¶15 Count 1 of the OLR complaint alleged that by failing to communicate with S.H. between May and December of 2007, Attorney Hammis violated former SCR 20:1.4(a) and current SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4).

¶17 Count 2 alleged that Attorney Hammis violated SCR 22.03(2), made actionable via SCR 20:8.4(h), by his failure to respond to numerous requests for information from the OLR. Attorney Hammis conceded the ethical violations described in Count 2.

¶18 Count 3 alleged that Attorney Hammis violated former and current SCR 20:1.16(d) by failing to provide S.H. with a copy of his file upon request or take appropriate steps after termination of his representation. The referee noted that on May 2, 2007, S.H. specifically requested that Attorney Hammis forward all transcripts and revocation materials to S.H. Attorney Hammis testified that S.H. already had his entire file. However, the referee noted that nothing in the record indicated that Attorney Hammis advised S.H. or the OLR that he believed S.H. already had his entire file. Therefore, whether or not S.H. had his entire file, S.H. was left with the impression that Attorney Hammis had failed to provide him with documents he thought he needed to pursue his sentence credit issue.

¶21 Turning to the allegations related to practicing law while under suspension, the OLR complaint alleged in Count 5 that by failing to comply with CLE attendance requirements, and for appearing in court on behalf of several clients after he knew his license had been suspended for failing to comply with CLE requirements, Attorney Hammis violated SCR 31.10(1), made actionable by former SCR 20:8.4(f).

¶23 Count 6 of the complaint alleged that Attorney Hammis lied to Judge Koschnick on June 8, 2007, about his suspension status and proceeded to appear before his court while suspended in violation of former SCR 20:3.3(a)(l). Attorney Hammis repeatedly argued that he did not mislead Judge Koschnick regarding his suspension status. Attorney Hammis testified, "I looked right in his eyes and I said It's being taken care of today, Judge, exactly into his eyes and he said it better be, and then he let me go back to the desk."

¶24 The referee observed that this statement implied that Judge Koschnick was willing to bend the rules with Attorney Hammis after realizing Attorney Hammis was suspended. The referee explicitly found Attorney Hammis' testimony in this regard was "untruthful." The referee noted, further, that Attorney Hammis' claims were inconsistent with his later testimony at the hearing. There, Attorney Hammis admitted that at the time of the plea hearing, he knew he was not authorized to practice law. Attorney Hammis was asked, "Knowing that you were suspended when you appeared in his court, why did you go ahead at that point and make that appearance?" Attorney Hammis replied, "I wanted the client to be on probation as soon as possible. I knew that I was going to have it resolved that day or thought in my mind I would have it resolved that day, and I made a really bad mistake." The referee thus found that Attorney Hammis appeared before Judge Koschnick knowing he was suspended. The referee observed:

The referee noted further that:

¶27 With respect to Count 9, the OLR alleged that Attorney Hammis failed to respond to the OLR's multiple requests for information about the pending grievances. The referee concluded that by failing to provide a written response to grievance matters until January 7, 2008, after three requests for a written response, and after this court ordered him to show cause why his law license should not be suspended for his failure to cooperate with OLR's investigations, Attorney Hammis violated SCR 22.03(2) as actionable via SCR 20:8.4(h). Attorney Hammis does not appeal this conclusion.

¶28 The OLR complaint also alleged four counts of misconduct relating to Attorney Hammis' representation of V.T. Two allegations involve failure to refund unearned fees and failure to respond to the OLR. Attorney Hammis conceded the misconduct in these two counts (Counts 12 and 13). Attorney Hammis contested the other two counts relating to his representation of V.T.

¶29 V.T. hired Attorney Hammis in July of 2007 to represent him in an action against the Rock River Leisure Estates and T.M. and C.M., residents of Rock River, for their alleged failure to abide by homeowner rules and regulations. Attorney Hammis conducted some initial discovery. In October of 2007 and January of 2008 Attorney Hammis prepared draft complaints in this matter, but it is undisputed that between October 2007 and March 2008 Attorney Hammis never filed the complaint, despite continued urging by V.T. On March 11, 2008, V.T. fired Attorney Hammis.

¶32 OLR does appeal the referee's recommendation to dismiss Count 11. There, the OLR alleged that by failing to pursue V.T.'s case for a period of over seven months from the time he was hired in July 2007 to the time of his discharge in March 2008, Attorney Hammis failed to proceed with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of SCR 20:1.3. The OLR asserts that the referee's analysis regarding Count 11 is clearly erroneous. After careful consideration, we disagree and accept the referee's recommendation to dismiss Count 11.

