Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Daynel L. Hooker
Citation: 2010 WI 13
Docket Number: 2009AP001099-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 26, 2010

2010 WI 13 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP1099-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Daynel L. Hooker, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Daynel L. Hooker, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HOOKER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 26, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 13
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2009AP1099-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Daynel L. Hooker, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Daynel L. Hooker, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 26, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   On April 29, 2009, the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation (OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint against Attorney 
Daynel L. Hooker seeking the imposition of discipline identical 
to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Colorado.  Effective 
February 8, 2009, that court suspended Attorney Hooker's 
privilege to practice law in Colorado for one year and one day, 
with six months and one day stayed, upon the successful 
completion of a two-year period of probation.  Upon our review 
No. 
2009AP1099-D   
 
2 
 
of the matter, we conclude identical discipline is warranted.  
We order Attorney Hooker's license to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall be suspended for six months effective February 8, 2009, 
and that Attorney Hooker shall be required to successfully 
complete the two-year period of probation imposed by the Supreme 
Court of Colorado.  
¶2 
Attorney Hooker was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 2001 and is not licensed to practice law in the 
State of Colorado.  She has maintained an office in Aurora, 
Colorado, and has practiced in the areas of federal immigration, 
bankruptcy, and intellectual property law.   
¶3 
The OLR has filed certified copies of the stipulation, 
agreement, and affidavit in the case of The People of the State 
of Colorado v. Daynel L. Hooker, Case No. 08PDJ106, filed in the 
Supreme Court of Colorado.  Attorney Hooker and her attorney 
have signed the documents, which state that pursuant to Colorado 
Rules of Professional Conduct 8.5, effective January 1, 2008, a 
lawyer who is not admitted in Colorado is subject to the 
disciplinary authority in Colorado if the lawyer provides or 
offers to provide any legal services in Colorado.  Attorney 
Hooker stipulated she was subject to the jurisdiction of the 
Supreme Court of Colorado in the disciplinary proceeding and 
subject to suspension of her privilege to practice law in 
Colorado, although she was not licensed to practice law in 
Colorado.   
¶4 
Attorney 
Hooker's 
stipulation, 
agreement, 
and 
affidavit admit the following misconduct.  Colorado's Office of 
No. 
2009AP1099-D   
 
3 
 
Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC) received two notifications 
from Attorney Hooker's trust account bank that she had written 
checks without sufficient funds to cover them.  On January 15, 
2008, Attorney Hooker and her then associate, Tina Diaz, jointly 
sent letters to clients stating that Ms. Diaz would no longer be 
working with the firm and requesting that clients designate an 
attorney for continued representation.  Several clients, who 
elected to have Ms. Diaz represent them, were entitled to 
reimbursement of their unearned fees from Attorney Hooker. 
¶5 
On February 1, 2008, Attorney Hooker's assistant sent 
Ms. Diaz a letter enclosing copies of documents transferring 
several client files, along with copies of cover letters to each 
client acknowledging selection of Ms. Diaz and copies of trust 
account refund checks payable to the clients, all dated 
January 25, 2008.  Attorney Hooker did not, however, actually 
send the refund checks to at least four clients.  She alleged 
that she did not know whether Ms. Diaz was entitled to the 
funds.  According to an accounting Attorney Hooker performed at 
that time, however, the clients were entitled to the unearned 
portion of the trust account funds.  Therefore, there was no 
justification for failing to send the checks to the former 
clients.  Attorney Hooker failed to tell Ms. Diaz that she had 
decided not to send the checks to her former clients.  Ms. Diaz 
learned of Attorney Hooker's decision only when the clients 
contacted Ms. Diaz regarding the non-receipt of their refund 
checks.  
No. 
2009AP1099-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
Based 
upon 
Attorney 
Hooker's 
records 
and 
correspondence sent to former clients, she should have had at 
least $8,344.32 in her trust account in late January 2008 to 
cover client advances.  Instead, she had an ending balance of 
$20.59.  Attorney Hooker had converted advanced fees and costs 
to her use or to the use of her firm.  Eventually, by the end of 
April 2008, Attorney Hooker sent out the refund checks. 
¶7 
Attorney Hooker made deposits to her trust account to 
cover the client refund checks.  She subsequently transferred 
money 
from 
her 
trust 
account 
to 
her 
business 
account.  
Nonetheless, due to a shortfall in her business account, the 
bank withdrew funds from her trust account to cover her business 
account.  When the refund checks were presented to the bank, 
insufficient funds remained in the trust account to cover them.  
The bank paid the checks, leaving a negative balance in the 
trust account.  The bank sent insufficient funds notices to the 
OARC.  
¶8 
By failing to keep client funds in her trust account, 
by not timely returning client funds, by misleading Ms. Diaz 
about the return of client funds, and by converting unearned 
fees and costs to her own use, Attorney Hooker violated the 
Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct.  Attorney Hooker has 
agreed that she put some of her former clients in the position 
of possibly being seriously harmed by withholding money owed to 
them, which may have precluded them from hiring another attorney 
in the event of deportation or other important matters.  
Attorney Hooker agreed she acted recklessly and should have 
No. 
2009AP1099-D   
 
