¶17 On June 23, 2015, this court ordered the parties to show cause why a suspension of Attorney Spangler's license, rather than a public reprimand, should not be imposed. The OLR filed a response on July 6, 2015. On August 6, 2015, this court granted Attorney Spangler's motion for an extension of time to file a response. On August 26, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to remand the matter to the referee for additional findings. The motion averred that counsel for Attorney Spangler had informed the OLR that they had received additional documents from counsel for Attorney Spangler's former law firm revealing an additional possible violation of Wisconsin supreme court rules that was substantially the same in nature as the violation involved in the pending action and occurring during roughly the same time frame as the conduct at issue in the pending proceeding. The parties agreed that the new information would be best processed in conjunction with and in the context of the existing disciplinary proceeding. The OLR said it was likely that the new information would result in a supplemental or amended stipulation and in the referee supplementing or otherwise amending his report. This court granted the motion for remand to the referee on September 10, 2015.

¶18 On March 7, 2016, the parties filed an additional stipulation which set forth three additional counts of professional misconduct arising out of Attorney Spangler's representation of F.B. The stipulation stated that between September 2003 and February 2011, Attorney Spangler was employed as an attorney by the law firm of Weld, Riley, Prenn & Ricci, S.C. [Weld Riley] in Eau Claire and practiced in the areas of transactional work, real estate work, and some estate planning work.

¶19 The stipulation stated that in December 2006, F.B. sent Attorney Spangler a letter saying that he owned 50% of a Wisconsin limited liability company, that his partner and another person were trying to force him out, and that he would like to file suit for breach of contract.

¶20 The stipulation stated that on or about January 5, 2007, an attorney of the Weld Riley law firm met with F.B. to discuss representing him in regard to the business dispute. On or about January 11, 2007, the Weld Riley attorney sent F.B. an engagement letter saying that the attorney and Attorney Spangler would be the principal attorneys assigned to the case.

¶21 On January 22, 2007, Attorney Spangler sent a draft complaint to F.B. Attorney Spangler was also in communication with the attorney representing F.B.'s business partners in an attempt to negotiate a resolution to the dispute. During the first half of 2007, letters exchanged between Attorney Spangler and counsel for the other side did not result in a settlement of the disputed issues. On April 16, 2007, the attorney for F.B.'s business partner sent Attorney Spangler a settlement offer in the amount of $30,000. Attorney Spangler transmitted that offer to F.B., but the offer was not acceptable to F.B. and he rejected it.

¶22 On May 19, 2007, Attorney Spangler sent an internal memorandum to the head of litigation at Weld Riley, noting that the F.B. matter was "a somewhat complicated business divorce" that was "now ripe for litigation." Attorney Spangler asked "if someone would be able to handle litigation on this matter" for him. The stipulation avers that Attorney Spangler never wanted to handle litigation, did not know what he was doing with litigation, and was reaching out to request that one of his litigation colleagues handle the matter.

¶23 Attorney Spangler provided a copy of a draft complaint to one of the litigation associates at Weld Riley for review. In July 2007, a draft complaint, summons, and letter transmitting the complaint to the Eau Claire County circuit court clerk were prepared bearing signature lines for the litigation associate's signature. The documents were never sent or filed with the court. On August 14, 2007, Attorney Spangler emailed F.B. saying he had received a voice mail message from F.B. and that he and his litigation colleague were "finalizing a summons and complaint which we can file assuming the liquidation took place as we believe it did." On August 22, 2007, F.B. sent Attorney Spangler an email giving him a "green light" on drafting the summons and complaint.

¶24 Attorney Spangler subsequently sent F.B. a draft complaint for his review. The complaint was revised several times until F.B. was satisfied with it. Attorney Spangler fabricated a purported letter of transmittal on Weld Riley law firm letterhead addressed to the Eau Claire County clerk of circuit court stating that an original and three copies of a summons and complaint, along with a check in the amount of $256 in payment of the filing fee, were enclosed. The purported letter was never sent to the clerk of court, but it was sent to F.B. The letter was created by Attorney Spangler for the sole purpose of misleading F.B. into believing Attorney Spangler was sending the complaint with a summons to the clerk of court commencing a lawsuit on F.B.'s behalf. Attorney Spangler printed across the top of each of the eight pages of the complaint "cv-1105200704 Monday, November 05, 2007 10:21 EAU CLAIRE COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS" to make it appear that such complaint had in fact been filed in the Eau Claire County clerk of courts' office. On the first page of the complaint, Attorney Spangler affixed a partial ink stamp saying "RECEIVED NOV 05." The complaint was never sent to or filed with the Eau Claire County clerk of court.

¶25 Attorney Spangler provided a copy of the transmittal letter and complaint to F.B. F.B. reasonably believed the documents to be an authentic filing with the Eau Claire County circuit court when, in fact, the documents had been fabricated and created only to deceive F.B.

¶26 Over the course of approximately five years, Attorney Spangler continued the ruse, repeatedly making false representations to F.B. about developments, events, and occurrences as the non-existing case supposedly progressed. Among the reasons that Attorney Spangler told F.B. the case was moving slowly were the outcome of a supposed summary judgment motion that Attorney Spangler told F.B. he had filed and a forthcoming opinion that Attorney Spangler told F.B. the Wisconsin supreme court was expected to issue in a case with issues relevant to issues in F.B.'s supposed case.

