Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Sean D. Cooper

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2013 WI 97 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP2321-D   
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Sean D. Cooper, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Sean D. Cooper, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COOPER  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 10, 2013 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2013 WI 97
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2012AP2321-D   
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Sean D. Cooper, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Sean D. Cooper, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 10, 2013 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   On June 6, 2013, Referee Richard C. 
Ninneman filed a report recommending that Attorney Sean D. 
Cooper be declared in default, concluding that Attorney Cooper 
engaged in numerous counts of professional misconduct, and 
recommending that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be 
revoked. 
¶2 
We conclude that the referee's findings of fact are 
supported by satisfactory and convincing evidence.  Since 
No. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
2 
 
Attorney Cooper failed to present a defense despite being given 
multiple opportunities to do so, we declare him to be in 
default.  We further agree with the referee that the seriousness 
of Attorney Cooper's misconduct warrants the revocation of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin.  In addition, we conclude 
that the full costs of this proceeding, which are $7,401.14 as 
of June 26, 2013, should be assessed against Attorney Cooper. 
¶3 
Attorney Cooper was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2009.  His license to practice law in Wisconsin was 
temporarily suspended, pursuant to SCR 22.03(4), on October 17, 
2012.  His license remains suspended. 
¶4 
On October 24, 2012, the Office of Lawyer Regulation 
(OLR) issued a complaint against Attorney Cooper alleging 39 
counts of professional misconduct arising out of ten different 
matters.  On December 17, 2012, Attorney Cooper filed a one-page 
answer denying all allegations and facts contained in the 
complaint. 
¶5 
On January 23, 2013, the OLR filed an amended 
complaint alleging 78 counts of misconduct in 18 separate 
matters. 
¶6 
In a February 1, 2013 telephone conference between the 
referee, Attorney Cooper, and retained counsel for the OLR, 
Attorney Cooper was encouraged to retain counsel and was given 
until February 28, 2013, to respond to the amended complaint.  A 
further telephone conference was scheduled for March 4, 2013.  
Attorney Cooper was directed to call the referee in advance of 
the telephone conference in order to participate.  Attorney 
No. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
3 
 
Cooper failed to make such contact and the telephone conference 
was cancelled. 
¶7 
On March 21, 2013, the OLR filed a motion for default 
judgment.  Attached to the supporting affidavit was a letter 
from Attorney Cooper dated March 19, 2013, addressed to the 
referee and the OLR's counsel.  The letter stated, "I have 
decided to voluntary [sic] surrender my license to practice law 
in the State of Wisconsin due to personal reasons."   
¶8 
On April 8, 2013, the referee issued a notice that the 
OLR's motion for a default judgment would be heard on May 21, 
2013.  At the May 21 hearing, the OLR's counsel and an OLR 
investigator appeared by videoconference and a record was made.  
Neither Attorney Cooper nor any attorney or representative made 
an appearance on his behalf.  As a result, the referee granted 
the OLR's motion for default judgment and found the OLR proved 
by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence all allegations 
in its amended complaint. 
¶9 
The allegations in the amended complaint, which are 
discussed in detail in the referee's report, will not be 
extensively recited or repeated here.  We will briefly summarize 
the incidents giving rise to the misconduct. 
Multiple Bankruptcy Proceedings (Counts 1 through 8) 
¶10 Judge Pamela Pepper, Chief Bankruptcy Judge for the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Wisconsin, made a submission to the OLR on May 13, 2011, 
reporting that, pursuant to the unanimous decision of the 
Eastern District of Wisconsin bankruptcy judges, Attorney Cooper 
No. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
4 
 
had been barred from filing any new bankruptcy petitions for a 
period of six months.  The prohibition on his filing any new 
cases arose out of his repeated mishandling of multiple 
bankruptcy 
matters, 
including 
failing 
to 
respond 
to 
communications from the bankruptcy court and trustee, failing to 
communicate with clients regarding court appearances, filing 
schedules in bankruptcy proceedings without prior client review, 
and filing bankruptcy petitions during times he was barred from 
doing so. 
Matter of R.F. (Counts 9 through 14) 
¶11 In May of 2010, R.F. hired Attorney Cooper to 
represent her with respect to charges of discrimination that she 
had already filed with the United States Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  R.F. paid Attorney Cooper $4,000 
for the representation.  After requesting a postponement of a 
mediation, Attorney Cooper failed to respond to telephone calls 
from the mediator, failed to file a lawsuit within 90 days after 
receipt of the notice of dismissal of R.F.'s claims, causing 
R.F. to lose her rights to sue, failed to return R.F.'s file, 
and failed to timely respond to R.F.'s grievance. 
Matter of N.L. (Counts 15 through 18) 
¶12 In October of 2010, N.L. hired Attorney Cooper to file 
a Wis. Stat. chapter 128 petition in Milwaukee County for 
voluntary amortization of debts.  Attorney Cooper filed the 
petition but never informed N.L. of the appointment of a 
trustee.  The petition was later dismissed due to N.L.'s failure 
to make the initial payment to the trustee as ordered by the 
No. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
5 
 
