¶3 Attorney Perez was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 2000 and practiced in Kenosha. On February 14, 2018, Attorney Perez's Wisconsin law license was suspended pursuant to SCR 22.03(4) due to his willful failure to cooperate in an OLR investigation. In October 2018, his law license was suspended for failure to pay state bar dues and failure to file a trust account certification. Attorney Perez's license was also administratively suspended on June 5, 2019, for failure to comply with continuing legal education reporting requirements. His license remains suspended.

¶4 The OLR filed a complaint against Attorney Perez on March 25, 2019. The first client matter detailed in the complaint involved Attorney Perez's representation of R.J., who hired Attorney Perez to represent her in a personal injury case stemming from her January 2015 fall at a drug store. The initial attorney-client meeting occurred at R.J.'s home. Attorney Perez gave R.J. a document with his contact information and information pertaining to the drug store. Attorney Perez told R.J. to contact him when she had finished her medical treatment.

¶5 R.J. left three or four messages for Attorney Perez around December 2016 and January 2017, but received no response. In February 2017, R.J. sent Attorney Perez a letter asking about the status of her case and asking why he had not responded to her calls. Attorney Perez failed to respond. The February 2017 letter was the last contact R.J. had with Attorney Perez.

¶6 R.J. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney Perez. On September 19, 2017, the OLR sent a letter to Attorney Perez by first class mail requesting his written response to R.J.'s grievance by October 12, 2017. The letter was sent to Attorney Perez's last known place of business as listed with the State Bar of Wisconsin. Attorney Perez did not respond.

¶7 The OLR sent a second letter to Attorney Perez, by first class and certified mail, on October 27, 2017 asking for a response to R.J.'s grievance by November 8, 2017. The certified letter was returned marked "return to sender, unclaimed, unable to forward." The first class letter was not returned. Attorney Perez failed to respond.

¶8 On December 1, 2017, the OLR sent Attorney Perez a third letter, which was personally served on Attorney Perez on December 11, 2017. The letter required Attorney Perez to file a response to R.J.'s grievance no later than seven days from the date of service. Attorney Perez failed to respond.

¶9 The OLR filed a motion asking this court to order Attorney Perez to show cause why his law license should not be temporarily suspended due to his failure to cooperate in the OLR's investigation. Attorney Perez failed to respond to the order to show cause, and on February 14, 2018, this court temporarily suspended Attorney Perez's license to practice law in Wisconsin.

¶11 The second client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint involved Attorney Perez's representation of L.H., who signed a fee agreement with Attorney Perez for representation in a personal injury case. L.H. informed Attorney Perez, via voice mail, that she had completed her medical treatment on December 15, 2017. Attorney Perez returned the phone call and said it would be 60-90 days before L.H. would receive a response to her claim. In December 2017, at Attorney Perez's request, L.H. provided him with a signed release for medical records.

¶12 L.H. called Attorney Perez on multiple occasions, but he failed to respond. Attorney Perez failed to notify L.H. that his law license had been suspended on February 14, 2018, and he failed to advise her to seek legal advice elsewhere. Attorney Perez never provided L.H. with her case file following termination of representation due to the suspension of his law license.

¶13 L.H. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney Perez. On August 28, 2018, the OLR sent Attorney Perez a letter via first class mail to his last known address requesting a written response to the grievance by September 20, 2018. Attorney Perez failed to respond. The OLR sent Attorney Perez a second letter on October 10, 2018 requesting a written response within seven days of service. Attorney Perez was personally served with the letter on October 22, 2018, but failed to respond to it.

¶15 The third client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint arose out of Attorney Perez's representation of C.H. In October 2016, C.H. entered into a contingent fee agreement with Attorney Perez for representation in a personal injury matter. C.H. signed and returned a written fee contract to Attorney Perez at his direction.

¶16 On October 18, 2016, Attorney Perez emailed C.H. and requested a copy of the police report in her case. C.H. informed him via email the same day that she would follow through with this request. Starting in October 2016, C.H. began calling and leaving email messages for Attorney Perez asking for a status update on her case, but he failed to respond.

¶17 C.H. terminated Attorney Perez's representation effective March 11, 2017, via an email she sent to him and also via a certified letter. In her correspondence, C.H. said she had been trying to contact Attorney Perez for over a month and that she had called him at least 20 times or more without receiving any response. Attorney Perez failed to respond to the email or the certified letter. He never provided C.H. with her case file materials following termination of his representation.

¶18 In the summer of 2017, Attorney Perez called C.H., apologized for the delayed response to her emails and phone calls, and falsely informed her that a healthcare provider had never released her medical records to him. C.H. subsequently confirmed with the healthcare provider that the records had in fact been released to Attorney Perez.

¶19 C.H. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney Perez. On September 6, 2018, the OLR sent Attorney Perez a letter via first class mail to his last known address provided to the State Bar of Wisconsin asking for a written response to the grievance by September 28, 2018. Attorney Perez failed to respond.

¶20 On October 10, 2018, the OLR sent Attorney Perez a second letter by first class mail. He was also personally served with the second letter on October 22, 2018. Although the October 10th letter requested a written response from Attorney Perez within seven days of service, he failed to respond.

¶22 The fourth client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint arose out of Attorney Perez's representation of A.M. A.M. entered into a contingent fee agreement with Attorney Perez for representation in a personal injury matter on December 27, 2015.

¶23 On August 15, 2016, A.M. emailed Attorney Perez asking to meet in person and asking that he "get this process going," since she was being pursued by bill collectors for outstanding medical expenses related to her injuries. Attorney Perez failed to respond.

¶24 On March 1, 2017, A.M. emailed Attorney Perez informing him that a customer service representative for her treatment provider confirmed they had not received a request for her medical records from Attorney Perez, despite Attorney Perez's representation to A.M. that he had done so. Attorney Perez failed to respond.

¶25 On March 7, 2017, A.M. emailed Attorney Perez citing difficulty in communicating with him and questioning why, despite the fact that she concluded her medical treatment six months earlier, Attorney Perez had still not requested her medical records from the treatment provider. Attorney Perez failed to respond.

¶26 On March 14, 2017, A.M. emailed Attorney Perez saying, "After another week of no communication from you, I no longer wish to seek your representation. I need you to definitely acknowledge receipt of this note, so that I can move forward with my insurance company." Attorney Perez failed to respond.

¶27 On May 12, 2017, Attorney Perez emailed A.M. saying he had sent her medical records to the insurer "last week," and he expected to hear from the insurer within four to six weeks. In fact, he had not sent the medical records to the insurer.

¶28 On July 25, 2017, Attorney Perez emailed A.M. saying that the following day he would send a claim notice via certified mail to the insurer seeking a response within 30 days. The claim notice was never sent.

¶29 On August 17, 2017, A.M. emailed Attorney Perez seeking an update about her case. Attorney Perez responded the same day, stating he had previously sent the claim notice and the 30-day response was due the following day. On August 21, 2017, Attorney Perez emailed A.M. saying he had still not received a response to the claim notice. In fact, the claim notice had never been sent.

¶30 On September 12, 2017, A.M. emailed Attorney Perez for an update on her case. Attorney Perez failed to respond. On October 1, 2017, A.M. emailed Attorney Perez and informed him to take no further action on her case. She demanded that he return her file with 14 days. She emailed him again on October 10, 2017 reiterating her October 1, 2017 message, but Attorney Perez failed to respond.

¶31 A.M. subsequently received confirmation from the insurer that Attorney Perez never submitted a claim notice. On October 21, 2017, A.M. again emailed Attorney Perez seeking the return of her file within seven days and telling him to stop all work on her case other than to inform the insurer within 72 hours that he no longer represented her. Attorney Perez did not respond.

¶32 A.M. filed a grievance against Attorney Perez with the OLR. On May 31, 2018, the OLR sent Attorney Perez a letter requesting a written response to the grievance by June 25, 2018. Attorney Perez failed to respond.

¶33 On July 9, 2018, the OLR sent Attorney Perez a second letter requesting a written response by July 19, 2018. Attorney Perez failed to respond.

¶34 The OLR attempted personal service of A.M.'s grievance at the address Attorney Perez had provided to the State Bar of Wisconsin, at which the OLR had previously been successful in personally serving him. This time, despite several attempts, Attorney Perez could not be personally served.

