2018 WI 22

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2005AP2744-D & 2012AP2334-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Patrick M. Cooper , Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Patrick M. Cooper,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COOPER

OPINION FILED: March 30, 2018

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED:

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2018 WI 22

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

Nos. 2005AP2744-D & 2012AP2334-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Patrick M. Cooper, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Patrick M. Cooper,

 Respondent.

FILED

MAR 30, 2018

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Reinstatement granted, 

with conditions. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review, pursuant to Supreme Court 

Rule (SCR) 22.33(3),1 a report filed by Referee Jonathan V. 

Goodman, recommending the court reinstate the license of Patrick 

M. Cooper to practice law in Wisconsin, with conditions. The 

 

1 SCR 22.33(3) provides: "[i]f no appeal is timely filed, 

the supreme court shall review the referee's report, order 

reinstatement, with or without conditions, deny reinstatement, 

or order the parties to file briefs in the matter."
Nos. 2005AP2744-D & 2012AP2334-D 

2

Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) did not appeal the referee's 

recommendation. After careful review of the matter, we agree 

that Attorney Cooper's license should be reinstated, with 

conditions. We also agree with the referee that Attorney Cooper 

should be required to pay the full costs of this reinstatement 

proceeding, which are $3,828.81 as of December 20, 2017. 

¶2 Attorney Cooper was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1993. He practiced in and around Mequon, 

Wisconsin, primarily in the field of worker's compensation law.

¶3 On March 23, 2007, this court suspended Attorney 

Cooper's license for three years for 35 separate instances of 

professional misconduct affecting seven clients and a retained 

expert. Attorney Cooper's misconduct was serious. It involved 

multiple violations of SCR 20:8.4(c), including conversion of 

client funds; multiple misrepresentations to clients; obtaining 

an expert's report through dishonesty; issuing at least 17 

checks totaling $25,656.85 from his business account at a time 

when he knew that his business account was either overdrawn or 

depleted; depositing client and third party funds into his 

personal account; failing to notify individuals of his receipt 

of funds owing to them; failing to keep clients reasonably 

informed about the status of their cases; failing to respond to 

reasonable requests for information from his clients; failing to 

provide clients with sufficient information to make informed 

decisions regarding their cases; failing to deliver client files 

to successor counsel; failing to communicate with clients; 

failing to act with diligence; engaging in improper fee 
Nos. 2005AP2744-D & 2012AP2334-D 

3

splitting; and failing to cooperate with the OLR's grievance 

investigations which involved failing to respond to the OLR's 

requests for information and making material misrepresentations 

to the OLR. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cooper, 2007 

WI 37, 300 Wis. 2d 61, 729 N.W.2d 206. (Cooper I).

¶4 In December 2010, Attorney Cooper filed a petition for 

reinstatement. At that time, the OLR resumed the investigation 

of nine matters that had been on hold due to Attorney Cooper's 

previous non-cooperation. Facing additional discipline for 

these reopened matters, Attorney Cooper stipulated to the 

dismissal of that reinstatement petition. 

¶5 On June 26, 2013, this court suspended Attorney 

Cooper's license for an additional two years for the misconduct 

committed in connection with the nine reopened matters. This 

suspension was based upon 42 counts of misconduct, including 

lack of diligence; failure to communicate with clients and 

respond to various requests for information; failure to 

sufficiently explain matters to a client and consult with a 

client regarding the means of pursuing the client's objectives; 

failure to return client files; conduct involving dishonesty, 

fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, including 

misrepresentations to a client; failure to obey a court order; 

failure to notify clients, opposing counsel or tribunals of the 

suspension of his license to practice law; practicing law while 

suspended; and failure to cooperate with the OLR's grievance 

investigations. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cooper, 

2013 WI 55, 348 Wis. 2d 266, 833 N.W.2d 88. (Cooper II).
Nos. 2005AP2744-D & 2012AP2334-D 

4

¶6 The new suspension was imposed retroactively to run 

consecutive to his 2007 suspension. Attorney Cooper has not 

practiced law since 2006. His law license is also 

administratively suspended for failure to pay mandatory bar 

dues.

¶7 On March 30, 2017, Attorney Cooper filed this petition 

for reinstatement. The OLR received three reference letters 

from Attorney Cooper's colleagues in the human resources field 

who have known him since 2013. Each commented positively on 

Attorney Cooper's integrity and character. In addition, two 

Milwaukee lawyers who have known Attorney Cooper for 

approximately 20 years have attested to his conduct and fitness 

to practice law, and volunteered to serve as mentors should we 

reinstate his license. The OLR filed a response identifying 

certain specific concerns that will be discussed but did not 

oppose Attorney Cooper's reinstatement, subject to certain 

conditions. 

