Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Emory H. Booker, III

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2015 WI 2 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP505-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Emory H. Booker, III, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Emory H. Booker, III, 
          Respondent.   
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BOOKER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 16, 2015 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 WI 2
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP505-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Emory H. Booker, III, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Emory H. Booker, III, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 16, 2015 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
revoked. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of the referee, 
Hannah C. Dugan, recommending that the court:  (1) revoke the 
Wisconsin law license of Attorney Emory H. Booker, III; (2) 
require Attorney Booker to pay a total of approximately $2,900 
in restitution, divided among ten former clients; and (3) 
require Attorney Booker to pay the full costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding, which total $14,947.80 as of August 12, 
No. 
2013AP505-D   
 
2 
 
2014.  Because no appeal has been filed in this matter, our 
review proceeds pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.17(2). 
¶2 
For the reasons explained below, we determine that 
Attorney Booker has admitted by default the allegations in the 
Office of Lawyer Regulation's (OLR) complaint.  We therefore 
adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  We 
agree with the referee that Attorney Booker's license to 
practice law in Wisconsin should be revoked.  We also agree with 
the referee that Attorney Booker should be required to pay the 
entire costs of this proceeding.  We decline to order 
restitution for reasons explained below.   
¶3 
Attorney Booker was admitted to the Wisconsin State 
Bar in 2000.  He practiced in the Milwaukee area.  His law 
license is administratively suspended for a number of reasons, 
including 
noncompliance 
with 
continuing 
legal 
education 
requirements.   
¶4 
Although Attorney Booker does not have a disciplinary 
history in Wisconsin, he has had considerable practice problems 
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District 
of Wisconsin, where he practiced extensively.  We take judicial 
notice of the following events in that court.  On December 20, 
2011, the Eastern District bankruptcy court issued an order 
barring Attorney Booker from filing any further bankruptcy 
petitions in that court until he had demonstrated to the judges 
that he had obtained 15 hours of continuing legal education in 
the area of consumer bankruptcy practice.  See In re Diane 
Jackson, No. 12-25456, order at 8 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. June 20, 
No. 
2013AP505-D   
 
3 
 
2012). 
 
Attorney 
Booker 
satisfied 
this 
legal 
education 
requirement (id. at 8-9), but doing so did not solve his 
practice difficulties.  In 2012, the Eastern District bankruptcy 
court penalized Attorney Booker $5,000 for his "clear and 
consistent pattern or practice of violating" various sections of 
the Federal Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy 
Procedure, and the Eastern District bankruptcy court's local 
rules.  Id. at 73.  Also in 2012, the Eastern District 
bankruptcy court asked the Wisconsin Department of Justice to 
investigate Attorney Booker's representation of debtors.  The 
Department of Justice did so and, in 2013, the State of 
Wisconsin obtained an order and judgment against Attorney Booker 
requiring him to pay $36,768 in damages, representing fees he 
collected in bankruptcy cases in violation of the Federal 
Bankruptcy Code.  State of Wisconsin v. Emory H. Booker III, 
12-CV-990, judgment and order (E.D. Wis. Aug. 21, 2013).   
¶5 
In March 2013, the OLR filed a complaint and then an 
amended complaint in this matter.  The amended complaint alleged 
47 counts of misconduct. 
¶6 
In April 2013, after numerous unsuccessful attempts at 
personal service, the OLR attempted to serve Attorney Booker by 
sending, via certified mail, a copy of the amended complaint and 
amended order to answer to Attorney Booker's last known office 
address on file with the Wisconsin State Bar, as well as his 
last two known residences.  See SCR 22.13(1).   
¶7 
In May 2013, the OLR filed a motion for default 
judgment against Attorney Booker.  At the subsequent hearing on 
No. 
2013AP505-D   
 
4 
 
this motion, Attorney Booker appeared and claimed that he never 
received service of the OLR's pleadings, and that he only 
learned of the default judgment hearing because the referee had 
emailed her scheduling order to him, in addition to mailing it.  
Attorney Booker provided a current mailing address, telephone 
number, and email address.  The referee denied the OLR's motion 
for default judgment and gave Attorney Booker several weeks to 
file an answer.  
¶8 
Attorney Booker filed an answer in which he denied 
misconduct.  During August through October 2013, Attorney Booker 
appeared at three telephonic status conferences held by the 
referee.  In October 2013, Attorney Booker provided written 
responses to the OLR's discovery requests.  In early November 
2013, Attorney Booker did not appear at a deposition scheduled 
by the OLR, though there appears to have been initial confusion 
about the time and place of the deposition, and the OLR 
ultimately provided less than two full working days' notice of 
the deposition. 
¶9 
The OLR moved again for the entry of a default 
judgment.  In an order filed November 18, 2013, the referee 
recommended that this court strike Attorney Booker's answer and 
declare him in default for providing "minimal information" in 
response to the OLR's discovery requests, and for "fail[ing] to 
attend a deposition and fail[ing] to attend two scheduled 
telephonic conferences, or to respond or communicates [sic] in 
any format to requests from the [OLR] or the referee."  It is 
unclear from the record whether Attorney Booker received notice 
No. 
2013AP505-D   
 
