2015 WI 82
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
CASE NO.: 1989AP1848-D
COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against
Daniel W. Linehan, Attorney at Law:
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility
n/k/a
Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Daniel W. Linehan,
Respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDNGS AGAINST LINEHAN
OPINION FILED: July 15, 2015
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:
ORAL ARGUMENT:
SOURCE OF APPEAL:
COURT:
COUNTY:
JUDGE:
JUSTICES:
CONCURRED: ABRAHAMSON, J., concurs. (Opinion Filed.)
DISSENTED:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTORNEYS:
2015 WI 82
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further
editing and modification. The final
version will appear in the bound
volume of the official reports.
No. 1989AP1848-D
STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Daniel W. Linehan, Attorney at Law:
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility
n/k/a Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED
Complainant, JUL 15, 2015
v. Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
Daniel W. Linehan,
Respondent.
ATTORNEY reinstatement proceeding. Reinstatement granted
upon conditions.
¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report filed by Referee
James G. Curtis, recommending that the court reinstate, with
conditions, Daniel W. Linehan's license to practice law in
Wisconsin. After careful review of the matter, we agree that
Attorney Linehan's license should be reinstated and that
conditions should be placed upon his practice of law. We also
conclude that Attorney Linehan should be required to pay the
No. 1989AP1848-D
full costs of this reinstatement proceeding, which are
$15,714.12 as of April 14, 2015.
¶2 Attorney Linehan was admitted to practice law in
Wisconsin in 1977 and practiced in Madison. In 1989, this court
granted Attorney Linehan's petition for license revocation by
consent and revoked his license to practice law in Wisconsin
effective November 1, 1989. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Linehan, 151 Wis. 2d 797, 446 N.W.2d 450 (1989).
¶3 Attorney Linehan's petition for voluntary revocation
of his license to practice law stated that he was the subject of
an investigation of possible misconduct with respect to his
representation of a client "and is also the subject of an
investigation involving possible misconduct and medical
incapacity due to chronic substance abuse." Attorney Linehan
acknowledged that he could not successfully defend against the
allegations of misconduct. As additional background, he stated
that he had been afflicted with a longstanding, chronic sickness
or disease involving several forms of substance abuse, which
sickness or disease was a factor which contributed to the
conduct resulting in the misconduct allegations that were the
subject of investigations by the Board of Attorneys Professional
Responsibility (BAPR), the predecessor in interest to the Office
of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). The petition for voluntary
revocation stated that, despite both inpatient and outpatient
treatment, Attorney Linehan continued to be afflicted by chronic
and significant problems involving substance abuse. Attorney
Linehan stated that he believed he was unable to obtain the
2
No. 1989AP1848-D
long-term treatment needed to effectively recover from his
medical condition and still practice law at the same time. He
stated that his desire to voluntarily surrender his license to
practice law was based in part upon his belief that he had a
medical incapacity, and that he desired to obtain further
treatment for that condition.
¶4 The two-page published order revoking Attorney
Linehan's license to practice law by consent stated that
Attorney Linehan was a subject of investigation by BAPR
in connection with his use of client trust funds for
his own personal purposes, deposit of personal loan
proceeds into his client trust account, failure to
promptly pay settlement proceeds to a client and fully
account to the client for those proceeds he had
deposited in his trust account, failure to maintain
records pertaining to his trust account and record the
purpose of disbursements from that account and his
chronic substance abuse.
Linehan, 151 Wis. 2d at 798.
¶5 Attorney Linehan filed petitions for the reinstatement
of his license to practice law in 1996 and 1998, both of which
were withdrawn. His most recent reinstatement petition was
filed on February 18, 2014. Referee Curtis was appointed on
April 8, 2014. The referee held an evidentiary hearing in
January of 2015 and issued his report and recommendation on
March 25, 2015.
¶6 The referee said that, as a result of the evidence
presented at the hearing and the numerous exhibits received by
stipulation, it was clear that "[t]his is, first and foremost, a
medical incapacity case." The referee said there was no doubt
3
No. 1989AP1848-D
that a medical incapacity in the form of chronic substance abuse
directly caused Attorney Linehan's trust account misconduct.