¶36 In addition to the four client matters detailed in the OLR's complaint, the complaint also alleged that Attorney Perez practiced law following his February 14, 2018 license suspension.

¶37 In late January 2018, prior to the temporary license suspension, Attorney Perez had entered written not guilty pleas for a client in four separate but related traffic cases in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. The initial appearance for each case was scheduled for March 21, 2018. On that date, after his law license had been suspended, Attorney Perez appeared in circuit court for the initial appearance on the four cases. Due to the unavailability of the district attorney's office, the initial appearance for all cases was rescheduled to March 30, 2018.

¶38 On March 30, 2018, Attorney Perez appeared in circuit court with his client. Three of the four cases were dismissed. A finding of guilt was entered on the remaining case, and penalties were imposed. Attorney Perez failed to notify his client, opposing counsel, or the court that his law license had been suspended.

¶39 The OLR commenced a formal investigation of Attorney Perez's practice of law while suspended. On May 23, 2018, the OLR sent Attorney Perez a letter via first class mail requesting a written response by June 15, 2018. Attorney Perez failed to respond.

¶40 On July 9, 2018, the OLR sent Attorney Perez a second letter requesting a written response by July 19, 2018. Attorney Perez failed to respond. The OLR attempted personal service at the address Attorney Perez provided to the State Bar of Wisconsin but was unsuccessful in personally serving him.

¶42 The referee was appointed on May 9, 2019. On June 10, 2019, the OLR filed a notice of motion and motion for default judgment. An affidavit of OLR's assistant litigation counsel Thomas J. Laitsch averred that on April 16, 2019, the OLR had filed an affidavit of attempted service of the complaint on Attorney Perez. The affidavit stated that the OLR served Attorney Perez pursuant to SCR 22.13(1) by sending authenticated copies of the complaint and order to answer by certified mail to the most recent address furnished by Attorney Perez to the State Bar of Wisconsin and that Attorney Perez failed to file an answer to the complaint.

¶43 On August 2, 2019, the referee issued a report recommending that this court grant the OLR's motion for default judgment. The referee found that service upon Attorney Perez had been accomplished pursuant to SCR 22.13(1).

¶45 Attorney Perez did not appeal from the referee's report and recommendation, so we proceed with our review of the matter pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). We review a referee's findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. We review the referee's conclusions of law de novo. Id. We determine the appropriate level of discipline independent of the referee's recommendation. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.

¶46 We agree with the referee that Attorney Perez should be declared in default. In addition, the referee appropriately relied upon the allegations of the complaint, which were deemed admitted by Attorney Perez's failure to answer. Thus, we agree with the referee that the factual allegations of the OLR's complaint may be taken as true and proved by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Attorney Perez committed all of the counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint.

¶47 With respect to the appropriate discipline, upon careful review of the matter, we agree with the referee's recommendation for a nine-month suspension of Attorney Perez's license to practice law in Wisconsin. Although no two disciplinary proceedings are identical, a nine-month suspension is generally consistent with the sanction imposed in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cavendish-Sosinski, 2004 WI 30, 270 Wis. 2d 200, 676 N.W.2d 887 (attorney's license suspended for nine months for 25 counts of misconduct involving nine clients. As in this case, the attorney defaulted by not answering the complaint. As here, the attorney had no prior disciplinary history). This case is also somewhat analogous to In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hansen, 2009 WI 56, 318 Wis. 2d 1, 768 N.W.2d 1 (attorney's license suspended for nine months for 28 counts of misconduct involving four separate matters); and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nott, 2003 WI 17, 260 Wis. 2d 4, 658 N.W.2d 438 (attorney's license suspended for nine months for multiple counts of misconduct involving three clients).

¶48 We also agree with the referee's recommendation that Attorney Perez be required to pay the full costs of this proceeding. The OLR does not seek restitution, and we do not impose a restitution award.

¶49 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Ricardo Perez to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of nine months, effective the date of this order.

¶50 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Ricardo Perez shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $1,957.12 as of August 21, 2019.

¶51 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not already done so, Ricardo Perez shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended.

¶52 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all conditions with this order is required for reinstatement. See SCR 22.29(4).