¶27 When Attorney Spangler left the Weld Riley law firm in early 2011 and joined with other attorneys in establishing a new law firm, F.B. continued as Attorney Spangler's client. Attorney Spangler's deception of F.B. ultimately included the creation of a false settlement, fabrication of a release, and Attorney Spangler's use of his own money to pay F.B. $75,000. The money was falsely presented to F.B. as purportedly emanating from a settling party when in fact no such settlement existed.

¶29 The stipulation noted that Attorney Spangler's counsel forwarded four affidavits on Attorney Spangler's behalf, which were reviewed and considered by the OLR director. The affidavits included testimony from two character witnesses who have known Attorney Spangler personally and professionally, an affidavit of Attorney Spangler's counsel regarding counsel's communications with F.B., who advised Attorney Spangler's counsel that he was satisfied with the $75,000 he received from Attorney Spangler as a settlement for the lawsuit that was never brought, and an affidavit of Attorney Spangler in which he notes the professional and personal cost he has borne because of his actions. The parties agreed and stipulated that a 60-day suspension of Attorney Spangler's license to practice law was an appropriate sanction for his misconduct. The parties requested the referee to approve the additional stipulation and file a supplemental or amended report and recommendation.

¶30 On March 7, 2016, the referee filed a supplemental report adopting paragraphs numbered 1-23 in the second stipulation as additional findings of fact and adopting as conclusions of law paragraphs 24a-24c of the second stipulation.

¶31 The referee agreed with the parties that a 60-day suspension of Attorney Spangler's license was an appropriate sanction. While the referee agreed that Attorney Spangler clearly breached his legal duties to his clients, the legal profession, the public interest, and the rules of professional conduct, the referee noted that Attorney Spangler "has stepped forward as a responsible person by fully admitting his professional failures." The referee also noted Attorney Spangler has provided financial recompense to the satisfaction of his client. In addition, the referee said the three affidavits supplied by Attorney Spangler were further evidence of the high community respect for Attorney Spangler. The referee said:

¶33 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. The court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless 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.

¶34 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings of fact are clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we adopt them. We also agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Spangler violated the supreme court rules set forth above.

¶35 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, upon careful review of the matter, we conclude that a 60-day suspension is an inadequate sanction. Attorney Spangler's actions in the two cases at issue here are troubling. Attorney Spangler engaged in an elaborate web of deception that included creating false documents and meticulously adding fake file stamps and other notations to make them appear to be genuine. He managed to perpetuate his ruses for years, leading his clients to believe that they had live lawsuits pending when, in fact, Attorney Spangler had voluntarily dismissed F.M.'s suit and never filed F.B.'s action.

¶37 We recognize that there are a number of mitigating factors here. Attorney Spangler has no prior disciplinary history. The conduct at issue occurred between 2007 and 2011. We note that in its response to this court's order to show cause, the OLR commented that Attorney Spangler had alerted the OLR to some significant family concerns and problems and, according to Attorney Spangler, F.M. turned out to be a difficult client with whom Attorney Spangler did not feel he could be candid once he concluded F.M.'s case was not as strong as Attorney Spangler initially thought. We also note that Attorney Spangler has repeatedly expressed remorse for his misconduct and he has paid restitution to both clients. We have also reviewed the affidavits filed on Attorney Spangler's behalf and note that the affiants speak highly of him and find him to be trustworthy. Nonetheless, the seriousness of the misconduct at issue here leads us to conclude that a suspension in excess of 60 days is warranted.

¶38 Although no two disciplinary proceedings are identical, we note that on at least two prior occasions, we disciplined attorneys who falsified documents. In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fitzgerald, 2006 WI 58, 290 Wis. 2d 713, 714 N.W.2d 925, an attorney told her client that an insurance company was willing to settle her claims for a payment of some $5,000 and that the insurance company would also pay the client's medical bills when, in fact, no such offer was ever made. To perpetuate the ruse that a settlement had been made, the attorney deposited personal funds into her business account and then transferred those funds to her trust account for the purpose of using the funds to pay her client her proportionate share of the purported settlement. The attorney was suspended for 90 days. She had no prior disciplinary history.

¶39 In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mauch, 2007 WI 109, 304 Wis. 2d 541, 736 N.W.2d 141, an attorney deceived a client into believing his case had been settled and used his own funds to pay the alleged settlement. The attorney's license was suspended for 90 days. Attorney Mauch had previously been publicly reprimanded on two occasions.

¶40 Even though Attorney Spangler has no prior disciplinary history and even though we acknowledge the existence of various other mitigating factors, we conclude that the misconduct at issue here is more serious than the misconduct at issue in either Fitzgerald or Mauch and calls for a more severe sanction. The ruses in Fitzgerald and Mauch were of relatively short duration and involved only one case. By contrast, Attorney Spangler falsified documents in two cases and, over the span of years, created a whole host of documents for the sole purpose of misleading his clients into believing that their suits were pending when in fact they were not. Accordingly, we conclude that a six-month suspension of Attorney Spangler's license to practice law in Wisconsin is an appropriate sanction. A six-month suspension, which will require Attorney Spangler to file a petition for reinstatement, see SCR 22.28(3), will impress upon him the seriousness of his misconduct and deter other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct in the future. We agree with the referee that Attorney Spangler should bear the full costs of this proceeding.

¶41 IT IS ORDERED that the license of William J. Spangler to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six months, effective August 12, 2016.

¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, William J. Spangler shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $6,678.43.

¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William J. Spangler shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended.