Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Patrick Michael Cooper
Citation: 2007 WI 37
Docket Number: 2005AP002744-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: March 23, 2007

2007 WI 37 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2005AP2744-D 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Patrick Michael Cooper, Attorney at Law: 
 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Patrick Michael Cooper, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST COOPER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 23, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2007 WI 37
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2005AP2744-D  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings  
Against Patrick Michael Cooper, Attorney at 
Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Patrick Michael Cooper, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 23, 2007 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the referee's recommendation 
that we suspend Attorney Patrick Michael Cooper's license to 
practice law for a period of three years for professional 
misconduct.  Neither the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) nor 
Attorney Cooper has appealed the referee's recommendation.  
Therefore, the matter is submitted to the court for review 
pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).1  In conducting our review we will 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides: Review; appeal. 
No. 
2005AP2744-D   
 
2 
 
affirm the referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly 
erroneous.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Sosnay, 
209 Wis. 2d 241, 243, 562 N.W.2d 137 (1997).  We review the 
referee's conclusions of law de novo.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 
636 N.W.2d 718.  In accordance with our authority to supervise 
the practice of law in this state, we determine the level of 
discipline 
that 
is 
appropriate 
under 
the 
particular 
circumstances, independent of the referee's recommendation, but 
benefiting from it.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.
¶2 
Attorney Cooper was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1993.  He had no disciplinary history prior to the 
filing of this complaint.  His law license is currently 
suspended.2 
¶3 
The OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Cooper on 
November 8, 2005.  Attorney Cooper filed a cursory answer, 
simply denying the allegations.  On February 17, 2006, the OLR 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme 
court shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject 
or modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline. The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
2 Attorney Cooper's license to practice law in Wisconsin was 
administratively suspended in October 2005 for failing to pay 
his mandatory state bar dues.  In December 2005 his license was 
temporarily suspended for failure to cooperate with the OLR in 
the investigation that gave rise to this proceeding. 
No. 
2005AP2744-D   
 
3 
 
filed a lengthy amended complaint, alleging some 33 separate 
counts of alleged misconduct.  Again, Attorney Cooper filed a 
cursory answer that did not respond to the specific allegations. 
¶4 
The matter was assigned to a referee and a series of 
telephone conferences were scheduled.  Attorney Cooper could not 
be reached for the first conference.  The next two conferences 
were postponed when Attorney Cooper requested an opportunity to 
consult with a lawyer.  Less than one hour before the fourth 
scheduled conference, Attorney Cooper sent the referee a 
facsimile transmission, indicating he was "unavailable today."  
This facsimile was the last communication received from Attorney 
Cooper in this disciplinary proceeding.  As the referee stated 
in the report: "Despite numerous subsequent notices, letters, 
facsimile transmissions, e-mails, and telephone calls, [Attorney 
Cooper] did not contact us by any means whatsoever and never 
answered his phone."  Attorney Cooper also failed to comply with 
the referee's order directing him to file an amended answer that 
complied with standard procedural requirements.  He failed to 
appear at the hearing scheduled on the OLR's motion for a 
default judgment.  Eventually, the referee entered a default 
judgment in favor of the OLR.  Attorney Cooper then failed to 
appear at the scheduled hearing to consider the appropriate 
sanctions for his misconduct. 
¶5 
Because Attorney Cooper failed to participate in the 
disciplinary proceeding, the referee eventually adopted as true 
the allegations contained in the amended complaint.   
No. 
2005AP2744-D   
 
4 
 
¶6 
The misconduct in this case is serious.  The complaint 
alleges, and the referee found, that Attorney Cooper committed 
at least 35 separate instances of professional misconduct, 
affecting some seven clients as well as a retained expert.  
Given the breadth and scope of the misconduct and the fact that 
the factual allegations were not challenged by Attorney Cooper, 
we will only summarize the referee's extensive findings of 
misconduct in our decision.  
¶7 
The amended complaint alleged that Attorney Cooper 
repeatedly violated SCR 20:8.4(c),3 which prohibits conduct 
involving fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.  Several of these 
claims 
involved 
misconduct 
with 
respect 
to 
financial 
transactions.  The OLR alleged, and the referee found, that 
Attorney Cooper issued at least 17 checks totaling $25,656.85 
from his business account during August and September 2003 
knowing that his business account was either overdrawn or held 
no money when the checks were issued.   
¶8 
The OLR alleged, and the referee found, that Attorney 
Cooper converted to his own use $4424.99 in funds that were 
delivered to Attorney Cooper in connection with a settlement 
involving one of his clients.   
¶9 
The OLR alleged, and the referee found, that Attorney 
Cooper hired M.E. as an expert to complete a vocational 
assessment in a pending worker's compensation matter.  Attorney 
                                                 
3 SCR 20:8.4(c) states that it is professional misconduct to 
"engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or 
misrepresentation." 
No. 
2005AP2744-D   
 