The referee said that, because this case was submitted to the
court in 1989 as a consensual revocation, the court was
presented with limited information about the substance abuse
allegations.
¶7 The referee noted that an attorney seeking
reinstatement after a disciplinary suspension or revocation must
demonstrate by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that
he or she has the moral character necessary to practice law in
this state, 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, and that the attorney has
complied fully with the terms of the suspension or revocation
order and the requirements of Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.26.
In addition, SCR 22.31(1)(c) incorporates the statements that a
petition for reinstatement must contain pursuant to
SCR 22.29(4)(a)-(4m). Among other things, an attorney seeking
the reinstatement of his license has the burden to prove that
his conduct since revocation has been "exemplary and above
reproach." SCR 22.29(4). The referee noted that Attorney
Linehan freely admitted that his conduct during the entire
period of revocation has not been exemplary and above reproach,
given that he continued to suffer from alcohol and substance
abuse issues through at least 2009. Consequently, the referee
said that if this court were to deem Attorney Linehan's
reinstatement petition as having been filed under SCR 22.29, the
4
No. 1989AP1848-D
referee would have to conclude that Attorney Linehan failed to
meet his burden of proof in a number of respects, most
significantly that Attorney Linehan has failed to demonstrate
that his conduct since the revocation has been exemplary and
above reproach. The referee went on to say, "But even if
Mr. Linehan waited another 10 years to seek reinstatement, and
exhibited exemplary conduct during that time, he could never
prove that his conduct since the 1989 revocation has been
exemplary and above reproach. His past misdeeds would always
come back to haunt him."
¶8 In the referee's view, Attorney Linehan's revocation
by consent should be viewed as a revocation based on a medical
incapacity, meaning that reinstatement is governed by SCR 22.36.
Under that rule, the petitioner has the burden of showing by
clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that the medical
incapacity has been removed and that the petitioner is fit to
resume the practice of law, with or without conditions. The
referee noted that, although there was a component of
professional misconduct involved in the consensual license
revocation, in the referee's opinion, the misconduct itself was
not sufficient to warrant an outright revocation and the more
significant impetus for the consensual revocation was Attorney
Linehan's medical incapacity. The referee said that, in the
event this case is viewed as a medical incapacity reinstatement
matter, the referee is satisfied that the medical incapacity has
been removed and that Attorney Linehan's license to practice law
in Wisconsin should be reinstated, with conditions.
5
No. 1989AP1848-D
¶9 In reaching this conclusion, the referee noted that
"[t]his case presents the Jekyll/Hyde paradox in the life and
times of Daniel W. Linehan, who has been 'characterized as sane
when he is clean and sober and as insane when he is not.'" The
referee found that Attorney Linehan has been afflicted with
chronic alcohol and substance abuse since approximately age 15.
In the 1980s, prior to his consensual license revocation,
Attorney Linehan received both inpatient and outpatient
treatment but exhibited a tendency for relapses of his chronic
substance abuse. The referee found that the chronic substance
abuse substantially interfered with Attorney Linehan's ability
to conduct his law practice. The referee noted that after the
revocation of his law license, Attorney Linehan spent time in
the Dane County jail on a drunk driving conviction and his
driver license was revoked.
¶10 The referee further noted that in the 1990s, Attorney
Linehan worked as a clerk for a law firm in Minnesota and as a
paralegal with the Hennepin County Attorney's Office in
Minneapolis. The referee found that this employment was not
deemed contrary to the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.
While Attorney Linehan remained relatively clean and sober
between 1992 and 1995, he suffered a relapse in 1995. He was
terminated from his job at the Hennepin County Attorney's Office
in the spring of 1998 due to substance abuse issues. Attorney
Linehan filed petitions for the reinstatement of his Wisconsin
law license in 1996 and 1998 but was not honest about the status
6
No. 1989AP1848-D
of his substance abuse problems and decided to withdraw both
petitions.
¶11 In 1998, Attorney Linehan was charged with theft of a
motor vehicle and aggravated drunk driving in Minnesota. He was
convicted and placed on probation. Around 1998, Attorney
Linehan began treating with Dr. Roger Johnson, a psychiatrist.
