2015 WI 82

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 1989AP1848-D 

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against 

Daniel W. Linehan, Attorney at Law: 

Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility 

n/k/a 

Office of Lawyer Regulation, 

 Complainant, 

 v. 

Daniel W. Linehan, 

 Respondent. 

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDNGS AGAINST LINEHAN 

OPINION FILED: July 15, 2015 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL: 

 COURT: 

 COUNTY: 

 JUDGE: 

 

JUSTICES: 

 CONCURRED: ABRAHAMSON, J., concurs. (Opinion Filed.) 

 DISSENTED: 

 NOT PARTICIPATING: 

 

ATTORNEYS: 
2015 WI 82

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 1989AP1848-D 

 

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT 

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Daniel W. Linehan, Attorney at Law: 

Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility 

n/k/a Office of Lawyer Regulation, 

 Complainant, 

 v. 

Daniel W. Linehan, 

 Respondent. 

FILED 

JUL 15, 2015 

Diane M. Fremgen 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted 

upon conditions. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed by Referee 

James G. Curtis, recommending that the court reinstate, with 

conditions, Daniel W. Linehan's license to practice law in 

Wisconsin. After careful review of the matter, we agree that 

Attorney Linehan's license should be reinstated and that 

conditions should be placed upon his practice of law. We also 

conclude that Attorney Linehan should be required to pay the 
No. 1989AP1848-D 

2 

full costs of this reinstatement proceeding, which are 

$15,714.12 as of April 14, 2015. 

¶2 Attorney Linehan was admitted to practice law in

Wisconsin in 1977 and practiced in Madison. In 1989, this court 

granted Attorney Linehan's petition for license revocation by 

consent and revoked his license to practice law in Wisconsin 

effective November 1, 1989. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Linehan, 151 Wis. 2d 797, 446 N.W.2d 450 (1989). 

¶3 Attorney Linehan's petition for voluntary revocation 

of his license to practice law stated that he was the subject of 

an investigation of possible misconduct with respect to his 

representation of a client "and is also the subject of an 

investigation involving possible misconduct and medical 

incapacity due to chronic substance abuse." Attorney Linehan 

acknowledged that he could not successfully defend against the 

allegations of misconduct. As additional background, he stated 

that he had been afflicted with a longstanding, chronic sickness 

or disease involving several forms of substance abuse, which 

sickness or disease was a factor which contributed to the 

conduct resulting in the misconduct allegations that were the 

subject of investigations by the Board of Attorneys Professional 

Responsibility (BAPR), the predecessor in interest to the Office 

of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). The petition for voluntary 

revocation stated that, despite both inpatient and outpatient 

treatment, Attorney Linehan continued to be afflicted by chronic 

and significant problems involving substance abuse. Attorney 

Linehan stated that he believed he was unable to obtain the 
No. 1989AP1848-D 

3 

long-term treatment needed to effectively recover from his 

medical condition and still practice law at the same time. He 

stated that his desire to voluntarily surrender his license to 

practice law was based in part upon his belief that he had a 

medical incapacity, and that he desired to obtain further 

treatment for that condition. 

¶4 The two-page published order revoking Attorney 

Linehan's license to practice law by consent stated that 

Attorney Linehan was a subject of investigation by BAPR 

in connection with his use of client trust funds for 

his own personal purposes, deposit of personal loan

proceeds into his client trust account, failure to 

promptly pay settlement proceeds to a client and fully 

account to the client for those proceeds he had 

deposited in his trust account, failure to maintain

records pertaining to his trust account and record the 

purpose of disbursements from that account and his 

chronic substance abuse. 

Linehan, 151 Wis. 2d at 798. 

¶5 Attorney Linehan filed petitions for the reinstatement 

of his license to practice law in 1996 and 1998, both of which 

were withdrawn. His most recent reinstatement petition was 

filed on February 18, 2014. Referee Curtis was appointed on 

April 8, 2014. The referee held an evidentiary hearing in 

January of 2015 and issued his report and recommendation on 

March 25, 2015. 

¶6 The referee said that, as a result of the evidence 

presented at the hearing and the numerous exhibits received by 

stipulation, it was clear that "[t]his is, first and foremost, a 

medical incapacity case." The referee said there was no doubt 
No. 1989AP1848-D 

4 

that a medical incapacity in the form of chronic substance abuse 

directly caused Attorney Linehan's trust account misconduct. 

The referee said that, because this case was submitted to the 

court in 1989 as a consensual revocation, the court was 

presented with limited information about the substance abuse 

allegations. 

¶7 The referee noted that an attorney seeking 

reinstatement after a disciplinary suspension or revocation must 

demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that 

he or she has the moral character necessary to practice law in 

this state, 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, and that the attorney has 

complied fully with the terms of the suspension or revocation 

order and the requirements of Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.26. 

In addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c) incorporates the statements that a 

petition for reinstatement must contain pursuant to

SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m). Among other things, an attorney seeking 

the reinstatement of his license has the burden to prove that 

his conduct since revocation has been "exemplary and above 

reproach." SCR 22.29(4). The referee noted that Attorney 

Linehan freely admitted that his conduct during the entire 

period of revocation has not been exemplary and above reproach, 

given that he continued to suffer from alcohol and substance 

abuse issues through at least 2009. Consequently, the referee 

said that if this court were to deem Attorney Linehan's 

reinstatement petition as having been filed under SCR 22.29, the 
No. 1989AP1848-D 

5 

referee would have to conclude that Attorney Linehan failed to 

meet his burden of proof in a number of respects, most 

significantly that Attorney Linehan has failed to demonstrate 

that his conduct since the revocation has been exemplary and 

above reproach. The referee went on to say, "But even if 

Mr. Linehan waited another 10 years to seek reinstatement, and 

exhibited exemplary conduct during that time, he could never 

prove that his conduct since the 1989 revocation has been 

exemplary and above reproach. His past misdeeds would always 

come back to haunt him." 

¶8 In the referee's view, Attorney Linehan's revocation 

by consent should be viewed as a revocation based on a medical 

incapacity, meaning that reinstatement is governed by SCR 22.36. 

Under that rule, the petitioner has the burden of showing by 

clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that the medical 

incapacity has been removed and that the petitioner is fit to 

resume the practice of law, with or without conditions. The 

referee noted that, although there was a component of 

professional misconduct involved in the consensual license 

revocation, in the referee's opinion, the misconduct itself was 

not sufficient to warrant an outright revocation and the more 

significant impetus for the consensual revocation was Attorney 

Linehan's medical incapacity. The referee said that, in the 

event this case is viewed as a medical incapacity reinstatement 

matter, the referee is satisfied that the medical incapacity has 

been removed and that Attorney Linehan's license to practice law 

in Wisconsin should be reinstated, with conditions.
No. 1989AP1848-D 

6 

¶9 In reaching this conclusion, the referee noted that 

"[t]his case presents the Jekyll/Hyde paradox in the life and 

times of Daniel W. Linehan, who has been 'characterized as sane 

when he is clean and sober and as insane when he is not.'" The 

referee found that Attorney Linehan has been afflicted with 

chronic alcohol and substance abuse since approximately age 15. 

In the 1980s, prior to his consensual license revocation, 

Attorney Linehan received both inpatient and outpatient 

treatment but exhibited a tendency for relapses of his chronic 

substance abuse. The referee found that the chronic substance 

abuse substantially interfered with Attorney Linehan's ability 

to conduct his law practice. The referee noted that after the 

revocation of his law license, Attorney Linehan spent time in 

the Dane County jail on a drunk driving conviction and his 

driver license was revoked. 

¶10 The referee further noted that in the 1990s, Attorney 

Linehan worked as a clerk for a law firm in Minnesota and as a 

paralegal with the Hennepin County Attorney's Office in 

Minneapolis. The referee found that this employment was not 

deemed contrary to the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. 

While Attorney Linehan remained relatively clean and sober 

between 1992 and 1995, he suffered a relapse in 1995. He was 

terminated from his job at the Hennepin County Attorney's Office 

in the spring of 1998 due to substance abuse issues. Attorney 

Linehan filed petitions for the reinstatement of his Wisconsin 

law license in 1996 and 1998 but was not honest about the status 
No. 1989AP1848-D 

7 

of his substance abuse problems and decided to withdraw both 

petitions. 

¶11 In 1998, Attorney Linehan was charged with theft of a 

motor vehicle and aggravated drunk driving in Minnesota. He was 

convicted and placed on probation. Around 1998, Attorney 

Linehan began treating with Dr. Roger Johnson, a psychiatrist. 

Dr. Johnson remained Attorney Linehan's main mental health 

treatment provider until the doctor retired in 2010. 

