¶3 Under Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 8.5, a lawyer who provides or offers to provide any legal services in Colorado is subject to the disciplinary authority of that state even if the attorney is not licensed in that state. Attorney Hooker has been disciplined twice by the Colorado Supreme Court, resulting in two reciprocal discipline matters in Wisconsin. In 2010 this court suspended Attorney Hooker for six months, effective February 8, 2009, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Colorado Supreme Court. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hooker, 2010 WI 13, 322 Wis. 2d 552, 779 N.W.2d 419. In 2012 this court again suspended Attorney Hooker for six months, retroactive to March 1, 2011, as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Colorado Supreme Court. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hooker, 2012 WI 100, 343 Wis. 2d 397, 816 N.W.2d 310.

¶5 Attached to Attorney Hooker's petition for revocation are the following two documents: (1) a completed but unfiled OLR disciplinary complaint alleging 35 counts of misconduct involving seven client matters; and (2) a certified copy of an October 18, 2013 Opinion and Decision of the Colorado Supreme Court ("Colorado disciplinary decision"). The Colorado disciplinary decision concerns misconduct involving eight client matters, two of which are also presented in the OLR's unfiled disciplinary complaint. The Colorado disciplinary decision disbars Attorney Hooker from the practice of law in Colorado.

¶7 The completed but unfiled OLR disciplinary complaint alleges violations of the following rules, many of which the OLR alleges Attorney Hooker violated on multiple occasions: SCR 20:1.1 (failing to provide competent representation to a client); SCR 20:1.3 (failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client); SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) (failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter); SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) (failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests by the client for information); SCR 20:1.5(b) (1) (failing to adequately explain the basis on which lawyer's fee would be calculated); SCR 20:1.5(b)(2) (failing, where the total cost of the representation is more than $1,000, to communicate in writing to the client the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance fee that is paid to the lawyer); SCR 20:1.15(b)(4) (failing to deposit advanced payments of fees and costs into trust account); SCR 20:1.16(d) (failing to take steps to protect a client's interests upon termination of representation); SCR 20:5.5(a)(1) (practicing law in a jurisdiction where doing so violated the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction); SCR 20:8.4(a) (violating the Rules of Professional Conduct); SCR 20:8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); SCR 22.03(2) (failing to cooperate with an OLR investigation); and SCR 22.03(6) (failing to provide relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents in the course of an OLR investigation).

¶8 In the Colorado disciplinary decision, the Colorado Supreme Court disbarred Attorney Hooker based on the following ethical violations under the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, many of which the Colorado Supreme Court determined Attorney Hooker committed on multiple occasions: practicing law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the applicable regulations of the legal profession; failing to hold property in a trust account separate from the lawyer's own property; failing, upon a client's request, to promptly render a full accounting regarding funds in which the client has an interest; failing to protect the client's interest by surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and to refund any unearned fees or expenses; committing conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing a client; failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter; failing to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; failing to communicate to a client, in writing, the basis or rate of the fee and expenses within a reasonable time after commencing the representation; and failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority.

¶10 The OLR's report and recommendation in support of the petition contains a restitution request. Specifically, the OLR requests that Attorney Hooker be ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,130 to former client D.W.; $2,720 to former client J.T.S.; $4,610 to former client G.K.; $2,310 to former client H.O.; and $1,660 to former client K.V. Attorney Hooker's petition states that she agrees that she should be ordered to pay these restitution amounts.

¶11 Having reviewed Attorney Hooker's petition, the OLR's completed but unfiled disciplinary complaint, and the October 18, 2013 Opinion and Decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, we conclude that the petition for consensual revocation should be granted. It is clear from the descriptions of the various representations that Attorney Hooker has engaged in a widespread pattern of serious professional misconduct that has harmed her clients. It is also clear that Attorney Hooker is currently unwilling or unable to conform her conduct to the standards that are required to practice law in this state.

¶14 We further determine, in light of the OLR's report and Attorney Hooker's agreement, that Attorney Hooker should be required to pay restitution in the amount of $1,130 to former client D.W.; $2,720 to former client J.T.S.; $4,610 to former client G.K.; $2,310 to former client H.O.; and $1,660 to former client K.V.

¶15 We note that the OLR does not seek costs. Accordingly, no costs will be imposed.

¶16 Finally, we note that Attorney Hooker states in her petition for consensual license revocation that "a medical incapacity impaired my ability to represent my clients during the period of time in which my misconduct occurred." Because Attorney Hooker is seeking a consensual revocation, and not an indefinite suspension for medical incapacity (see SCR 22.34), we deem irrelevant the details of her alleged medical issues.

¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license revocation is granted.

¶18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Daynel L. Hooker to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this order.

¶19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order Daynel L. Hooker shall pay restitution in the amount of $1,130 to former client D.W.; $2,720 to former client J.T.S.; $4,610 to former client G.K.; $2,310 to former client H.O.; and $1,660 to former client K.V.