspensions. 
¶12 The misconduct that led to the Colorado suspension 
that is at issue in this proceeding related to two separate 
client representations.  The specific facts regarding Attorney 
Hooker's misconduct are set forth in two documents from the 
Colorado disciplinary proceeding that were attached to the OLR's 
complaint and admitted by Attorney Hooker's default:  (1) 
"Stipulation, 
Agreement 
and 
Affidavit 
Containing 
the 
Respondent's Conditional Admission of Misconduct" (the Colorado 
Stipulation) and (2) "Order Approving Conditional Admission of 
Misconduct and Imposing Sanctions Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.22" 
(the Colorado Order). 
¶13 In the first representation, Attorney Hooker was 
retained to reopen a bankruptcy proceeding that had been 
dismissed without prejudice.  Attorney Hooker was able to have 
the proceeding reopened, but made a number of missteps.  She 
failed to file a certificate regarding objections to an amended 
Chapter 13 plan she had submitted.  Attorney Hooker then failed 
No. 
2011AP737-D   
 
7 
 
to appear at a confirmation hearing for the amended plan, which 
resulted in the denial of confirmation for the plan.  The 
bankruptcy court ordered Attorney Hooker to file another amended 
plan in late December 2009.  Attorney Hooker was out of the 
office for apparently an extended period of time that month, and 
neither she nor her associates filed the amended plan by the 
deadline, 
which 
resulted 
in 
the 
bankruptcy 
court 
again 
dismissing the client's bankruptcy petition.  When one of 
Attorney Hooker's associates moved to reinstate the case, the 
bankruptcy court denied the motion, noting Attorney Hooker's 
"persistent 
pattern 
of 
inattention 
to 
court 
orders 
and 
Bankruptcy Code requirements dating from attorney Hooker's first 
appearance in the case."  In the Colorado Stipulation Attorney 
Hooker admitted that her conduct in this representation had 
violated Colo. RPCs 1.1 (competence) and 1.3 (neglect). 
¶14 As noted above, by virtue of her Wisconsin license, 
Attorney Hooker could practice law in the federal courts in 
Colorado, but could not maintain a general practice involving 
Colorado law.  The second representation involved Attorney 
Hooker's practice of Colorado law despite the lack of a law 
license issued by that state.  Specifically, Attorney Hooker 
drafted wills for a Colorado husband and wife and also counseled 
the couple on basic estate planning matters, including powers of 
attorney, real property, bank accounts, and stocks.  Attorney 
Hooker stipulated that her conduct in this matter had violated 
Colo. RPC 5.5(a) (2007 and prior), which stated that "[a] lawyer 
No. 
2011AP737-D   
 
8 
 
shall not practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates 
the regulations of the legal profession in that jurisdiction." 
¶15 Pursuant to the Colorado Stipulation, the Colorado 
Presiding Disciplinary Judge3 issued an order suspending Attorney 
Hooker's privilege to practice law in Colorado for a period of 
one year and one day, with six months and one day of that 
suspension stayed pending her successful completion of a two-
year period of probation.  The order imposed a number of 
conditions that Attorney Hooker was required to satisfy as part 
of her probation.  The order also required Attorney Hooker to 
pay an agreed upon amount of costs ($91.00). 
¶16 Based on Attorney Hooker's default, the referee in 
this case found the allegations of the OLR's complaint to have 
been deemed admitted for purposes of this proceeding.  The 
referee concluded that Attorney Hooker had not made any claim or 
showing that any of the exceptions to the imposition of 
reciprocal discipline set forth in SCR 22.22(3) applied to this 
case.  Thus, the referee further concluded that, due to the 
imposition of public discipline in Colorado, Attorney Hooker was 
                                                 
3 According to the web site of the Supreme Court of 
Colorado, it created the Office of the Presiding Disciplinary 
Judge to hear attorney discipline cases.  The Presiding 
Disciplinary Judge is empowered to issue orders imposing 
discipline on attorneys in that state.  An attorney subject to 
such an order is able to file an appeal to the Supreme Court of 
Colorado, but is not obligated to do so.  Thus, as in the 
Colorado disciplinary proceeding at issue here, where the order 
imposing discipline was the result of a stipulation, the 
disciplinary 
order 
was 
issued 
by 
the 
Colorado 
Presiding 
Disciplinary Judge rather than the Supreme Court of Colorado. 
No. 
2011AP737-D   
 
9 
 
subject to the imposition of reciprocal discipline in this 
state. 
¶17 The referee in this case recommended that the court 
treat this matter the same way it handled the reciprocal 
discipline in Hooker I.  Specifically, the referee recommended 
that this court impose a six-month suspension of Attorney 
Hooker's license to practice law in Wisconsin and require her to 
comply with the terms and conditions of the Colorado probation.  
The referee further recommended that the suspension be made 
retroactive to the date of the Colorado suspension.   
¶18 The referee did deviate from this court's prior 
decision in Hooker I by recommending that the court in this 
matter require Attorney Hooker to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding.  As support for that recommendation, the referee 
pointed to the fact that costs had been imposed in the Colorado 
proceeding, 
and 
suggested 
that 
reciprocity 
required 
the 
imposition of costs in Wisconsin.  Moreover, although the 
referee acknowledged that costs had not been imposed by this 
court in the prior decision, he said that Attorney Hooker had 
been on notice in the present case that the OLR was seeking an 
award of costs, at least by virtue of the OLR's default motion.4 
¶19 When reviewing a referee's report and recommendation, 
we affirm a referee's findings of fact unless they are found to 
be clearly erroneous, but we review the referee's conclusions of 
                                                 
4 The OLR's default motion did include a request that the 
referee recommend that Attorney Hooker be required to pay the 
full costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
2011AP737-D   
 
10 
 
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.  Because the present case involves the imposition of 
reciprocal discipline, the applicable rule states that we "shall 
impose" identical discipline unless one of the three listed 
exceptions applies.  SCR 22.22(3). 
¶20 In this case we adopt the referee's findings of fact 
and agree with the referee that Attorney Hooker failed to join 
issue with the OLR's complaint.  She was therefore properly 
found to be in default, and the allegations of the OLR's 
complaint are deemed admitted.  Thus, it is accepted as true 
that Attorney Hooker received public professional discipline in 
the state of Colorado.  Further, we also conclude that none of 
the three exceptions to the imposition of reciprocal discipline 
applies.  
¶21 We agree with the referee that we should follow the 
same path we took in Hooker I for imposing discipline that has 
an identical effect as the partially stayed suspension imposed 
in Colorado.  We will therefore suspend Attorney Hooker's 
license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of six months, 
as that is the actual amount of time that Attorney Hooker could 
not practice law in any form in Colorado under that state's 
suspension. 
No. 
2011AP737-D   
 
11 
 
¶22 As we did in Hooker I, we will make the suspension 
retroactive to March 1, 2011, the effective date of the Colorado 
suspension.  Because of the unique circumstance where Attorney 
Hooker has been disciplined in a jurisdiction where she is not 
licensed to practice law, making the suspension prospective 
would effectively make the period of suspension much longer than 
in the usual reciprocal discipline situation because she would 
not be able, as a practical matter, to practice law at all 
during 
the 
period 
of 
both 
the 
Colorado 
and 
Wisconsin 
suspensions.  A prospective suspension would therefore not 
result in an identical sanction.  See Hooker I, 322 Wis. 2d 552, 
¶10.  Making the current suspension retroactive will maintain 
consistency with our previous decision.   
¶23 Moreover, we note that the OLR's complaint did not 
contain a second count alleging that Attorney Hooker had failed 
to notify it of the Colorado suspension, in violation of 
SCR 22.22(1).5  The OLR routinely includes such a count in its 
reciprocal discipline complaints when the attorney has failed to 
notify 
it 
of 
the 
public 
discipline 
imposed 
in 
another 
jurisdiction.  Thus, although there is no explicit statement in 
                                                 