Dr. Johnson remained Attorney Linehan's main mental health
treatment provider until the doctor retired in 2010.
Dr. Johnson diagnosed Attorney Linehan with major depression and
treated him with medication. With the doctor's support,
Attorney Linehan applied for Social Security Disability
benefits, which were awarded around 1998.
¶12 In December of 1998, Attorney Linehan was arrested for
intoxication and being in possession of a stolen automobile.
The investigation revealed that he had burglarized his
neighbor's residence, stole credit cards and their vehicle, and
made charges with the credit cards without proper consent. He
was charged with eight criminal counts. Because he was already
on probation, he was incarcerated in the Sherburne County jail
from December of 1998 until February of 1999. In January of
1999, he was also charged with forgery involving a $3,000 check.
Attorney Linehan entered into a plea agreement on the charges in
February of 1999 and was convicted and sent to prison. Around
June 1, 1999, he was released on an ankle bracelet monitoring
program. He suffered a relapse and was arrested and sent back
to prison for violating the terms of his release. He was
released from custody in July of 2000.
7
No. 1989AP1848-D
¶13 In 2003, Attorney Linehan was convicted of operating
after revocation in Wisconsin. In 2002 and 2003, he was
sporadically drinking and using drugs. He engaged in sporadic
drinking and drug use again between 2006 and 2008. In December
of 2009, he was taken into custody for an emergency detention
when a friend called police to report that Attorney Linehan was
very intoxicated and was making threats to harm himself or
others. He was admitted to Mendota Mental Healthcare Center.
Following a detention hearing, the court found the least
restrictive level of care was on an outpatient basis, although
the court expressed concern over threats that had been made.
The court ordered daily breathalyzer sampling to ensure that
Attorney Linehan remained sober and, if he could not, he would
be taken into custody.
¶14 The referee said Attorney Linehan maintains that his
recovery began in a serious way after he was discharged from
Mendota Mental Healthcare Center, that since that time he has
worked hard to overcome his medical incapacity, and that, apart
from a two- or three-week lapse in July of 2011 after a friend
died, he has maintained sobriety since that time. The referee
said:
Since 2009 Linehan has continued to make
important progress in his personal and spiritual
growth and character change. He returned to
attendance at local [Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)]
meetings multiple times per week and obtained
significant support from friends in the Black River
Falls community.
8
No. 1989AP1848-D
Linehan's recovery status over the last five
years has progressively improved. His viewpoint and
attitude have changed so that he is better able to
enjoy life. His depression is in a state of remission
and he has stopped believing that his life wasn't
worth living. He has experienced a growing awareness
of happiness and joy, rather than a grudging
resistance to recovery.
The referee finds that Linehan's sworn testimony
and his presentation at the hearing was credible,
forthright and open. He has a very strong desire to
return to the practice of law. He describes himself
as a clean and sober person and in that state, he
believes he is a person who can be relied upon to
uphold the standards of the legal profession because
they are right and because he's asking permission for
reinstatement. . . . . As long as he is clean and
sober, Linehan believes that he can be safely
recommended to the public, the courts and the legal
profession as a person fit to consult on legal
matters.
¶15 In November of 2011, Attorney Linehan obtained
employment with the Hixton Travel Plaza as a maintenance man and
dishwasher. He has worked two shifts per week, approximately 16
hours, and has been a reliable and dependable employee.
¶16 In October of 2012, Attorney Linehan contacted the
Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program (WisLAP) to inquire about
voluntary monitoring of his substance abuse. Attorney Linehan
voluntarily disclosed his July 2011 relapse in the course of his
WisLAP monitoring and in the course of this reinstatement
proceeding. The referee found that if Attorney Linehan had not
made this voluntary disclosure, the relapse would never have
been known. The referee noted that WisLAP Manager Linda Albert
described Attorney Linehan's participation in the program as
exemplary. Ms. Albert testified at the reinstatement hearing
9
No. 1989AP1848-D
that Attorney Linehan has come to grips with his deplorable
history and seems ready to make a change. Beginning in late
November of 2012, Attorney Linehan has undergone nail drug and
alcohol testing every 90 days and all tests have been negative.