Dr. Johnson diagnosed Attorney Linehan with major depression and 

treated him with medication. With the doctor's support, 

Attorney Linehan applied for Social Security Disability 

benefits, which were awarded around 1998. 

¶12 In December of 1998, Attorney Linehan was arrested for 

intoxication and being in possession of a stolen automobile. 

The investigation revealed that he had burglarized his 

neighbor's residence, stole credit cards and their vehicle, and 

made charges with the credit cards without proper consent. He 

was charged with eight criminal counts. Because he was already 

on probation, he was incarcerated in the Sherburne County jail 

from December of 1998 until February of 1999. In January of 

1999, he was also charged with forgery involving a $3,000 check. 

Attorney Linehan entered into a plea agreement on the charges in 

February of 1999 and was convicted and sent to prison. Around 

June 1, 1999, he was released on an ankle bracelet monitoring 

program. He suffered a relapse and was arrested and sent back 

to prison for violating the terms of his release. He was 

released from custody in July of 2000. 
No. 1989AP1848-D 

8 

¶13 In 2003, Attorney Linehan was convicted of operating 

after revocation in Wisconsin. In 2002 and 2003, he was 

sporadically drinking and using drugs. He engaged in sporadic 

drinking and drug use again between 2006 and 2008. In December 

of 2009, he was taken into custody for an emergency detention 

when a friend called police to report that Attorney Linehan was 

very intoxicated and was making threats to harm himself or 

others. He was admitted to Mendota Mental Healthcare Center. 

Following a detention hearing, the court found the least 

restrictive level of care was on an outpatient basis, although 

the court expressed concern over threats that had been made. 

The court ordered daily breathalyzer sampling to ensure that 

Attorney Linehan remained sober and, if he could not, he would 

be taken into custody. 

¶14 The referee said Attorney Linehan maintains that his 

recovery began in a serious way after he was discharged from 

Mendota Mental Healthcare Center, that since that time he has 

worked hard to overcome his medical incapacity, and that, apart 

from a two- or three-week lapse in July of 2011 after a friend 

died, he has maintained sobriety since that time. The referee 

said: 

Since 2009 Linehan has continued to make 

important progress in his personal and spiritual 

growth and character change. He returned to 

attendance at local [Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)] 

meetings multiple times per week and obtained 

significant support from friends in the Black River

Falls community. 
No. 1989AP1848-D 

9 

Linehan's recovery status over the last five 

years has progressively improved. His viewpoint and 

attitude have changed so that he is better able to 

enjoy life. His depression is in a state of remission 

and he has stopped believing that his life wasn't 

worth living. He has experienced a growing awareness 

of happiness and joy, rather than a grudging 

resistance to recovery. 

The referee finds that Linehan's sworn testimony 

and his presentation at the hearing was credible, 

forthright and open. He has a very strong desire to 

return to the practice of law. He describes himself 

as a clean and sober person and in that state, he 

believes he is a person who can be relied upon to 

uphold the standards of the legal profession because 

they are right and because he's asking permission for 

reinstatement. . . . . As long as he is clean and

sober, Linehan believes that he can be safely 

recommended to the public, the courts and the legal

profession as a person fit to consult on legal 

matters. 

¶15 In November of 2011, Attorney Linehan obtained 

employment with the Hixton Travel Plaza as a maintenance man and 

dishwasher. He has worked two shifts per week, approximately 16 

hours, and has been a reliable and dependable employee. 

¶16 In October of 2012, Attorney Linehan contacted the 

Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program (WisLAP) to inquire about 

voluntary monitoring of his substance abuse. Attorney Linehan 

voluntarily disclosed his July 2011 relapse in the course of his 

WisLAP monitoring and in the course of this reinstatement 

proceeding. The referee found that if Attorney Linehan had not 

made this voluntary disclosure, the relapse would never have 

been known. The referee noted that WisLAP Manager Linda Albert 

described Attorney Linehan's participation in the program as 

exemplary. Ms. Albert testified at the reinstatement hearing 
No. 1989AP1848-D 

10 

that Attorney Linehan has come to grips with his deplorable 

history and seems ready to make a change. Beginning in late 

November of 2012, Attorney Linehan has undergone nail drug and 

alcohol testing every 90 days and all tests have been negative. 