5 SCR 22.22(1) states:  
 
An 
attorney 
on 
whom 
public 
discipline 
for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.  
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct. 
No. 
2011AP737-D   
 
12 
 
the referee's report that Attorney Hooker did notify the OLR of 
the Colorado suspension, that is a reasonable inference here 
that provides some additional support for the fairness of a 
retroactive suspension in this case.   
¶24 Given the same conditions that were present in Hooker 
I, we will not require Attorney Hooker to complete the full 
reinstatement process that a six-month suspension in this state 
normally requires.  See Hooker I, 322 Wis. 2d 552, ¶12.  Upon 
Attorney Hooker's showing that Colorado has approved Attorney 
Hooker's resumption of the practice of law in Colorado, Attorney 
Hooker's 
Wisconsin 
license 
shall 
be 
reinstated 
from 
the 
disciplinary suspension imposed in this proceeding.6 
¶25 To the extent that Attorney Hooker currently remains 
subject to the period of probation in Colorado, we will require 
Attorney Hooker to comply with the terms and conditions of that 
Colorado probation.  Again, this is consistent with our decision 
in Hooker I.  322 Wis. 2d 552, ¶11. 
                                                 
6 The reinstatement of Attorney Hooker's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin from the disciplinary suspension imposed in 
this opinion and order will not automatically allow Attorney 
Hooker to practice law again.  Her license remains subject to 
administrative suspensions and a temporary suspension for her 
failure 
to 
cooperate 
in 
another 
grievance 
investigation.  
Attorney Hooker will need to comply with the reinstatement 
procedures 
that apply to such suspensions.  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Martin, 2007 WI 44, 300 
Wis. 2d 135, 137, 730 N.W.2d 151 (published order; imposition of 
reciprocal discipline did not affect administrative suspensions 
for 
failure 
to 
pay 
bar 
dues 
and 
assessments 
and 
for 
noncompliance with continuing legal education requirements). 
No. 
2011AP737-D   
 
13 
 
¶26 We do not agree with the referee's recommendation that 
Attorney Hooker should be required to pay the full costs of this 
proceeding.  If this case had followed the standard procedure 
for reciprocal discipline complaints, an order to show cause 
under SCR 22.22(2)(b) would have been issued immediately 
following the service of the complaint on Attorney Hooker, and 
no referee would have been appointed.  In such reciprocal 
discipline cases where a referee is not appointed, costs are 
generally not imposed as there are no referee expenses and the 
proceedings are less involved.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Eichhorn-Hicks, 2012 WI 18, ¶13, 338 
Wis. 2d 753, 809 N.W.2d 379; In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Taber, 2012 WI 9, ¶13, 338 Wis. 2d 534, 809 N.W.2d 29.  
The OLR usually does not even request costs in such cases.  It 
would not be fair that Attorney Hooker should be made to pay the 
costs of this proceeding when other attorneys in the same 
situation have not been made to do so.  The proceedings before 
the referee and the concomitant expenses resulted from the 
inadvertent appointment of a referee in this proceeding, which 
Attorney Hooker did not cause.  Therefore, we do not impose the 
costs of this proceeding on her. 
¶27 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Daynel L. Hooker to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended for six months, 
effective March 1, 2011. 
¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon a competent showing 
that the state of Colorado has authorized Attorney Hooker to 
resume the practice of law in that state based on her Wisconsin 
No. 
2011AP737-D   
 
14 
 
license, the license of Daynel L. Hooker to practice law in 
Wisconsin shall be reinstated from the disciplinary suspension 
imposed in this proceeding.  Such reinstatement shall not 
terminate or affect any temporary or administrative suspensions 
that remain pending against Attorney Daynel L. Hooker. 
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Daynel L. Hooker shall 
comply with the terms and conditions of probation set forth in 
the "Order Approving Conditional Admission of Misconduct and 
Imposing Sanctions Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 251.22," which was 
issued and entered by the Colorado Presiding Disciplinary Judge 
on March 3, 2011, in Case No. 10PDJ062. 
¶30 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 suspended. 
 
No. 
2011AP737-D   
 
 
 
1