Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion / Professional Responsibility — suspension

Professional Responsibility — suspension

Wisconsin Supreme Court


Professional Responsibility — suspension

Where attorney Daynel L. Hooker received a six month suspension in another state for practicing law without a license, reciprocal discipline is appropriate.

“We agree with the referee that we should follow the same path we took in Hooker I for imposing discipline that has an identical effect as the partially stayed suspension imposed in Colorado. We will therefore suspend Attorney Hooker’s license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of six months, as that is the actual amount of time that Attorney Hooker could not practice law in any form in Colorado under that state’s suspension.”

“As we did in Hooker I, we will make the suspension retroactive to March 1, 2011, the effective date of the Colorado suspension. Because of the unique circumstance where Attorney Hooker has been disciplined in a jurisdiction where she is not licensed to practice law, making the suspension prospective would effectively make the period of suspension much longer than in the usual reciprocal discipline situation because she would not be able, as a practical matter, to practice law at all during the period of both the Colorado and Wisconsin suspensions. A prospective suspension would therefore not result in an identical sanction. See Hooker I, 322 Wis. 2d 552, ¶10. Making the current suspension retroactive will maintain consistency with our previous decision.”

2011AP737-D OLR v. Hooker

Per Curiam.

Attorneys: For Complainant: St. Ores, Sheryl A., Madison; For Respondent: Hooker, Daynel L., Aurora, CO

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *