IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BROOKS, 02-0123-D.

• Citation: 641 N.W.2d 690,251 Wis.2d 618,2002 WI 32
• Decision Date: 10 April 2002
• Docket Number: No. 02-0123-D.,02-0123-D.
• Parties: IN the MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Dianna L. BROOKS, Attorney at Law: OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION, Complainant, v. Dianna L. BROOKS, Respondent.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

251 Wis.2d 618

2002 WI 32

641 N.W.2d 690

IN the MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Dianna L. BROOKS, Attorney at Law:

OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION, Complainant, v. Dianna L. BROOKS, Respondent.

No. 02-0123-D.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Decided April 10, 2002.

¶ 1. PER CURIAM.

We review the stipulation filed by Attorney Dianna L. Brooks and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). On January 10, 2002, OLR filed a disciplinary complaint against Attorney Dianna L. Brooks asking this court to impose reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed on Attorney Brooks by the State of Michigan Attorney Discipline Board. That Board on March 30, 2000, ordered Attorney Brooks's license to practice law in the State of Michigan, be suspended for a period of 90 days to commence as of February 1, 2000; that effectively resulted in a 90-day suspension of her license to practice law in that state, 60 days of which had passed at the time order was entered and 30 days which were imposed prospectively. That order also required Attorney Brooks to make restitution. She has done so and her license to practice law in the State of Michigan has been reinstated.

¶ 2. At OLR's request, pursuant to SCR 22.22(2)(b),¹ Attorney Brooks was ordered to show cause in writing why this court should not suspend her license to practice in this state and impose discipline identical to that imposed in Michigan for her various acts of professional misconduct.

¶ 3. Subsequently Attorney Brooks filed a signed stipulation, joined by OLR, reciting the allegations of the OLR complaint and confirming that she does not claim defenses to the proposed imposition of reciprocal discipline. That stipulation requests the imposition of the identical 90-day suspension of Attorney Brooks's license to practice law in this state. We accept the parties' stipulation and suspend the license of Attorney Dianna L. Brooks to practice law in this state for a period of 90 days to commence on the date of this order.

¶ 4. Attorney Dianna L. Brooks was admitted to the practice of law in this state in May of 1991. She was subsequently licensed to practice law in the State of Michigan. She currently resides in Georgia. Attorney Brooks's license to practice law in this state has been continuously suspended since November 2, 1992, for her failure to pay dues to the Wisconsin State Bar in which she is currently registered as an inactive member. Her Wisconsin law license was also suspended on June 6, 1994, for non-compliance with the continuing legal education requirements.

¶ 5. Attorney Brooks filed a petition for reinstatement in this state in July of 2001. During the OLR staff investigation of that petition Attorney Brooks disclosed that professional discipline had been imposed against her in 1999 by the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board. Attorney Brooks also acknowledged that she had not notified OLR's predecessor agency, the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR), of the imposition of that discipline against her in Michigan.

¶ 6. Attorney Brooks's misconduct as charged and found in the Michigan disciplinary action consisted of:

• In a divorce action, Brooks failed to file the divorce action on her client's behalf; and failed to return $160 of unearned fees.

• In another matter, Brooks was paid $450 to represent a client in a child support and visitation action in Maryland. Brooks improperly held herself out to her client as being able to practice law in Maryland and contacted the opposing attorney seeking an adjournment of the trial date; Brooks failed to file a motion to be admitted pro hac vice for that action; failed to refer her client to Maryland counsel for the purpose of either representing her in Maryland or to contest jurisdiction of the Maryland court; failed to advise her client that she had not obtained an adjournment of the Maryland trial date (when neither Brooks nor her client appeared for the trial date, a default judgment was entered); commingled advanced fees by depositing them into her personal bank account; failed to maintain the fees in a trust account until she was admitted to the practice of law in the Maryland action pursuant to a later successful pro hac vice motion; made withdrawals from her personal account which resulted in a complete misappropriation of the funds; and failed to make restitution of the $450 to her client.

• In a third matter, Brooks was retained in January of 1997 to represent a client concerning post-judgment custody issues in a divorce action. Brooks failed to file a motion on her client's behalf until November 1997 and failed to refund any portion of the $1000 fee paid by the client.

• In a fourth matter, Brooks was retained on or about May 1996 to review various legal matters for a client's mother, including but not limited to reviewing possible litigation regarding a construction and personal injury matter. Brooks failed to file either action and failed to advise her client that she would not do so; failed to release the client's file upon request or refund any portion of the $1500 fee.

• Brooks also failed to maintain reasonable communications with her clients; failed to respond to numerous messages from her clients; failed to notify her clients of her changes of address; abandoned the representation of two clients; and failed to file an answer to three requests for investigation from the grievance administrator.

¶ 7. Attorney Brooks subsequently pled no contest to these misconduct charges and entered into a stipulation for consensual discipline in Michigan. As noted, that discipline included a requirement that...