His participation in the WisLAP program has been voluntary, and
he has paid for the testing at the rate of approximately $1,400
per year. The monitoring contract requires attendance at AA
meetings at least three times per week. Attorney Linehan has
exceeded that standard by attending three to five meetings per
week. The monitoring contract requires daily check-ins, and
Attorney Linehan has been highly compliant, making 765 daily
check-ins out of a possible total of 767. Ms. Albert recommends
that Attorney Linehan continue with monitoring whether or not
his law license is reinstated, since monitoring will detect any
relapse episode and it will be promptly reported to the OLR.
Although Attorney Linehan's current monitoring contract ends in
October of 2015, it can be continued indefinitely. The referee
noted that Attorney Linehan is asking this court to consider
indefinite monitoring as a condition of reinstatement.
¶17 The referee said that although Dr. Johnson lost his
clinic notes on Attorney Linehan, the doctor wrote a letter in
July of 2013 summarizing Attorney Linehan's psychiatric
treatment from 1998 until 2010. Dr. Johnson said:
Based upon my involvement with Dan over the years
it is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical
certainty, that he is not a threat to society,
criminally or otherwise if he is clean and sober.
This coupled with his gradual improvement of
depressive symptoms over the years, also leads me to
10
No. 1989AP1848-D
conclude that he is capable of making an attempt to
return to work, particularly in the area of his
original training, the law.
¶18 The referee noted that as part of the OLR's
investigation of the reinstatement petition, the OLR scheduled
an independent psychiatric and addiction evaluation, which was
performed by Dr. Matthew Felgus on October 1, 2014. Dr. Felgus
concluded that Attorney Linehan's substance abuse disorder was
currently in full remission. Dr. Felgus said, "Like all
individuals with substance dependence, there is an ongoing
chance of relapse that in Mr. Linehan's case would warrant
indefinite monitoring should he meet the standard of
reinstatement." The referee noted that under SCR 22.36(6),
"fitness" encompasses a physically, mentally, and morally sound
state and a "state of preparedness to render competent legal
services; that is, to be prepared to provide the measure of
expertise to ensure the attorney may be safely recommended to
the community as a person to be consulted by and to represent
others in legal matters." In re Medical Incapacity Proceedings
Against Schlieve, 2010 WI 22, ¶24, 323 Wis. 2d 654, 780 N.W.2d
516. Based on this standard, the referee said he is satisfied
that Attorney Linehan's medical incapacity has been removed. He
said that Attorney Linehan deserves a great deal of credit for
the effort made to turn his life around. The referee said:
A decision by this court to reinstate
Mr. Linehan's license will enhance his self-esteem,
his confidence, and his overall recovery. Mr. Linehan
shows true remorse for his prior bad behavior. A
decision granting reinstatement would be a recognition
by the court that even after a lengthy period of
11
No. 1989AP1848-D
revocation and bad behavior, an attorney can benefit
from the effort necessary to straighten out and fly
right.
So long as Mr. Linehan remains clean and sober,
the medical incapacity has been removed. But Mr.
Linehan's history suggests that a relapse episode,
while unlikely, remains a possibility. Therefore, any
decision to reinstate Mr. Linehan's license should be
strictly conditioned on his continued participation in
the WisLAP monitoring program until such time as
WisLAP determines that ongoing monitoring is no longer
necessary. In the event of a relapse, WisLAP would
immediately report to OLR and Mr. Linehan's license
could be summarily suspended pending any further
investigation.
¶19 The referee said that the "fitness" requirement of
SCR 22.36(6) was more troubling, given that Attorney Linehan has
not practiced law for over 25 years and that there have been
significant changes in the law during that time. In addition,
he has not held full-time employment in any capacity since 1998.
The referee noted, however, that Attorney Linehan has maintained
learning in the law by completing the required continuing legal
education (CLE) credits needed for reinstatement. Attorney
Linehan has also consulted with an accountant to prepare a
system for accounting of his income and expenses should his
license to practice law be reinstated. In addition, the referee
noted that Attorney Terry Davis acts as Attorney Linehan's
monitor through the WisLAP program, and if Attorney Linehan is
granted reinstatement, he will be able to call on Attorney Davis
on a weekly basis to discuss issues and problems in the practice
of law. In the referee's opinion, this ongoing monitoring will
provide some assurance that Attorney Linehan is handling matters
12
No. 1989AP1848-D
within his sphere of competence and is adequately addressing his
clients' needs.