5 
 
Cooper induced M.E. to deliver the vocational assessment by 
promising "immediate" payment of $660, knowing that he had 
insufficient funds to make this payment.  The OLR further 
alleged, and the referee found, that Attorney Cooper then issued 
a check from his business account to M.E. in the amount of $660, 
knowing the account was overdrawn.  M.E. was required to make 
numerous requests for payment.  The OLR alleged, and the referee 
found, that Attorney Cooper converted to his own personal use 
the $660 in funds to which M.E. was entitled.   
¶10 Other alleged violations of SCR 20:8.4(c) involved 
misrepresentations made by Attorney Cooper to certain clients.  
More specifically, the OLR alleged, and the referee found, that 
Attorney Cooper misrepresented to his client, C.H., that her 
wrongful termination case was proceeding properly when he had 
not actually filed any claim on her behalf.  The OLR alleged, 
and the referee found, that Attorney Cooper misrepresented the 
status of his client C.B.'s worker's compensation case when he 
had not actually filed a claim on her behalf. 
¶11 Thus, the referee concluded, and we agree, that each 
of the seven foregoing incidents constituted conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of 
SCR 20:8.4(c). 
¶12 The amended complaint also alleged three violations of 
the 
trust 
account 
rule, 
former 
SCR 
20:1.15(a) 
and 
SCR 
No. 
2005AP2744-D   
 
6 
 
20:1.15(b),4 which were in effect prior to July 1, 2004.  The 
referee found that on one occasion Attorney Cooper deposited 
$13,000 into his personal account rather than a trust account, 
on another occasion he deposited $660 owed to M.E., a retained 
vocational expert, into his personal account rather than a trust 
account, and on a third occasion Attorney Cooper failed to 
notify M.E. that he had received funds intended to pay for the 
                                                 
4 Former SCR 20:1.15 applies to misconduct committed prior 
to July 1, 2004.  Former SCR 20:1.15(a) and (b) provide in 
relevant part: 
 
(a) A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from 
the lawyer's own property, that property of clients 
and third persons that is in the lawyer's possession 
in connection with a representation or when acting in 
a fiduciary capacity. . . . All funds of clients and 
third persons paid to a lawyer or law firm shall be 
deposited in one or more identifiable trust accounts 
. . . . The trust account shall be maintained in a 
bank, savings bank, trust company, credit union, 
savings and loan association or other investment 
institution authorized to do business and located in 
Wisconsin.  The trust account shall be clearly 
designated as "Client's Account" or "Trust Account" or 
words of similar import.  No funds belonging to the 
lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient 
to pay or avoid imposition of account service charges, 
may be deposited in such an account. . . . 
 
(b) Upon receiving funds or other property in 
which a client or third person has an interest, a 
lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third 
person in writing.  Except as stated in this rule or 
otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the 
client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client 
or third person any funds or other property that the 
client or third person is entitled to receive and, 
upon request by the client or third person, shall 
render a full accounting regarding such property. 
No. 
2005AP2744-D   
 
7 
 
vocational assessment and failed to deliver those funds to M.E.  
We agree that these infractions constitute violations of former 
SCR 20:1.15(a) and SCR 20:1.15(b). 
¶13 The amended complaint also alleged, and the referee 
found, that Attorney Cooper failed to communicate or cooperate 
with the OLR in several instances, including making several 
material misrepresentations to the OLR regarding his failure to 
compensate M.E. for the completed vocational assessment; making 
misrepresentations to OLR about his handling of settlement 
checks; failing to provide information to the OLR regarding the 
matter of M.E., the retained vocational assessment expert; 
failing to provide information to the OLR relating to three 
other client matters; misrepresenting to the OLR that he had 
transmitted a requested document that he had not in fact sent; 
and failing to provide the OLR with a copy of a requested client 
file.  The referee concluded and we agree that each of these 
instances violated SCR 22.03(6),5 which is actionable pursuant to 
SCR 20:8.4(f).6 
                                                 
5 SCR 22.03(6) provides that "[i]n the course of the 
investigation, 
the 
respondent's wilful failure to provide 
relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 
are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 
in the grievance." 
6 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is misconduct to "violate a 
statute, supreme court rule, supreme court order or supreme 
court decision regulating the conduct of lawyers." 
No. 
2005AP2744-D   
 
8 
 
¶14 We 
also 
agree 
with 
the 
referee's 
findings 
and 
conclusions that Attorney Cooper violated SCR 20:1.5(e)7 by 
engaging in improper fee splitting, and that he violated SCR 
20:1.16(d)8 on two occasions when he failed to deliver a client's 
file to successor counsel for weeks after the request was made, 
                                                 
