Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Dianna L. Brooks

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2002 WI 32 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
02-0123-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Dianna L. Brooks, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
Complainant, 
 
v. 
Dianna L. Brooks,  
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BROOKS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 10, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
SYKES, J., dissents (opinion filed).   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 32 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  02-0123-D  
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Dianna L. Brooks, Attorney at  
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation,  
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Dianna L. Brooks,  
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
APR 10, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the stipulation filed by 
Attorney Dianna L. Brooks and the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR).  On January 10, 2002, OLR filed a disciplinary complaint 
against Attorney Dianna L. Brooks asking this court to impose 
reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed on Attorney 
Brooks by the State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board.  That 
Board on March 30, 2000, ordered Attorney Brooks's license to 
practice law in the State of Michigan, be suspended for a period 
No. 
02-0123-D   
 
2 
 
of 90 days to commence as of February 1, 2000; that effectively 
resulted in a 90-day suspension of her license to practice law 
in that state, 60 days of which had passed at the time order was 
entered and 30 days which were imposed prospectively.  That 
order also required Attorney Brooks to make restitution.  She 
has done so and her license to practice law in the State of 
Michigan has been reinstated.  
¶2 
At 
OLR's 
request, 
pursuant 
to 
SCR 
22.22(2)(b),1 
Attorney Brooks was ordered to show cause in writing why this 
court should not suspend her license to practice in this state 
and impose discipline identical to that imposed in Michigan for 
her various acts of professional misconduct.  
¶3 
Subsequently 
Attorney 
Brooks 
filed 
a 
signed 
stipulation, joined by OLR, reciting the allegations of the OLR 
complaint and confirming that she does not claim defenses to the 
proposed imposition of reciprocal discipline.  That stipulation 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22(2)(b) provides: 
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a judgment 
or order of another jurisdiction imposing discipline 
for misconduct or a license suspension for medical 
incapacity of an attorney admitted to the practice of 
law or engaged in the practice of law in this state, 
the director may file a complaint in the supreme court 
containing all of the following:  
(b) A 
motion 
requesting 
an 
order 
directing 
the 
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the 
grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of 
the identical discipline or license suspension by the 
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual 
basis for the claim. 
No. 
02-0123-D   
 
3 
 
requests the imposition of the identical 90-day suspension of 
Attorney Brooks's license to practice law in this state.  We 
accept the parties' stipulation and suspend the license of 
Attorney Dianna L. Brooks to practice law in this state for a 
period of 90 days to commence on the date of this order.  
¶4 
Attorney Dianna L. Brooks was admitted to the practice 
of law in this state in May of 1991.  She was subsequently 
licensed to practice law in the State of Michigan.  She 
currently resides in Georgia.  Attorney Brooks's license to 
practice law in this state has been continuously suspended since 
November 2, 1992, for her failure to pay dues to the Wisconsin 
State Bar in which she is currently registered as an inactive 
member.  Her Wisconsin law license was also suspended on June 6, 
1994, for non-compliance with the continuing legal education 
requirements.   
¶5 
Attorney Brooks filed a petition for reinstatement in 
this state in July of 2001.  During the OLR staff investigation 
of that petition Attorney Brooks disclosed that professional 
discipline had been imposed against her in 1999 by the Michigan 
Attorney Discipline Board.  Attorney Brooks also acknowledged 
that she had not notified OLR's predecessor agency, the Board of 
Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR), of the imposition 
of that discipline against her in Michigan.   
¶6 
Attorney Brooks's misconduct as charged and found in 
the Michigan disciplinary action consisted of:  
No. 
02-0123-D   
 
4 
 
• In a divorce action, Brooks failed to file the 
divorce action on her client's behalf; and failed 
to return $160 of unearned fees. 
• In another matter, Brooks was paid $450 to 
represent a client in a child support and 
visitation action in Maryland.  Brooks improperly 
held herself out to her client as being able to 
practice 
law in 
Maryland 
and contacted the 
opposing attorney seeking an adjournment of the 
trial date; Brooks failed to file a motion to be 
admitted pro hac vice for that action; failed to 
refer her client to Maryland counsel for the 
purpose of either representing her in Maryland or 
to contest jurisdiction of the Maryland court; 
failed to advise her client that she had not 
obtained an adjournment of the Maryland trial 
date (when neither Brooks nor her client appeared 
for the trial date, a default judgment was 
entered); commingled advanced fees by depositing 
them into her personal bank account; failed to 
maintain the fees in a trust account until she 
was admitted to the practice of law in the 
Maryland action pursuant to a later successful 
pro hac vice motion; made withdrawals from her 
personal account which resulted in a complete 
misappropriation of the funds; and failed to make 
restitution of the $450 to her client. 
• In a third matter, Brooks was retained in January 
of 1997 to represent a client concerning post-
judgment custody issues in a divorce action.  
Brooks failed to file a motion on her client's 
behalf until November 1997 and failed to refund 
any portion of the $1000 fee paid by the client.   
• In a fourth matter, Brooks was retained on or 
about May 1996 to review various legal matters 
for a client's mother, including but not limited 
to reviewing possible litigation regarding a 
construction and personal injury matter.  Brooks 
failed to file either action and failed to advise 
her client that she would not do so; failed to 
release the client's file upon request or refund 
any portion of the $1500 fee. 
No. 
02-0123-D   
 