¶8 Supreme Court Rule 22.31(1)2 provides the standards to 

be met for reinstatement. Specifically, Attorney Cooper must 

 

2 SCR 22.31(1) provides:

(1) The petitioner has the burden of 

demonstrating, by clear, satisfactory, and convincing 

evidence, all of the following: 

(a) That he or she has the moral character to 

practice law in Wisconsin. 

(b) That his or her resumption of the practice of 

law will not be detrimental to the administration of 

justice or subversive of the public interest. 

(continued)
Nos. 2005AP2744-D & 2012AP2334-D 

5

show by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that he has 

the moral character to practice law, that his resumption of the 

practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of 

justice or subversive to the public interest, and that he has 

complied with SCR 22.26 and the terms of the underlying 

disciplinary order. In addition, SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(k) and (4m)3

 

(c) That his or her representations in the 

petition, including the representations required by 

SCR 22.29(4)(a) to (m) and 22.29(5), are 

substantiated. 

(d) That he or she has complied fully with the 

terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 

with the requirements of SCR 22.26.

3 SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(k) and (4m) provide that a petition 

for reinstatement shall show all of the following:

(a) The petitioner desires to have the 

petitioner's license reinstated. 

(b) The petitioner has not practiced law during

the period of suspension or revocation. 

(c) The petitioner has complied fully with the 

terms of the order of suspension or revocation and 

will continue to comply with them until the 

petitioner's license is reinstated. 

(d) The petitioner has maintained competence and 

learning in the law by attendance at identified 

educational activities. 

(e) The petitioner's conduct since the suspension 

or revocation has been exemplary and above reproach. 

(f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of 

and attitude toward the standards that are imposed 

upon members of the bar and will act in conformity 

with the standards. 

(continued)
Nos. 2005AP2744-D & 2012AP2334-D 

6

provide additional requirements that a petition for 

reinstatement shall show. All of these additional requirements 

are effectively incorporated into SCR 22.31(1). 

¶9 Referee Goodman was appointed and conducted a public 

hearing on this reinstatement proceeding on November 8, 2017. 

The referee filed his report on November 30, 2017, recommending 

reinstatement with conditions. 

¶10 The referee found that Attorney Cooper has not 

practiced law during the period of his license suspension. 

During the last ten years, while his law license was suspended, 

Attorney Cooper obtained a Master of Science Degree in Human 

 

(g) The petitioner can safely be recommended to 

the legal profession, the courts and the public as a 

person fit to be consulted by others and to represent 

them and otherwise act in matters of trust and 

confidence and in general to aid in the administration 

of justice as a member of the bar and as an officer of 

the courts. 

(h) The petitioner has fully complied with the 

requirements set forth in SCR 22.26. 

(j) The petitioner's proposed use of the license 

if reinstated. 

(k) A full description of all of the petitioner's 

business activities during the period of suspension or 

revocation. 

(4m) The petitioner has made restitution to or 

settled all claims of persons injured or harmed by 

petitioner's misconduct, including reimbursement to 

the Wisconsin lawyers' fund for client protection for 

all payments made from that fund, or, if not, the 

petitioner's explanation of the failure or inability 

to do so.
Nos. 2005AP2744-D & 2012AP2334-D 

7

Resources from Marquette University. He worked as a human 

resources consultant for Peak Talent Management, a human 

resources manager for Praxis Life Sciences, and a sales training 

manager for AT&T. 

¶11 The referee found that Attorney Cooper has fully 

complied with the terms of the underlying disciplinary order; he 

also complied, albeit belatedly, with the requirements set forth 

in SCR 22.26.4 Attorney Cooper has paid the costs of his 

underlying disciplinary and reinstatement proceedings.

¶12 The referee found that Attorney Cooper has maintained 

competence and learning in the law. The record reflects that 

the Board of Bar Examiners confirmed that he has completed the 

required 60 hours of mandatory continuing legal education. If 

reinstated, Attorney Cooper intends to use his law license to 

practice worker's compensation, employment, and social security 

disability law.

¶13 The referee also found that Attorney Cooper's conduct 

since the suspension has been exemplary and above reproach and 

that he has a proper understanding of and attitude toward the 

standards that are imposed upon members of the bar and will act 

in conformity with those standards. The referee found that 

Attorney Cooper can safely be recommended to the legal 

profession, the courts, and the public as a person fit to be 

 

4 Attorney Cooper failed to timely file the affidavit 

required by SCR 22.26 on or before July 21, 2010. He did file 

the affidavit on November 22, 2010.
Nos. 2005AP2744-D & 2012AP2334-D 

8

consulted by others and to represent them and otherwise act in 

matters of trust and confidence and, in general, to aid in the 

administration of justice as a member of the bar and as an 

officer of the courts. 

¶14 Neither party appealed the referee's recommendation. 

We therefore review the referee's report pursuant to 

SCR 22.33(3). When we review a referee's report and 

recommendation, we will adopt the referee's findings of fact 

unless they are 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.

¶15 The referee's findings are supported by the record, 

have not been shown to be clearly erroneous, and we accept them. 

Attorney Cooper's conduct was extremely serious. However, upon 

careful review of this entire record, we also accept the 

referee's conclusions and recommendation that conditional 

reinstatement is appropriate. 

¶16 We considered the fact that, in response to Attorney 

Cooper's reinstatement petition, the OLR expressed concern that 

Attorney Cooper has at times understated the scope of his 

misconduct in his reinstatement petition. The OLR observed 

that:

[Attorney] Cooper appears to have a tendency to 

somewhat minimize the misconduct related to dishonesty 

by describing it merely as 'conduct involving 

misrepresentation' or 'conduct involving dishonesty,'

or describing his conversion of client and third party 

funds, his issuance of bad checks and his inducement 

to a third party to provide a needed report based upon 
Nos. 2005AP2744-D & 2012AP2334-D 

9

deception as violations of 'SCR 20:8.4(c) relating to 

financial transactions.'

¶17 In a related vein, the OLR suggested that Attorney 

Cooper has implied, incorrectly, that some of the instances of 

client neglect occurred because he mistakenly thought another 

firm was handling matters. The OLR notes that "there is, 

however, no evidence that [any other law firm] ever agreed to 

dual representation on the relevant files, or that [Attorney] 

Cooper ever made the clients aware or obtained their agreement 

to any such dual representation." At times it has also appeared 

that Attorney Cooper attempted to shift the blame for some of 

his failings and misconduct to an assistant when there was no 

evidence Attorney Cooper had an assistant during that time 

period.

¶18 The referee did not explicitly address these concerns 

in his report. However, we reviewed the transcript of the 

underlying reinstatement proceeding which shows that these 

issues were explored during the reinstatement hearing, and 

Attorney Cooper's testimony indicates he has taken 

responsibility for and expressed remorse for his misconduct. He 

stated:

I firmly believe, remorse and regret only come from 

deep introspection and discernment. We can always 

find fault in others and circumstances that justify 

our actions. I do not place blame on anyone other 

than myself. My actions 12-13 yrs ago were 

regrettable and I have done some real soul searching 

regarding my actions. I know what I did was wrong. I 

hurt my clients, myself in some ways - my profession. 

I have taken account for my actions and I'm very sorry 

for what I did and did not do. My conduct (in action 

and inaction) was wrong. I am sorry for what happened 
Nos. 2005AP2744-D & 2012AP2334-D 

10

and I profess I will work diligently to conduct myself 

in a highly ethical and professional manners [sic]. 

Above all, I will fulfill my obligations as a trusted 

professional who cares and advocates for his 

clients. . . I have learned from my mistakes and can 

attest - these failures will never be repeated.

¶19 At the evidentiary hearing, several witnesses 

testified in support of Attorney Cooper's reinstatement, 

including a former supervisor and a former managing partner at 

Praxis Life Sciences where Attorney Cooper was employed in the 

human resources department for several years. They described 

him as forthright about the reasons for his license suspension 

and "honest and well balanced" in their professional dealings 

with him. We note that Attorney Cooper, himself, suggested 

mentoring would be appropriate and that he has already explored 

various options to ensure professional oversight of his 

accounts.

¶20 We conclude that the referee's findings together with 

the record before us, support a conclusion that Attorney Cooper 

has met his burden to establish by clear, satisfactory, and 

convincing evidence that he has met all of the standards 

required for reinstatement and we agree that reinstatement is 

appropriate, with conditions. 