7 SCR 20:1.5(e) provides that division of a fee between 
lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if the 
total fee is reasonable and: 
(1) the 
division 
is 
based 
on 
the 
services 
performed by each lawyer, and the client is advised of 
and does not object to the participation of all the 
lawyers involved and is informed if the fee will 
increase as a result of their involvement; or 
(2) the lawyers formerly practiced together and 
the payment to one lawyer is pursuant to a separation 
or retirement agreement between them; or 
(3) pursuant to the referral of a matter between 
the lawyers, each lawyer assumes the same ethical 
responsibility 
for the representation as if the 
lawyers were partners in the same firm, the client is 
informed of the terms of the referral arrangement, 
including the share each lawyer will receive and 
whether the overall fee will increase, and the client 
consents in a writing signed by the client.  
8 SCR 20:1.16(d) provides: 
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer 
shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable 
to protect a client's interests, such as giving 
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for 
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and 
property to which the client is entitled and refunding 
any advance payment of fee or expense that has not 
been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers 
relating to the client to the extent permitted by 
other law. 
No. 
2005AP2744-D   
 
9 
 
and also failed to respond to numerous telephone messages 
requesting delivery of the client file. 
¶15 The amended complaint also alleged, and the referee 
found, some seven instances in which Attorney Cooper failed to 
keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their 
respective cases or failed to respond to their reasonable 
requests for information.9  The referee concluded, and we agree, 
that Attorney Cooper thereby violated SCR 20:1.4(a).10   
¶16 In addition, the complaint alleged, and the referee 
found, that Attorney Cooper failed to act with diligence in four 
                                                 
9 The affected clients were J.J., S.K. (2 counts), C.H., 
C.B., W.E. and D.C. 
10 SCR 20:1.4(a) provides that a lawyer shall: 
(1) Promptly inform the client of any decision or 
circumstance with respect to which the client's 
informed consent, as defined in SCR 20:1.0(f), is 
required by these rules;  
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the 
means by which the client's objectives are to be 
accomplished;  
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter;   
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests by 
the client for information; and  
(5) consult with the client about any relevant 
limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer 
knows that the client expects assistance not permitted 
by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law. 
No. 
2005AP2744-D   
 
10 
 
client matters11 in violation of  SCR 20:1.3,12 and, on two 
occasions, failed to provide clients C.B. and D.C. with 
sufficient information to make an informed decision, violating 
SCR 20:1.4(b).13 
¶17 Having accepted the referee's factual findings and the 
legal conclusions drawn from those findings, we turn to the 
question of the appropriate discipline for Attorney Cooper's 
misconduct. 
¶18 Initially, 
this 
court 
considered 
whether 
the 
recommended three year suspension was adequate in view of the 
extensive misconduct committed in this matter.  On October 12, 
2006, the court issued an order asking the parties to evaluate 
whether revocation might be appropriate here, noting that the 
referee had also considered revocation as a possible sanction in 
this matter.  We note that the OLR has advised that restitution 
is not required here. 
¶19 Ultimately, like the referee, we accept the OLR's 
recommendation 
that 
a 
three 
year 
suspension 
is 
adequate 
discipline.  We acknowledge that there are numerous aggravating 
circumstances here including the multiple offenses and pervasive 
pattern of misconduct.  Attorney Cooper's own dealings with the 
                                                 
11 The affected clients were S.K., C.H., C.B. and D.C. 
12 SCR 20:1.3 provides that "[a] lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." 
13 SCR 20:1.4(b) provides that a "lawyer shall explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client 
to make informed decisions regarding the representation." 
No. 
2005AP2744-D   
 
11 
 
OLR are a significant aggravating factor.  As the referee 
observed: "In simple terms, [Attorney Cooper] attempted to 
obstruct and thwart the OLR's investigation through lies and 
'stonewalling.'" 
 
Indeed, 
perhaps 
the 
only 
mitigating 
circumstances here are the lack of prior disciplinary history 
and the fact that Attorney Cooper repaid M.E., from whom he 
converted funds. 
¶20 However, we acknowledge that Attorney Cooper’s lack of 
previous 
disciplinary 
history 
warrants 
some 
consideration.  
Short of revocation, a three year suspension is one of the most 
punitive sanctions imposed by this court.  A three year 
suspension for the misconduct committed in this case is 
consistent with prior disciplinary decisions, as well.  See, 
e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Brown-Perry, 2003 
WI 151, 267 Wis. 2d 184, 672 N.W.2d 287; In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Tully, 2005 WI 100, 283 Wis. 2d 124, 699 
N.W.2d 882.  Accordingly, we accept the referee's recommendation 
and suspend Attorney Cooper's license for a period of three 
years.  He is further ordered to pay the costs of this 
proceeding which total $3731.34, as of August 22, 2006. 
¶21 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Patrick Michael 
Cooper to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 
three years, effective the date of this order. 
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Patrick Michael Cooper 
comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 
suspended if he has not already done so. 
No. 
2005AP2744-D   
 
12 
 
¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order Patrick Michael Cooper pay to the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs are not 
paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to this 
court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the 
license of Patrick Michael Cooper to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of the court. 
No. 
2005AP2744-D   
 
 
 
1