¶20 In addition, the referee noted that Attorney Lawrence
Hanson, who has honorably practiced law for 54 years and has
been very involved with Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers and with
WisLAP, got to know Attorney Linehan in the 1980s and has had
frequent contacts with him in the last two and one-half years.
The referee said that Attorney Hanson knows the perils of
chronic substance abuse and, in Attorney Hanson's opinion,
Attorney Linehan is absolutely qualified to practice law based
on his background and knowledge, so long as he stays away from
drugs and alcohol.
¶21 The referee also noted that, if reinstated, Attorney
Linehan says he will not look for full-time employment with a
law firm but believes there would be a significant amount of
small legal business in his community. Prior to 1989, Attorney
Linehan had a general practice with over 100 criminal jury
trials and 25 or 30 civil trials. The referee said that
Attorney Linehan does have substantial legal experience,
although it is dated. The referee said that, considering
Attorney Linehan's age and circumstances, he would probably
practice on a part-time basis, and with the WisLAP monitoring,
his practice will be subject to some measure of oversight and
control. The referee said:
In a case involving a lengthy suspension, it is always
difficult for a lawyer to affirmatively prove the
fitness element. Having witnessed Mr. Linehan's
presentation at the hearing and with the benefit of
13
No. 1989AP1848-D
the WisLAP monitoring, Attorney Davis' mentoring, and
Attorney Hanson's opinion on qualifications, the
referee concludes that Mr. Linehan has met his burden
of proving that he is fit to resume the practice of
law, with conditions, under SCR 22.36(6).
¶22 The referee noted that during the course of the
reinstatement proceedings, the OLR contended that Attorney
Linehan failed to acknowledge his obligation to reimburse the
Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Fund) and failed
to fairly characterize that obligation in his petition. The
referee noted that the trust account violations mentioned in the
1989 consensual revocation proceeding involved Attorney
Linehan's client, S.W. S.W.'s personal injury case was settled
for $20,000. Attorney Linehan was entitled to a contingent fee
and expenses. At the time, Attorney Linehan was using drugs and
alcohol and his practice was out of control. Various checks
were written out of the trust account, both to S.W. and to
Attorney Linehan. Attorney Linehan maintains that he and S.W.
met and agreed to resolve the matter. Attorney Linehan contends
that he obtained a loan from his father and paid S.W. the agreed
upon balance owed. Because of the hopeless state of his trust
accounting and business records, Attorney Linehan has no
documentary proof of the agreement or of the final payment to
S.W.
¶23 In addition to filing a grievance with the OLR, S.W.
submitted a claim to the Fund and ultimately received $4,513.33
from the Fund, in return for which he signed a subrogation
agreement. The administrator of the Fund resurrected the file
but acknowledged that it may not be complete. The administrator
14
No. 1989AP1848-D
testified that the Fund does not actively seek restitution from
attorneys unless this court has ordered restitution. The
court's 1989 revocation order did not mention restitution.
¶24 Attorney Linehan said that he first became aware that
the Fund had paid a claim to S.W. in 2005. At the time he filed
his reinstatement petition, although he believed that the Fund
had paid S.W., it was his position that he did not need to pay
the Fund back since the Fund never notified him and since he
believed he had already paid S.W. Prior to the hearing in this
matter, however, Attorney Linehan entered into an agreement to
reimburse the Fund at the rate of $75 per month. The referee
said that since Attorney Linehan has made suitable arrangements
for installment payments that are acceptable to the Fund, the
restitution issue should not stand as an impediment to Attorney
Linehan's request for reinstatement.