5 
 
of the hearing that culminated in the referee's striking of his 
answer and granting of default; the record lacks a copy of any 
notice of the hearing, and the OLR's counsel informed the 
referee at the hearing that he had not received a copy of any 
order scheduling the hearing. 
¶10 This court has cautioned in previous disciplinary 
cases that the striking of a timely answer and the granting of a 
default is a "drastic sanction" that may be used only when the 
responding attorney has engaged in egregious or bad faith 
conduct. 
 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Kelly, 
2012 WI 55, ¶22, 341 Wis. 2d 104, 814 N.W.2d 844.  We have 
instructed that it "is certainly the better practice" for 
referees to include an explicit finding of egregious or bad 
faith conduct in a default order.  Id., ¶23.  The referee in 
this case did not do so.   
¶11 We may nevertheless accept the factual allegations of 
the OLR's amended complaint as true for purposes of this 
proceeding if we determine that the referee properly struck 
Attorney Booker's answer and found him in default.  Id., ¶25.  
To do so, we must determine that the referee implicitly found 
Attorney Booker's conduct to be egregious or in bad faith, and 
that the facts of record provide a reasonable basis for this 
implicit finding.  Id., ¶¶23-24.   
¶12 Our review of the record showed that a question could 
be raised as to whether the referee had a reasonable basis to 
implicitly find that Attorney Booker engaged in egregious or bad 
faith behavior that would justify the striking of his answer and 
No. 
2013AP505-D   
 
6 
 
a finding of default.  We therefore ordered the parties to file 
written positions on this issue with the court.  We additionally 
instructed Attorney Booker to state whether he wanted the 
referee's default order to stand.   We warned that a failure by 
either party to respond to this court's order would be deemed a 
forfeiture of arguments regarding the referee's default order. 
¶13 The OLR filed a response.  It claimed that Attorney 
Booker's 
unexplained 
decision 
to 
stop 
participating 
in 
proceedings 
before 
the 
referee 
constituted 
an 
egregious 
abandonment of his defense.   
¶14 Attorney Booker failed to file a response to this 
court's order.   
¶15 We warned Attorney Booker in our previous order of the 
consequence 
of 
such 
non-participation: 
 
a 
forfeiture 
of 
arguments regarding the referee's default order.  True to our 
word, we deem any objections to the referee's default order to 
have been forfeited.  We therefore affirm the referee's default 
order striking Attorney Booker's answer and declaring him to be 
in default, and we accept the allegations of the OLR's amended 
complaint as true for purposes of this proceeding.   
¶16 The allegations in the OLR's amended complaint (which, 
as noted, Attorney Booker has admitted by default) and the 
corresponding findings and conclusions by the referee are 
expansive.  They amount to an omnibus indictment of Attorney 
Booker's conduct in numerous specified client matters and in 
broad categories of work, such as "State Debt Relief Matters," 
"'Pro Se' [Wis. Stat.] Chapter 128 Petitions," and "'Pro Se' 
No. 
2013AP505-D   
 
7 
 
Bankruptcy Filings."  Given the volume of the allegations, 
findings, and conclusions before the court, we do not repeat 
them all here.  It is sufficient to provide the following 
summary information concerning the misconduct in this matter.   
¶17 Attorney Booker promoted his law practice by labeling 
himself in advertisements as the "Light Hero"——a reference to 
his ability to keep electricity connected to the homes of 
financially troubled residents.  For a time, Attorney Booker 
concentrated much of his practice on filing what are known as 
"Chapter 128 petitions" on behalf of homeowners facing the 
possible disconnection of utility services.  A Chapter 128 
petition is a state-court proceeding in which wage earners who 
are unable to pay a debt in full can make regular debt 
amortization payments over time.  See Wis. Stat. § 128.21.  
Before 
August 
2011, 
the 
utility 
company 
which 
provides 
electrical service to Milwaukee residents treated the filing of 
a Chapter 128 petition as an injunction preventing it from 
terminating a customer's service during the pendency of the 
case.  Attorney Booker therefore filed Chapter 128 petitions on 
behalf of his clients in order to stay the utility from 
disconnecting his clients' service for non-payment. 
¶18 The 
Chapter 
128 
petitions 
that 
Attorney 
Booker 
prepared were often faulty.  Between May 2010 and March 2011, 
Attorney Booker filed several hundred Chapter 128 petitions, 
many of which did not use court-approved forms and did not 
contain required certification language.   
No. 
2013AP505-D   
 