court.  Attorney Cooper filed a second petition in April of 
2011.  The court sent Attorney Cooper a checklist of missing 
items and told him if the petition was not corrected within 30 
days, it would be dismissed.  Attorney Cooper failed to inform 
N.L. of the missing items and failed to contact the trustee or 
the court, so the second petition was also dismissed.   
Matter of C.D. (Counts 19 through 21) 
¶13 In September of 2010, C.D. hired Attorney Cooper to 
represent her in a chapter 128 proceeding in Milwaukee County.  
The petition incorrectly stated the debtor's name and listed an 
incorrect address.  After appointment of a trustee, the trustee 
filed an affidavit and order for dismissal based on the fact 
that the debtor had made no plan payments.  The trustee's 
documents listed the wrong address for C.D., and there was no 
correspondence from Attorney Cooper to C.D. informing the client 
that a trustee had been appointed. 
Matter of Y.D. (Counts 22 through 26) 
¶14 In December of 2010, Y.D. hired Attorney Cooper to 
represent her in a chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding.  Attorney 
Cooper electronically filed the voluntary bankruptcy petition 
and a meeting of creditors was scheduled.  Attorney Cooper 
appeared at the hearing but Y.D. did not.  The trustee filed a 
motion to dismiss the bankruptcy petition based on Y.D.'s 
failure to attend the meeting of creditors and failure to 
provide tax returns and other information.  Attorney Cooper 
failed to obtain Y.D.'s signature on any of the documents he 
electronically filed with the bankruptcy court as required by 
No. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
6 
 
local court rules.  He also altered the original date on the 
bankruptcy petition prior to submitting a copy of it to the OLR, 
failed to have Y.D. review and sign the petition before filing 
it, failed to object to the trustee's motion to dismiss, and 
failed to keep Y.D. apprised of the status of her case. 
Matter of S.J. (Counts 27 and 28) 
¶15 On April 1, 2011, S.J. engaged Attorney Cooper to 
represent her in a chapter 128 petition in Milwaukee County for 
the voluntary amortization of debts.  Attorney Cooper filed the 
petition.  The court advised him that his proposed trustee was 
not presently in compliance with a local rule and directed 
Attorney Cooper to resubmit appropriate materials to the court 
within 30 days or the case would be dismissed.  Attorney Cooper 
failed to respond within that time period and the proceeding was 
dismissed.   
Matter of V.H. (Counts 29 through 33)  
¶16 In March of 2011, V.H. hired Attorney Cooper to 
represent her in a chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding.  Attorney 
Cooper electronically filed the voluntary bankruptcy petition 
but failed to gather the required documents from V.H. prior to 
filing it.  He also failed to have V.H. review and sign the 
petition and related schedules prior to filing, failed to keep 
V.H. informed about the status of the proceeding, represented to 
the bankruptcy court that V.H. had signed the documents when she 
had not, and changed the dates on some documents after they had 
been filed.   
Matter of T.M. (Counts 34 and 35) 
No. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
7 
 
¶17 In March of 2010, T.M. hired Attorney Cooper to defend 
T.M. in various criminal matters pending in Racine County.  T.M. 
paid Attorney Cooper $5,000 and a purported fee agreement letter 
was signed.  T.M. claimed he terminated Attorney Cooper's 
representation in June 2010 but Attorney Cooper refused to 
withdraw.  T.M. also claimed that Attorney Cooper failed to 
return his telephone calls and did nothing to defend him. 
Matter of M.D. (Counts 36 through 38) 
¶18 On February 1, 2011, M.D. hired Attorney Cooper to 
represent her in a chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding.  She paid 
him $255.  She signed her voluntary petition, and Attorney 
Cooper electronically filed it.  Attorney Cooper altered the 
date on the petition and failed to obtain documents and 
information from M.D. which were needed to prepare and file the 
chapter 13 schedules and plan.   
Matter of T.C. (Count 39) 
¶19 T.C. 
hired 
Attorney 
Cooper 
in 
October 
2010 
to 
represent her and her husband in a chapter 128 petition in 
Milwaukee County for the voluntary amortization of debts.  The 
proceeding was dismissed based on the failure of the debtors to 
make the initial payment to the trustee as ordered by the court.  
Attorney Cooper failed to provide T.C. with any correspondence 
regarding the status of the proceeding.   
Matter of R.C. (Counts 40 through 45) 
¶20 In February of 2011, R.C. hired Attorney Cooper to 
represent him in a criminal proceeding in Dane County.  R.C. 
paid an advance fee of $2,500 which Attorney Cooper deposited 
No. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
8 
 