¶25 In summary, the referee recommends that Attorney
Linehan's petition for reinstatement from his medical incapacity
be granted, with the following conditions: a) that he continue
participation in the WisLAP monitoring program on an indefinite
basis, until such time as WisLAP determines that ongoing
monitoring is no longer necessary; b) that he continue with
monitoring/mentoring with either Attorney Terry Davis or some
other appropriate attorney as determined by WisLAP; c) that he
remain fully compliant with the WisLAP monitoring program, with
any noncompliance detected by WisLAP to be immediately reported
to the OLR which, in turn, may petition this court for a summary
and immediate suspension of Attorney Linehan's license to
15
No. 1989AP1848-D
practice law pending any further investigation or proceedings
that may be necessary under the circumstances; d) that, within
the next 12 months, he successfully complete 15 hours of CLE
ethics courses, at least eight of which focus on trust account
administration; e) that, upon reinstatement of his license, he
consult with an appropriate accountant to develop an effective
business and trust accounting system; f) that he cooperate with
the OLR's efforts to monitor his business and trust accounting
for a period of one year; and g) that he fully comply with the
terms of his restitution agreement with the Fund.
¶26 No appeal has been filed, so this court considers this
matter pursuant to SCR 22.33(3). A referee's findings of fact
will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. In re
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5,
269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. We independently review the
referee's legal conclusion, noting that whether the petitioner
has demonstrated fitness to resume the practice of law presents
a legal question which we review de novo. In re Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Chavez, 2012 WI 83, ¶14, 342 Wis. 2d 419,
816 N.W.2d 265.
¶27 We agree with the referee that, although this court's
cursory 1989 order revoking Attorney Linehan's license to
practice law by consent did not explicitly state that the
revocation was due to a medical incapacity, the petition for
voluntary revocation clearly identified medical incapacity as
the primary driving force behind Attorney Linehan's decision to
relinquish his law license. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate
16
No. 1989AP1848-D
to treat his petition for reinstatement of his license as having
been filed under SCR 22.36. We further conclude that the
referee's findings support a determination that Attorney Linehan
has met his burden under SCR 22.36(6) to establish by clear,
convincing, and satisfactory evidence that his medical
incapacity is removed and that he is fit to resume the practice
of law. We agree that conditions on Attorney Linehan's license
to practice law are necessary to ensure that he continues to
receive appropriate treatment. Finally, we deem it appropriate
to require Attorney Linehan to pay the full costs of this
proceeding, $15,714.12.
¶28 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of
the license of Daniel W. Linehan to practice law in Wisconsin is
granted, effective the date of this order.
¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as conditions of the
reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin,
Daniel W. Linehan shall comply with the following mandatory
conditions: a) he shall continue participation in the Wisconsin
Lawyers Assistance Program monitoring program on an indefinite
basis, until such time as the program determines that ongoing
monitoring is no longer necessary; b) he shall continue with
monitoring/mentoring with either Attorney Terry Davis or some
other appropriate attorney as determined by the Wisconsin
Lawyers Assistance Program; c) he shall remain fully compliant
with the Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program monitoring
program, with any noncompliance detected by the program to be
immediately reported to the Office of Lawyer Regulation which,
17
No. 1989AP1848-D
in turn, may petition this court for a summary and immediate
suspension of Attorney Linehan's license to practice law pending
any further investigation or proceedings that may be necessary
under the circumstances; d) within the next 12 months, he shall
successfully complete 15 hours of continuing legal education
ethics courses, at least eight of which focus on trust account
administration; e) upon reinstatement of his license, he shall
consult with an appropriate accountant to develop an effective
business and trust accounting system; f) he shall cooperate with
the Office of Lawyer Regulation's efforts to monitor his
business and trust accounting for a period of one year; and
g) he shall fully comply with the terms of his restitution
agreement with the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client
Protection.
¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 120 days of the date
of this order, Daniel W. Linehan shall pay to the Office of
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.
¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the
terms of this order remain a condition of Daniel W. Linehan's
license to practice law in Wisconsin.
18
No. 1989AP1848-D.ssa
¶32 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (concurring). I agree
with the majority that Attorney Linehan's license to practice
law should be reinstated and that numerous conditions should be
imposed to ensure that he continues to receive appropriate
treatment and monitoring. I part company with the majority as
to condition c. Rather than authorizing the OLR to petition
this court for a summary and immediate suspension of Attorney
Linehan's license to practice law in the event it receives
notice of noncompliance from WisLAP, I would direct the OLR to
seek the issuance of an order to show cause why the attorney's
license should not be summarily suspended.
1
No. 1989AP1848-D.ssa
1