¶21 With respect to the conditions that should be imposed 

on Attorney Cooper's practice, there appears to be general 

agreement among Attorney Cooper, the OLR, and the referee as to 

the nature of the conditions. Attorney Cooper stated he was 

willing to have his reinstatement "conditioned upon his 

compliance with his own representation that he will 'enter a 
Nos. 2005AP2744-D & 2012AP2334-D 

11

lawyer mentoring relationship with a practicing Wisconsin 

Attorney to provide oversight, advice and counsel to [him] 

regarding proper law firm administration and practice.'" The 

OLR recommended we direct the OLR to appoint a monitor for a 

period of two years, who will file quarterly reports to this 

court. The referee recommended two years of mentoring "as 

proposed and as testified to" by the two attorneys who stated 

their willingness to serve as mentors to Attorney Cooper. We 

have reviewed the transcript from the hearing, including the 

testimony relating to mentoring, and we include in this order 

more detail regarding the nature of the mentoring we deem 

appropriate.

¶22 For purposes of emphasis, we caution Attorney Cooper 

that his absolute compliance with our conditions and with all 

the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys is demanded and 

expected. Any deviation from the conditions or the rules will 

not be countenanced. 

¶23 The referee also recommended we impose the costs of 

this reinstatement proceeding on Attorney Cooper. It is this 

court's general practice to assess the full costs of a 

proceeding against a respondent. See SCR 22.24(1m). We find no 

extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a reduction in 

the costs imposed and we find it appropriate to assess the full 

costs of the reinstatement proceeding against Attorney Cooper. 

¶24 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 

the license of Patrick M. Cooper to practice law in Wisconsin is 

conditionally reinstated, effective the date of this order.
Nos. 2005AP2744-D & 2012AP2334-D 

12

¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a condition of the 

reinstatement of Patrick M. Cooper's license to practice law in 

Wisconsin, he shall be monitored by an attorney, approved and 

appointed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation, for a period of 

two years following reinstatement. Patrick M. Cooper shall not 

begin representing clients until the monitor has been appointed. 

¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of 

reinstatement, the Office of Lawyer Regulation shall approve and 

appoint a practice monitor to serve as a mentor to Patrick M. 

Cooper, to supervise and oversee Patrick M. Cooper's practice of 

law.

¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Patrick M. Cooper shall 

cooperate fully with the monitoring of his law practice. 

Patrick M. Cooper shall schedule with the monitor regular 

meetings as directed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation. 

Patrick M. Cooper shall submit to the monitor an inventory of 

all active client files by the first day of each month during 

the period of monitoring. With respect to each active file, the 

inventory shall disclose the client name, type of 

representation, date opened, most recent activity, next 

anticipated action, and anticipated closing date. 

¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of this 

order, Patrick M. Cooper shall provide to the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation and to the monitor, a written plan outlining office 

procedures designed to ensure that Attorney Cooper is and 

remains in compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct for 
Nos. 2005AP2744-D & 2012AP2334-D 

13

Attorneys. This written plan shall include office procedures 

that ensure that:

 Patrick M. Cooper promptly responds to correspondence, 

telephone calls, and other important communications from 

clients, courts, and other persons interested in legal 

matters that Patrick M. Cooper is handling;

 Patrick M. Cooper regularly reviews each and every file 

and completes legal matters on a timely basis; 

 Patrick M. Cooper maintains law office and trust account 

records in compliance with the Rules of Professional 

Conduct for Attorneys; and

 Patrick M. Cooper makes available to the monitor and to 

the Office of Lawyer Regulation his law office and trust 

account records at such intervals as the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation and the practice monitor deem necessary to 

determine his compliance.

¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the practice monitor shall 

provide the Office of Lawyer Regulation with written quarterly 

reports for a period of two years following the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation's appointment of the practice monitor, or at more 

frequent intervals as may reasonably be requested by the Office 

of Lawyer Regulation.

¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 

of this order, Patrick M. Cooper shall pay to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are 

$3,828.81 as of December 20, 2017.
Nos. 2005AP2744-D & 2012AP2334-D 

14

¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the 

terms of this order remain a condition of Patrick M. Cooper's 

license to practice law in Wisconsin and if Patrick M. Cooper 

fails to comply with the conditions required by this order, his 

license may be suspended until further order of this court.

¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative 

suspension of Patrick M. Cooper's license to practice law in 

Wisconsin due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues will 

remain in effect until each reason for the administrative 

suspension has been rectified pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).
Nos. 2005AP2744-D & 2012AP2334-D 

1