His participation in the WisLAP program has been voluntary, and 

he has paid for the testing at the rate of approximately $1,400 

per year. The monitoring contract requires attendance at AA 

meetings at least three times per week. Attorney Linehan has 

exceeded that standard by attending three to five meetings per 

week. The monitoring contract requires daily check-ins, and 

Attorney Linehan has been highly compliant, making 765 daily 

check-ins out of a possible total of 767. Ms. Albert recommends 

that Attorney Linehan continue with monitoring whether or not 

his law license is reinstated, since monitoring will detect any 

relapse episode and it will be promptly reported to the OLR. 

Although Attorney Linehan's current monitoring contract ends in 

October of 2015, it can be continued indefinitely. The referee 

noted that Attorney Linehan is asking this court to consider 

indefinite monitoring as a condition of reinstatement. 

¶17 The referee said that although Dr. Johnson lost his 

clinic notes on Attorney Linehan, the doctor wrote a letter in 

July of 2013 summarizing Attorney Linehan's psychiatric 

treatment from 1998 until 2010. Dr. Johnson said: 

Based upon my involvement with Dan over the years 

it is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical

certainty, that he is not a threat to society, 

criminally or otherwise if he is clean and sober. 

This coupled with his gradual improvement of 

depressive symptoms over the years, also leads me to 
No. 1989AP1848-D 

11 

conclude that he is capable of making an attempt to

return to work, particularly in the area of his 

original training, the law. 

¶18 The referee noted that as part of the OLR's 

investigation of the reinstatement petition, the OLR scheduled 

an independent psychiatric and addiction evaluation, which was 

performed by Dr. Matthew Felgus on October 1, 2014. Dr. Felgus 

concluded that Attorney Linehan's substance abuse disorder was 

currently in full remission. Dr. Felgus said, "Like all 

individuals with substance dependence, there is an ongoing 

chance of relapse that in Mr. Linehan's case would warrant 

indefinite monitoring should he meet the standard of 

reinstatement." The referee noted that under SCR 22.36(6), 

"fitness" encompasses a physically, mentally, and morally sound 

state and a "state of preparedness to render competent legal 

services; that is, to be prepared to provide the measure of 

expertise to ensure the attorney may be safely recommended to 

the community as a person to be consulted by and to represent 

others in legal matters." In re Medical Incapacity Proceedings 

Against Schlieve, 2010 WI 22, ¶24, 323 Wis. 2d 654, 780 N.W.2d 

516. Based on this standard, the referee said he is satisfied 

that Attorney Linehan's medical incapacity has been removed. He 

said that Attorney Linehan deserves a great deal of credit for 

the effort made to turn his life around. The referee said: 

A decision by this court to reinstate 

Mr. Linehan's license will enhance his self-esteem,

his confidence, and his overall recovery. Mr. Linehan 

shows true remorse for his prior bad behavior. A 

decision granting reinstatement would be a recognition 

by the court that even after a lengthy period of 
No. 1989AP1848-D 

12 

revocation and bad behavior, an attorney can benefit 

from the effort necessary to straighten out and fly

right. 

So long as Mr. Linehan remains clean and sober, 

the medical incapacity has been removed. But Mr. 

Linehan's history suggests that a relapse episode, 

while unlikely, remains a possibility. Therefore, any 

decision to reinstate Mr. Linehan's license should be 

strictly conditioned on his continued participation in 

the WisLAP monitoring program until such time as 

WisLAP determines that ongoing monitoring is no longer 

necessary. In the event of a relapse, WisLAP would

immediately report to OLR and Mr. Linehan's license

could be summarily suspended pending any further 

investigation. 

¶19 The referee said that the "fitness" requirement of 

SCR 22.36(6) was more troubling, given that Attorney Linehan has 

not practiced law for over 25 years and that there have been 

significant changes in the law during that time. In addition, 

he has not held full-time employment in any capacity since 1998. 

The referee noted, however, that Attorney Linehan has maintained 

learning in the law by completing the required continuing legal 

education (CLE) credits needed for reinstatement. Attorney 

Linehan has also consulted with an accountant to prepare a 

system for accounting of his income and expenses should his 

license to practice law be reinstated. In addition, the referee 

noted that Attorney Terry Davis acts as Attorney Linehan's 

monitor through the WisLAP program, and if Attorney Linehan is 

granted reinstatement, he will be able to call on Attorney Davis 

on a weekly basis to discuss issues and problems in the practice 

of law. In the referee's opinion, this ongoing monitoring will 

provide some assurance that Attorney Linehan is handling matters 
No. 1989AP1848-D 

13 

within his sphere of competence and is adequately addressing his 

clients' needs. 