5 
 
known that she was dealing improperly with client funds.  She 
conceded she acted with a selfish motive and that the victims of 
her misconduct were vulnerable.  She has demonstrated remorse, 
has not been subject to previous discipline, and has attended 
trust account training.  She has also engaged the services of an 
accountant who is knowledgeable of Colorado lawyer trust account 
practices.  She consented to the imposition of discipline by the 
Supreme Court of Colorado. 
¶9 
As discipline identical to that imposed in Colorado, 
the OLR moves this court to suspend Attorney Hooker's law 
license for six months and to require Attorney Hooker's 
compliance with and successful completion of Colorado's two-year 
period of probation.  This court ordered Attorney Hooker to show 
cause why the imposition of discipline identical to that imposed 
by the Colorado Supreme Court would be unwarranted.  Attorney 
Hooker did not file a timely response to the orders to show 
cause.  We deny her motion to file a belated response.     
¶10 Pursuant to SCR 22.22, this court shall impose 
identical discipline when an attorney has been disciplined in 
another jurisdiction and no exceptions apply.  See SCR 22.22.1  
                                                 
1 SCR 22.22 provides in part:  Reciprocal discipline. 
(1) An attorney on whom public discipline for 
misconduct 
or 
a 
license 
suspension 
for 
medical 
incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 
shall promptly notify the director of the matter.  
Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 
effective date of the order or judgment of the other 
jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.  
No. 
2009AP1099-D   
 
6 
 
Neither the OLR nor Attorney Hooker contends, nor does this 
court find, that any exception exists to the imposition of 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a 
judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing 
discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for 
medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the 
practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in 
this state, the director may file a complaint in the 
supreme court containing all of the following:  
(a) A certified copy of the judgment or order 
from the other jurisdiction. 
(b) A motion requesting an order directing the 
attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 
20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the 
grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of 
the identical discipline or license suspension by the 
supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual 
basis for the claim. 
(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical 
discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 
the following is present: 
(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 
so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 
constitute a deprivation of due process. 
(b) There 
was 
such 
an 
infirmity 
of 
proof 
establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 
the supreme court could not accept as final the 
conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 
incapacity. 
(c) The 
misconduct 
justifies 
substantially 
different discipline in this state. 
 . . .  
(6) If 
the 
discipline 
or 
license 
suspension 
imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any 
reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by 
the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the 
stay expires.  
No. 
2009AP1099-D   
 
7 
 
identical discipline.  This case, however, presents a unique 
circumstance in which Attorney Hooker has been disciplined in a 
jurisdiction where she is not licensed to practice law.  To 
order her Wisconsin license suspension effective the date of 
this decision would in effect increase the length of Attorney 
Hooker's Colorado suspension, which would not result in an 
identical sanction.  This unique circumstance requires the six-
month license suspension in Wisconsin to be effective the same 
date as the Colorado suspension, February 8, 2009.  
¶11 In addition, we order that Attorney Hooker must comply 
with the terms and conditions of the Colorado disciplinary 
order.  Wisconsin's rules for lawyer discipline do not provide 
for a stay of suspension or probation.  When the other 
jurisdiction has imposed a form of discipline that this court 
does not use, we have required that the attorney comply with the 
terms and conditions of the other jurisdiction's disciplinary 
order to make the discipline identical.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Moree, 2004 WI 118, 275 Wis. 2d 279, 684 
N.W.2d 667.  We do so here.  Rather than ordering probation or 
staying any part of the suspension, we conclude that a six-month 
suspension of Attorney Hooker's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, effective February 8, 2009, together with the 
requirement Attorney Hooker comply with the terms of probation 
set forth in Colorado's February 11, 2009, order, replicates the 
practical effect of the Colorado Supreme Court's disciplinary 
order and constitutes identical discipline.  
No. 
2009AP1099-D   
 
8 
 
¶12 Finally, unlike Wisconsin, Colorado does not require 
reinstatement proceedings for Attorney Hooker's suspension.  
Because Attorney Hooker is not licensed to practice law in 
Colorado, the practical effect of a reinstatement requirement in 
Wisconsin 
would 
be 
to 
extend 
Attorney 
Hooker's 
Colorado 
suspension for the duration of the Wisconsin reinstatement 
proceedings.  Therefore, for the discipline in Wisconsin to 
replicate the discipline in Colorado, we conclude that Attorney 
Hooker's unique situation warrants the elimination of the 
reinstatement requirement under SCR 22.28.  We order that 
Attorney Hooker need not file a petition for reinstatement of 
her Wisconsin license.  Rather, upon her showing that Colorado 
has approved Attorney Hooker's resuming the practice of law in 
Colorado, Attorney Hooker's Wisconsin license shall no longer be 
suspended for disciplinary reasons.2   
¶13 Because the OLR has not sought costs in this matter, 
we do not impose them.  
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Daynel L. Hooker to 
practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended for six months, 
effective February 8, 2009. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Daynel L. Hooker shall 
comply with the terms and conditions of probation set forth in 
                                                 
2 Neither the OLR nor Attorney Hooker addresses Attorney 
Hooker's obligation to pay bar dues and comply with trust 
account certification requirements.  The identical discipline 
imposed here does not affect Attorney Hooker's license status 
based on these obligations.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Martin, 2007 WI 44, 300 Wis. 2d 135, 730 N.W.2d 151. 
No. 
2009AP1099-D   
 
9 
 
the Supreme Court of Colorado's order dated February 11, 2009, 
in The People of the State of Colorado v. Daynel L. Hooker, Case 
No. 08PDJ106, 2009 WL 133044 (Colo. O.P.D.J., Jan. 8, 2009).   
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent she has not 
already done so, Daynel L. Hooker shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 
¶17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to extend the 
time to file a response to the orders to show cause is denied.   
No. 
2009AP1099-D   
 
 
 
1