directly into his operating account rather than his trust 
account.  In June of 2011, R.C. terminated the attorney-client 
relationship and asked Attorney Cooper to return any unearned 
portion of the $2,500 advanced fee.  Attorney Cooper failed to 
respond to this request in an appropriate manner. 
Matter of D.Co. (Counts 46 through 50) 
¶21 In February of 2011, D.Co. paid Attorney Cooper $295 
to 
represent 
her 
in 
a 
chapter 
128 
proceeding 
for 
the 
amortization of debts.  Attorney Cooper never filed the 
petition.  D.Co. repeatedly called Attorney Cooper's office 
regarding the status of the filing, but Attorney Cooper never 
returned her phone calls.   
Matter of D.Cu. (Counts 51 through 57) 
¶22 In April of 2012, D.Cu. hired Attorney Cooper to 
represent him in a bankruptcy action and paid him $1,500.  
Attorney Cooper failed to confirm the fee agreement with D.Cu. 
in writing, failed to file the bankruptcy petition, failed to 
keep D.Cu. informed about the status of the matter, and closed 
his office without notifying D.Cu.   
Matter of C.H. (Counts 58 through 60) 
¶23 In early 2011 C.H. hired Attorney Cooper to represent 
him regarding workplace discrimination claims in proceedings 
before the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division and the United States 
EEOC.  C.H. paid Attorney Cooper an advance fee of $749.  
Attorney Cooper failed to confirm the fee agreement in writing.  
In January of 2012, C.H. and his employer reached a settlement, 
which 
Attorney 
Cooper 
approved, 
and 
the 
discrimination 
No. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
9 
 
complaints with the two agencies were dismissed.  Attorney 
Cooper failed to have a contingent fee agreement in writing and 
signed by C.H., failed to deliver the case file documents to 
C.H. when requested, and failed to provide the OLR with a 
written response to C.H.'s grievance. 
Matter of D.H. (Counts 61 through 65)  
¶24 In April of 2011, D.H. hired Attorney Cooper to 
represent him in a motion to modify a sentence imposed as the 
result of a 1998 conviction for five felonies.  The original 
sentence imposed was 45 years in prison.  Attorney Cooper was 
paid an advance fee of $2,500.  Attorney Cooper failed to return 
telephone calls inquiring as to the status of the matter, nor 
did he file any motion to modify the sentence.  D.H. terminated 
Attorney Cooper's representation in February of 2012 and 
requested a refund of the $2,500 and the return of all 
documents.  Following the commencement of a small claims action 
for replevin to obtain the file and a small claims action for 
refund of the advanced fee, D.H. accepted a settlement of 
$1,500. 
Matter of P.T. (Counts 66 through 71) 
¶25 In February of 2012, P.T. hired Attorney Cooper to 
represent her in a petition for guardianship.  P.T. agreed to a 
flat fee of $700 and paid $400 toward that fee.  P.T. made 
numerous requests to Attorney Cooper for a copy of the petition 
for guardianship, which Attorney Cooper did not provide.  She 
left telephone calls and text messages to which Attorney Cooper 
never responded.  Attorney Cooper never filed the guardianship 
No. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
10 
 
petition.  When P.T. asked for a refund of the $400 she had paid 
toward the fee, Attorney Cooper offered her a credit for future 
legal services and did not refund any portion of the fee.  In 
September 2012 the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection 
approved payment of $350 to P.T. for reimbursement of funds 
arising out of Attorney Cooper's refusal to refund any part of 
the advanced fee. 
Matter of A.R. and I.G. (Counts 72 through 76) 
¶26 In February of 2011, A.R. and I.G. hired Attorney 
Cooper to modify a birth certificate for their son and paid him 
$1,100 for his services.  Attorney Cooper filed a motion to 
change the birth certificate but failed to appear at a hearing 
on the motion.  The court subsequently entered an order 
dismissing the matter. 
Matter of E.W. (Counts 77 and 78) 
¶27 In February of 2012, E.W. hired Attorney Cooper to 
represent him in a chapter 7 bankruptcy matter and paid Attorney 
Cooper $300 pursuant to a written engagement letter.  The 
following month, E.W. informed Attorney Cooper he had decided 
not to file the bankruptcy petition and asked for a full refund. 
Attorney Cooper failed to respond to the request for a refund 
and failed to provide a written response to the OLR's grievance. 
¶28 The referee concluded that Attorney Cooper committed 
the misconduct alleged in the complaint.  The OLR alleged, and 
the referee found, that Attorney Cooper committed the following 
misconduct:   
No. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
11 
 
