Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Patrick M. Cooper
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2012AP002334-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: March 30, 2018

2018 WI 22 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP2744-D & 2012AP2334 
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