¶20 In addition, the referee noted that Attorney Lawrence 

Hanson, who has honorably practiced law for 54 years and has 

been very involved with Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers and with 

WisLAP, got to know Attorney Linehan in the 1980s and has had 

frequent contacts with him in the last two and one-half years. 

The referee said that Attorney Hanson knows the perils of 

chronic substance abuse and, in Attorney Hanson's opinion, 

Attorney Linehan is absolutely qualified to practice law based 

on his background and knowledge, so long as he stays away from 

drugs and alcohol. 

¶21 The referee also noted that, if reinstated, Attorney 

Linehan says he will not look for full-time employment with a 

law firm but believes there would be a significant amount of 

small legal business in his community. Prior to 1989, Attorney 

Linehan had a general practice with over 100 criminal jury 

trials and 25 or 30 civil trials. The referee said that 

Attorney Linehan does have substantial legal experience, 

although it is dated. The referee said that, considering 

Attorney Linehan's age and circumstances, he would probably 

practice on a part-time basis, and with the WisLAP monitoring, 

his practice will be subject to some measure of oversight and 

control. The referee said: 

In a case involving a lengthy suspension, it is always 

difficult for a lawyer to affirmatively prove the 

fitness element. Having witnessed Mr. Linehan's 

presentation at the hearing and with the benefit of
No. 1989AP1848-D 

14 

the WisLAP monitoring, Attorney Davis' mentoring, and 

Attorney Hanson's opinion on qualifications, the 

referee concludes that Mr. Linehan has met his burden 

of proving that he is fit to resume the practice of

law, with conditions, under SCR 22.36(6). 

¶22 The referee noted that during the course of the

reinstatement proceedings, the OLR contended that Attorney 

Linehan failed to acknowledge his obligation to reimburse the 

Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Fund) and failed 

to fairly characterize that obligation in his petition. The 

referee noted that the trust account violations mentioned in the 

1989 consensual revocation proceeding involved Attorney 

Linehan's client, S.W. S.W.'s personal injury case was settled 

for $20,000. Attorney Linehan was entitled to a contingent fee 

and expenses. At the time, Attorney Linehan was using drugs and 

alcohol and his practice was out of control. Various checks 

were written out of the trust account, both to S.W. and to 

Attorney Linehan. Attorney Linehan maintains that he and S.W. 

met and agreed to resolve the matter. Attorney Linehan contends 

that he obtained a loan from his father and paid S.W. the agreed 

upon balance owed. Because of the hopeless state of his trust 

accounting and business records, Attorney Linehan has no 

documentary proof of the agreement or of the final payment to 

S.W. 

¶23 In addition to filing a grievance with the OLR, S.W. 

submitted a claim to the Fund and ultimately received $4,513.33 

from the Fund, in return for which he signed a subrogation 

agreement. The administrator of the Fund resurrected the file 

but acknowledged that it may not be complete. The administrator 
No. 1989AP1848-D 

15 

testified that the Fund does not actively seek restitution from 

attorneys unless this court has ordered restitution. The 

court's 1989 revocation order did not mention restitution. 

¶24 Attorney Linehan said that he first became aware that 

the Fund had paid a claim to S.W. in 2005. At the time he filed 

his reinstatement petition, although he believed that the Fund 

had paid S.W., it was his position that he did not need to pay 

the Fund back since the Fund never notified him and since he 

believed he had already paid S.W. Prior to the hearing in this 

matter, however, Attorney Linehan entered into an agreement to 

reimburse the Fund at the rate of $75 per month. The referee 

said that since Attorney Linehan has made suitable arrangements 

for installment payments that are acceptable to the Fund, the 

restitution issue should not stand as an impediment to Attorney 

Linehan's request for reinstatement. 