 
One violation of SCR 20:1.11 (Count 1) 
 
Fourteen violations of SCR 20:1.32 (Counts 2, 9, 15, 19, 
22, 27, 29, 36, 40, 46, 51, 61, 66, 72) 
 
Twelve violations of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)3 (Count 3, 10, 16, 
20, 23, 28, 30, 37, 39, 41, 62, 73) 
 
One violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)(4)4 (Count 67) 
 
Two violations of SCRs 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4) (Counts 47, 
52) 
 
Four violations of SCR 20:1.5(a)5 (Counts 11, 53, 68, 74) 
                                                 
1 SCR 20:1.1 states, "A lawyer shall provide competent 
representation to a client. Competent representation requires 
the 
legal 
knowledge, 
skill, 
thoroughness 
and 
preparation 
reasonably necessary for the representation." 
2 SCR 20:1.3 states as follows:  "A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
3 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides that a lawyer shall "keep the 
client 
reasonably 
informed 
about 
the 
status 
of 
the 
matter; . . . ." 
4 SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) states that a lawyer shall "promptly 
comply 
with 
reasonable 
requests 
by 
the 
client 
for 
information; . . . ." 
5 SCR 20:1.5(a) provides as follows: 
 
A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, 
or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable 
amount for expenses. The factors to be considered in 
determining the reasonableness of a fee include the 
following:  
 
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and 
difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill 
requisite to perform the legal service properly;   
 
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, 
that the acceptance of the particular employment will 
preclude other employment by the lawyer;  
No. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
12 
 
 
One violation of SCR 20:1.5(b)(1)6 (Count 34)  
 
Two violations of SCRs 20:1.5(b)(1) and (2)7 (Counts 54, 
63) 
 
One violation of SCR 20:1.5(b)(3)8 (Count 42 ) 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality 
for similar legal services;  
 
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;  
 
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or 
by the circumstances;  
 
(6) the nature and length of the professional 
relationship with the client;   
 
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of 
the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and  
 
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.  
6 SCR 20:1.5(b)(1) states:   
 
The scope of the representation and the basis or 
rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will 
be responsible shall be communicated to the client in 
writing, except before or within a reasonable time 
after commencing the representation when the lawyer 
will charge a regularly represented client on the same 
basis or rate as in the past.  If it is reasonably 
foreseeable that the total cost of representation to 
the client, including attorney's fees, will be $1000 
or less, the communication may be oral or in writing.  
Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or 
expenses shall also be communicated in writing to the 
client. 
7 SCR 20:1.5(b)(2) provides as follows:  "If the total cost 
of representation to the client, including attorney's fees, is 
more than $1000, the purpose and effect of any retainer or 
advance fee that is paid to the lawyer shall be communicated in 
writing." 
No. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
13 
 
 
One violation of SCR 20:1.5(c)9 (Count 58) 
 
One violation of SCR 20:1.15(b)(4)10 (Count 43) 
 
Seven violations of SCR 20:1.16(d)11 (Counts 12, 48, 55, 
59, 69, 75, 77) 
                                                                                                                                                             
8 SCR 20:1.5(b)(3) states, "A lawyer shall promptly respond 
to a client's request for information concerning fees and 
expenses." 
9 SCR 20:1.5(c) provides: 
 
A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the 
matter for which the service is rendered, except in a 
matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by par. 
(d) or other law.  A contingent fee agreement shall be 
in a writing signed by the client, and shall state the 
method by which the fee is to be determined, including 
the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the 
lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal; 
litigation and other expenses to be deducted from the 
recovery; and whether such expenses are to be deducted 
before or after the contingent fee is calculated. The 
agreement must clearly notify the client of any 
expenses for which the client will be liable whether 
or not the client is the prevailing party. Upon 
conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer 
shall provide the client with a written statement 
stating the outcome of the matter and if there is a 
recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the 
method of its determination. 
10 SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) states as follows:  Unearned fees and 
cost advances. 
 