8 
 
¶19 Beginning 
in 
April 
2011, 
Attorney 
Booker 
began 
ghostwriting Chapter 128 filings.  That is, Attorney Booker 
would prepare and file certain documents and include return 
envelopes for the court to send correspondence to his post 
office box, but he would not appear as counsel of record.  Many 
of Attorney Booker's filings were incomplete or noncompliant 
with the court's requirements.  The information that Attorney 
Booker provided to his clients often consisted of information 
the clients could obtain without a fee at the courthouse.  
Attorney Booker also failed to adequately explain the limited 
nature of his representation to his clients.   
¶20 In mid-2011, a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge 
discovered that Attorney Booker was ghostwriting Chapter 128 
filings.  The judge wrote to Attorney Booker and asked him to 
identify himself to the court and explain his conduct.  Attorney 
Booker did not respond. 
¶21 In August 2011, a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge 
ruled 
that 
Chapter 
128 
petitions 
did 
not 
stay 
utility 
disconnection for nonpayment.  This ruling meant that the only 
place where a customer could initiate a court action that would 
result in a utility being barred from disconnecting service was 
the federal bankruptcy court.  Attorney Booker responded by 
changing the focus of his practice to bankruptcy filings in 
federal bankruptcy court. 
¶22 By December 2011, the Eastern District bankruptcy 
court had encountered enough problems with Attorney Booker's 
filings that the court barred him from filing further bankruptcy 
No. 
2013AP505-D   
 
9 
 
petitions in that court until he had obtained 15 hours of 
continuing legal education in the area of consumer bankruptcy 
practice.  In February 2012, Attorney Booker filed verification 
with the court that he'd obtained the required educational 
hours.  Accordingly, in March 2012, the court reinstated 
Attorney Booker's privileges to file new bankruptcy petitions.  
¶23 Between April 2012 and June 2012, the Eastern District 
bankruptcy court received more than 140 petitions which showed 
the debtor as filing pro se and listed a business called "1st 
Choice Bankruptcy Preparation" in Indiana as the petition 
preparer.  Attorney Booker helped prepare these filings even 
though he never appeared as counsel of record.  In exchange for 
a fee, Attorney Booker provided the debtors with a packet of 
information and sent the debtors' financial information to 1st 
Choice Bankruptcy, which in turn prepared the bankruptcy 
petitions.  Attorney Booker did not adequately explain the 
limited nature of his representation to his clients; some 
debtors believed that Attorney Booker was their attorney for the 
entire bankruptcy proceeding.  In many cases, Attorney Booker 
conducted no meaningful review as to the debtor's suitability 
for bankruptcy.  Much of the information that Attorney Booker 
provided to his clients was inaccurate.  Many of the court 
filings contained incorrect information or were missing required 
documents.  Attorney Booker failed to make certain disclosures 
to clients that are required by the United States Bankruptcy 
Code.  He charged unreasonable fees for his services. 
No. 
2013AP505-D   
 
10 
 
¶24 The OLR's amended complaint (the allegations of which 
Attorney Booker has admitted by default) and the referee's 
report describe a variety of specific client matters, which are 
presumably intended to serve as representative examples of 
Attorney Booker's misconduct.  All cases except one are 
bankruptcy matters.   Each of the cases present variations on 
certain basic themes of misconduct:  Attorney Booker failed to 
competently 
prosecute 
Chapter 
128 
petitions 
and 
federal 
bankruptcy petitions, resulting in their dismissal;  he failed 
to complete his work in a timely fashion; he failed to return 
his clients' calls and emails; he charged advanced fees, which 
he did not place in trust, nor did he provide any of the notices 
required under SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m) for the alternative treatment 
of advanced fees; he charged unreasonable fees; he failed to 
return unearned fees; and he did not fully cooperate with the 
OLR investigation.    
¶25 From the above-described misconduct, the OLR charged 
and the referee found 47 counts of misconduct, which may be 
grouped as follows: 
 Failing 
to 
act 
with 
reasonable 
diligence 
and 
promptness in representing a client, see SCR 20:1.3 
(Counts 1, 17). 
 Failing to properly communicate with clients, see 
SCR 20:1.4 (Counts 2, 3, 8, 18, 23). 
 Failing to cooperate with an OLR investigation and to 
provide relevant information, to answer questions 
fully, or to furnish documents in the course of an OLR 
No. 
2013AP505-D   
 
11 
 
investigation, see SCRs 20:8.4(h), 21.15(4), 22.03(6) 
(Counts 4, 32). 
 Knowingly disobeying an obligation under a tribunal's 
rules, see SCR 20:3.4(c) (Counts 5, 10, 11, 15, 25, 
26, 31, 39, 42, 43, 44). 
 Making a false statement of fact to a tribunal, see 
SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) (Counts 6, 19). 
 Engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation, 
see 
SCR 
20:8.4(c) 
(Counts 6, 12, 19, 21, 28, 47). 
 Failing 
to 
provide 
competent 
representation, 
see 
SCR 20:1.1 (Counts 7, 13, 16, 20, 22, 29). 
 Charging 
an 
unreasonable 
fee, 
see 
SCR 20:1.5(a) 
(Counts 9, 14, 24, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 44). 
 Engaging in conduct that violates a statute, supreme 
court rule, supreme court order, or supreme court 
decision regulating the conduct of lawyers, 
see 
SCR 20:8.4(f) (Counts 10, 15, 25, 31). 
 Unreasonably limiting the scope of representation, see 
SCR 20:1.2(c) (Counts 8, 23). 
 Failing to include an attorney name and office address 
in advertisements, see SCR 20:7.2(c) (Count 27). 
 Failing 
to 
hold 
unearned 
fees 
in 
trust, 
see 
SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) (Counts 34, 37, 40, 45). 
 Failing to return fees or unexpended costs to the 
client, see SCR 20:1.16(d) (Counts 35, 38, 41, 43, 
46). 
No. 
2013AP505-D   
 
12 
 
¶26 Because we affirm the referee's default order striking 
Attorney Booker's answer and declaring him to be in default, we 
accept the allegations of the OLR's amended complaint as true 
for purposes of this proceeding.  We agree with the referee that 
those facts support a conclusion of professional misconduct on 
each of the 47 counts of misconduct set forth in the amended 
complaint and described above. 
¶27 We now turn to the question of the appropriate level 
of discipline.  The undisputed facts show a clear pattern of 
neglect by Attorney Booker of his clients' needs and objectives, 
which is especially troubling given that most of Attorney 
Booker's clients were in serious financial distress and thus 
were in a particularly vulnerable position.  Attorney Booker 
also showed a patent disregard for his obligations as an 
attorney.  He made a habit of providing inaccurate or misleading 
information to his clients and to the courts.  He ignored court 
orders and requirements.  He repeated his misconduct again and 
again, in scores of cases in federal and state courts over a 
lengthy period.  He has never acknowledged his wrongdoing.  He 
has failed to fully cooperate with the disciplinary process.  
License revocation is necessary in this case to impress upon 
Attorney Booker the seriousness of his professional misconduct, 
to protect the public from similar misconduct in the future, and 
to deter other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct. 
¶28 We further conclude that full costs are to be imposed 
on Attorney Booker.  Attorney Booker has failed to object to the 
OLR's requested costs or allege any factors that would justify a 
No. 
2013AP505-D   
 
13 
 
reduction in costs.  Consequently, Attorney Booker shall bear 
the entire costs of this disciplinary proceeding. 
¶29 As to the issue of restitution, the OLR requested and 
the referee recommended that this court order Attorney Booker to 
pay restitution to ten different individuals.  However, we note 
that in State of Wisconsin v. Emory H. Booker III, Eastern 
District Case No. 12-CV-990, the State of Wisconsin has already 
obtained an award against Attorney Booker of over $36,000 in 
damages, representing fees that Attorney Booker collected from 
approximately 130 debtors in violation of the Bankruptcy Code.  
At least half of the clients for whom the OLR now requests 
restitution were included in the client matters at issue in this 
federal lawsuit.  As for the remaining clients for whom the OLR 
seeks restitution, the OLR's amended complaint and the referee's 
report suggest that the Eastern District bankruptcy court has 
already ordered Attorney Booker to pay restitution to several of 
these clients.  Neither the OLR nor the referee explain why this 
court should order restitution that would duplicate that already 
ordered in the federal court system. 
¶30 Given the imprecise state of the record as it relates 
to restitution, the court declines to make a specific award of 
restitution.  Instead, we deem it appropriate to require, as a 
condition of the reinstatement of his Wisconsin law license, 
that Attorney Booker demonstrate to the court that he has 
reimbursed any unearned fees to each client mentioned in the 
OLR's amended complaint. 
No. 
2013AP505-D   
 
14 
 
¶31 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Emory H. Booker, III 
to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of 
this order. 
¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Emory H. Booker, III shall pay the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 
¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of 
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, Emory 
H. Booker, III shall reimburse any unearned fees to each client 
mentioned 
in 
the 
Office 
of 
Lawyer 
Regulation's 
amended 
complaint, and shall provide the court with a written accounting 
of any such reimbursements. 
¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Emory H. Booker, III 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. 
2013AP505-D   
 
 
 
1