¶25 In summary, the referee recommends that Attorney 

Linehan's petition for reinstatement from his medical incapacity 

be granted, with the following conditions: a) that he continue 

participation in the WisLAP monitoring program on an indefinite 

basis, until such time as WisLAP determines that ongoing 

monitoring is no longer necessary; b) that he continue with 

monitoring/mentoring with either Attorney Terry Davis or some 

other appropriate attorney as determined by WisLAP; c) that he 

remain fully compliant with the WisLAP monitoring program, with 

any noncompliance detected by WisLAP to be immediately reported 

to the OLR which, in turn, may petition this court for a summary 

and immediate suspension of Attorney Linehan's license to 
No. 1989AP1848-D 

16 

practice law pending any further investigation or proceedings 

that may be necessary under the circumstances; d) that, within 

the next 12 months, he successfully complete 15 hours of CLE 

ethics courses, at least eight of which focus on trust account 

administration; e) that, upon reinstatement of his license, he 

consult with an appropriate accountant to develop an effective 

business and trust accounting system; f) that he cooperate with 

the OLR's efforts to monitor his business and trust accounting 

for a period of one year; and g) that he fully comply with the 

terms of his restitution agreement with the Fund. 

¶26 No appeal has been filed, so this court considers this 

matter pursuant to SCR 22.33(3). A referee's findings of fact 

will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 

269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. We independently review the 

referee's legal conclusion, noting that whether the petitioner 

has demonstrated fitness to resume the practice of law presents 

a legal question which we review de novo. In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Chavez, 2012 WI 83, ¶14, 342 Wis. 2d 419, 

816 N.W.2d 265. 

¶27 We agree with the referee that, although this court's 

cursory 1989 order revoking Attorney Linehan's license to 

practice law by consent did not explicitly state that the 

revocation was due to a medical incapacity, the petition for 

voluntary revocation clearly identified medical incapacity as 

the primary driving force behind Attorney Linehan's decision to 

relinquish his law license. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate 
No. 1989AP1848-D 

17 

to treat his petition for reinstatement of his license as having 

been filed under SCR 22.36. We further conclude that the 

referee's findings support a determination that Attorney Linehan 

has met his burden under SCR 22.36(6) to establish by clear, 

convincing, and satisfactory evidence that his medical 

incapacity is removed and that he is fit to resume the practice 

of law. We agree that conditions on Attorney Linehan's license 

to practice law are necessary to ensure that he continues to 

receive appropriate treatment. Finally, we deem it appropriate 

to require Attorney Linehan to pay the full costs of this 

proceeding, $15,714.12. 

¶28 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of 

the license of Daniel W. Linehan to practice law in Wisconsin is 

granted, effective the date of this order. 

¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as conditions of the 

reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, 

Daniel W. Linehan shall comply with the following mandatory 

conditions: a) he shall continue participation in the Wisconsin 

Lawyers Assistance Program monitoring program on an indefinite 

basis, until such time as the program determines that ongoing 

monitoring is no longer necessary; b) he shall continue with 

monitoring/mentoring with either Attorney Terry Davis or some 

other appropriate attorney as determined by the Wisconsin 

Lawyers Assistance Program; c) he shall remain fully compliant 

with the Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program monitoring 

program, with any noncompliance detected by the program to be 

immediately reported to the Office of Lawyer Regulation which, 
No. 1989AP1848-D 

18 

in turn, may petition this court for a summary and immediate 

suspension of Attorney Linehan's license to practice law pending 

any further investigation or proceedings that may be necessary 

under the circumstances; d) within the next 12 months, he shall 

successfully complete 15 hours of continuing legal education 

ethics courses, at least eight of which focus on trust account 

administration; e) upon reinstatement of his license, he shall 

consult with an appropriate accountant to develop an effective 

business and trust accounting system; f) he shall cooperate with 

the Office of Lawyer Regulation's efforts to monitor his 

business and trust accounting for a period of one year; and 

g) he shall fully comply with the terms of his restitution 

agreement with the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client 

Protection. 

¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 120 days of the date 

of this order, Daniel W. Linehan shall pay to the Office of 

Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. 

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

terms of this order remain a condition of Daniel W. Linehan's 

license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
No. 1989AP1848-D.ssa 

1 

¶32 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (concurring). I agree 

with the majority that Attorney Linehan's license to practice 

law should be reinstated and that numerous conditions should be 

imposed to ensure that he continues to receive appropriate 

treatment and monitoring. I part company with the majority as 

to condition c. Rather than authorizing the OLR to petition 

this court for a summary and immediate suspension of Attorney 

Linehan's license to practice law in the event it receives 

notice of noncompliance from WisLAP, I would direct the OLR to 

seek the issuance of an order to show cause why the attorney's 

license should not be summarily suspended. 
No. 1989AP1848-D.ssa 

1