Except as provided in par. (4m), unearned fees 
and advanced payments of fees shall be held in trust 
until earned by the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to 
sub. (g).  Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 
payment of costs shall be held in trust until the 
costs are incurred. 
11 SCR 20:1.16(d) states as follows: 
 
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
No. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
14 
 
 
Three violations of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1)12 (Counts 4, 24, 31) 
 
Three violations of SCR 20:3.4(c)13 (Counts 5, 6, 7) 
 
Six violations of SCR 20:8.4(c)14 (Counts 5, 6, 7, 38, 
56, 70) 
 
Six 
violations 
of 
SCR 
22.03(2),15 
enforced 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h)16 (Counts 8, 13, 17, 44, 49, 64)  
                                                                                                                                                             
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 or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred.  The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
12 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) states that a lawyer shall not knowingly 
"make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to 
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously 
made to the tribunal by the lawyer; . . . ." 
13 SCR 20:3.4(c) provides that 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 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
15 SCR 22.03(2) states as follows: 
 
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 
No. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
15 
 
 
Eleven violations of SCR 22.03(6),17 enforceable via 
20:8.4(h) (Counts 14, 18, 21, 25, 26, 32, 33, 35, 45, 
50, 65) 
 
Five violations of SCRs 22.03(2) and (6), enforceable 
via SCR 20:8.4(h) (Counts 57, 60, 71, 76, 78)  
¶29 In his report and recommendation, the referee noted 
that although there was no indication Attorney Cooper had 
previously been the subject of professional discipline, the 
referee said he "cannot recall a prior disciplinary proceeding 
in which the respondent attorney demonstrated such a complete 
disregard of clients' rights in multiple matters and a total 
lack of respect for the legal profession as [Attorney] Cooper 
has in this proceeding."  Accordingly, the referee recommends 
that this court revoke Attorney Cooper's license to practice law 
in the State of Wisconsin.  The referee also recommends that 
Attorney Cooper be required to make restitution as follows:  
                                                                                                                                                             
questions, 
furnish 
documents, 
and 
present 
any 
information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
16 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 
grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 
by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 
or SCR 22.04(1); . . . ." 
17 SCR 22.03(6) states, "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. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
16 
 
D.Co. $295; D.Cu. $1,500; P.T. $50; Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for 
Client Protection $350; A.R. and I.G. $1,100; and E.W. $200. 
¶30 Attorney Cooper has not filed an appeal from the 
referee's report and recommendation.  
¶31 Although 
Attorney 
Cooper 
was 
given 
multiple 
opportunities to present a defense to the OLR's complaint, he 
failed to do so.  As noted above, in a March 19, 2013 letter to 
the referee and the OLR's retained counsel, Attorney Cooper 
stated he had decided to surrender his license to practice law.  
Under the circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to 
declare Attorney Cooper in default. 
¶32 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless 
clearly erroneous.  Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  
See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 
14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747.  The court may impose 
whatever sanction it sees fit regardless of the referee's 
recommendation.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.   
¶33 There is no showing that any of the referee's detailed 
findings of fact are clearly erroneous.  Accordingly, we adopt 
them.  We also agree with the referee's conclusions of law that 
Attorney Cooper violated all of the supreme court rules set 
forth above. 
¶34 Revocation of an attorney's license to practice law is 
the most severe sanction this court can impose.  It is reserved 
for the most egregious cases.  Although Attorney Cooper was not 
licensed to practice law until 2009, during the short time that 
No. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
17 
 
he was a practicing attorney, he engaged in repeated misconduct 
in his handling of numerous client matters.  Based on the state 
of the record before us, it appears that Attorney Cooper is 
unable to conform his conduct to the standards expected of all 
members of the Wisconsin bar.  We agree with the referee that no 
sanction short of revocation would be sufficient to protect the 
public, achieve deterrence, and impress upon Attorney Cooper the 
seriousness of his misconduct.  We also agree with the referee 
that Attorney Cooper should be required to make restitution to 
various clients and that he should be assessed the full costs of 
this proceeding.   
¶35 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Sean D. Cooper to 
practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 
order.  
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Sean D. Cooper shall make restitution as follows: 
Client D.Co. 
$295; 
Client D.Cu. 
$1,500; 
Client P.T. 
$50; 
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection 
$350; 
Clients A.R. and I.G. 
$1,100; and 
Client E.W. 
$200. 
¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Sean D. Cooper shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
No. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
18 
 
¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Sean D. Cooper shall comply with the provisions 
of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license 
to practice law has been revoked.  
 
No. 
  2012AP2321-D 
 
 
 
1