5 
 
• Brooks 
also 
failed 
to 
maintain 
reasonable 
communications 
with 
her 
clients; 
failed 
to 
respond to numerous messages from her clients; 
failed to notify her clients of her changes of 
address; abandoned the representation of two 
clients; and failed to file an answer to three 
requests for investigation from the grievance 
administrator.  
¶7 
Attorney Brooks subsequently pled no contest to these 
misconduct charges and entered into a stipulation for consensual 
discipline in Michigan.  As noted, that discipline included a 
requirement that Attorney Brooks make restitution, which she has 
done.  She has subsequently been reinstated to the practice of 
law in Michigan. 
¶8 
The OLR complaint against Attorney Brooks in this 
state asserts that by failing to notify BAPR of Michigan's 
imposition of public discipline against her law license within 
20 days of the effective date of that jurisdiction's imposition 
of a license suspension for professional misconduct, Attorney 
Brooks violated former SCR 22.25(1).2 
                                                 
2 Former SCR 22.25(1) in effect through September 30, 2000, 
provided: 
(1) An attorney admitted to practice law in this 
state, upon being subjected to public discipline or 
suspended 
for 
medical 
incapacity 
in 
another 
jurisdiction, shall promptly inform the administrator 
of the action.  Failure to furnish the notice within 
20 days of the effective date of the order or judgment 
constitutes misconduct.  
The order imposing discipline against Attorney Brooks in 
Michigan was issued March 30, 2000, seven months before repeal 
of SCR 22.25(1).  That rule has been recreated in substantially 
the same form in current SCR 22.22(1) (effective October 1, 
2000).  That current version of the rule provides: 
No. 
02-0123-D   
 
6 
 
¶9 
An additional count in the OLR complaint filed against 
Attorney Brooks asserts that as determined in the Michigan 
disciplinary 
proceedings, 
Attorney 
Brooks 
had 
committed 
professional misconduct in violation of several provisions of 
the Michigan Code of Responsibility and the Michigan Rules of 
Professional Conduct.  Accordingly, the OLR complaint asserts 
that Brooks is subject to reciprocal discipline in Wisconsin 
pursuant to SCR 22.22.  
¶10 We agree with the parties that discipline identical to 
that imposed in Michigan is appropriate in this situation.  
Accordingly, we adopt the parties' joint request and order a 90-
day suspension of Attorney Brooks's license to practice law in 
this state.  The 90-day suspension shall be effective the date 
of this order.  
¶11 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Dianna L. Brooks to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for 90 days effective the 
date of this order.  
¶12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dianna L. Brooks comply 
with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a 
person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended.   
                                                                                                                                                             
(1) 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. 
02-0123-D   
 
7 
 
¶13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Dianna L. Brooks pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs are not 
paid within the time specified and absent a showing to this 
court of her inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of Dianna L. Brooks to practice law in Wisconsin shall 
remain suspended until further order of the court.  
No.  02-0123-D.dss 
 
1 
 
¶14 DIANE S. SYKES, J.   (dissenting).  I would reject the 
parties' stipulation asking this court to suspend Dianna 
Brooks's license to practice law in this state for 90 days as 
reciprocal discipline for her admitted acts of misconduct in 
Michigan.  That 90-day suspension is identical to the discipline 
imposed against her by the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board 
pursuant to her stipulation for consensual discipline in that 
state.  Supreme Court Rule 22.22(3) directs this court in 
reciprocal 
disciplinary 
matters 
to 
impose 
the 
identical 
discipline 
or 
license 
suspension 
imposed 
by 
the 
other 
jurisdiction 
unless 
the 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state.  See SCR 22.22(3)(c).  I 
believe that had Dianna Brooks's admitted acts of misconduct 
been committed in this state, this court would have been 
justified 
in 
imposing 
a 
substantially 
different 
and 
significantly more severe discipline than a 90-day suspension of 
her license.  Rather than automatically following Michigan's 
disciplinary disposition, I would, pursuant to SCR 22.12(3), 
reject the parties' stipulation and refer this matter to a 
referee for a hearing and report and recommendation on the 
appropriate discipline to be imposed in Wisconsin for Ms. 
Brooks's serious acts of misconduct.  See SCR 22.22(5).  
Accordingly, I dissent.   
 
No.  02-0123-D.dss 
 
1