¶33 Attorney Hammis and V.T. exchanged a number of e-mails about the strategy and timing of a cease and desist letter and the drafting and filing of a separate summons and complaint. On September 7, 2007, V.T. and Attorney Hammis decided to file a complaint. The record demonstrates that over the following months V.T. asked, with increasing frustration, about the status of the complaint and Attorney Hammis responded with excuses for the continuing delay and promises of action that did not materialize. Attorney Hammis and V.T. exchanged messages on September 7, 2007, September 26, 2007, October 2, 2007, and October 16, 2007, and on October 20, 2007, V.T. still had "yet to see the draft." Three days later, V.T. again asked about the status of the complaint. On October 28, 2007, Attorney Hammis made excuses for another delay. After some further inquiries V.T. complained on November 1, 2007, that "getting anything substantive is getting to be painful." On November 7, 2007, Attorney Hammis told V.T. he would file the complaint "tomorrow." On November 19 V.T. again asked Attorney Hammis about the status. By December 4, 2007, V.T., in frustration, claimed communication appears to be nonexistent and requested a refund of his deposit. On December 23, 2007, he inquired, "STATUS?????" By December 28, 2007, Attorney Hammis claimed he had the complaint and it was drafted against both parties. In V.T.'s letter to Attorney Hammis of March 11, 2008, he referred to Attorney Hammis' "empty promises" and all of the delays over the past six months. He asked for the return of his $2,000 deposit. Ultimately, V.T. filed a grievance regarding this matter.

¶34 The referee and the OLR view this situation differently. The referee acknowledges that Attorney Hammis' "conduct may have been unproductive to resolving [V.T.'s] case" and that "he did not prioritize [the] case," but ultimately concludes that such conduct does not rise to the level of a violation of SCR 20:1.3. The referee explains:

Therefore, the referee concluded the OLR failed to demonstrate with clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that Attorney Hammis violated SCR 20:1.3 and recommended dismissal of the charge.

¶35 The OLR contends this analysis is clearly erroneous. According to the OLR, Attorney Hammis' responses to V.T.'s e- mails "only prolonged the client's frustration." The OLR explains:

¶37 Finally, in Count 13, the OLR alleged and the referee agreed that by failing to refund V.T.'s unearned fee for four months following the March 11, 2008, letter terminating his services, Attorney Hammis failed to timely refund an unearned fee upon termination of representation in violation of SCR 20:1.16(d). No appeal from this recommendation was filed.

¶39 Consideration of the appropriate discipline requires evaluating the following factors: (1) the seriousness, nature, and extent of the misconduct; (2) the level of discipline needed to protect the public, the courts, and the legal system from repetition of the attorney's misconduct; (3) the need to impress upon the attorney the seriousness of the misconduct; and (4) the need to deter other attorneys from committing similar misconduct. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. As is frequently the case, sanctions for misconduct can vary depending on the precise nature of the facts and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances specific to the case.

¶40 Attorney Hammis seeks a 60-day suspension. He explains that he violated the supreme court rules during a period of stress and disruption in his solo practice, that he maintains the confidence and trust of his current clients, that the recommended four-month suspension is not consistent with this court's preference for progressive discipline, and asserts that a 60-day suspension would be more consistent with recent disciplinary decisions of this court.

¶41 Attorney Hammis' appellate brief provides context for the misconduct. He explains that during 2007, when he committed the bulk of the rule violations, two things happened: (1) his assignment as a receiver for a company in northern Wisconsin ballooned from a two-day-per-week obligation to more than full-time; and (2) his partnership with another lawyer abruptly ended when she cleaned out their offices overnight, leaving him to find new office space and reorganize his cases. Basically, he states that he "made a serious error: he tried to do too much; he tried to maintain his commitments to his Public Defender clients and to his private clients." Attorney Hammis provides positive testimonials from several clients and argues that a 60-day sanction will permit him to "still maintain his practice" while a "penalty of four months would make it virtually impossible for him to do so without essentially starting his practice over."

¶42 The OLR, however, responds that stress is not a mitigating factor in imposing discipline. Indeed, the OLR asserts that the only mitigating factor as to sanction is the absence of any prior disciplinary record. OLR emphasizes the pattern of deceit reflected in Attorney Hammis' decisions and urges a six-month suspension.

¶43 We consider appropriate discipline de novo but we are guided by the referee's thoughtful consideration and recommendations. The referee stated:

The referee was thus of the opinion that Attorney Hammis had shown a repeated willingness to lie to satisfy his own interests or what he perceived as the prevailing interest. She states:

In light of the record before us and the referee's observations, we agree with the referee and the OLR that the 60-day suspension sought by Attorney Hammis is simply inadequate, particularly in light of the unacceptable pattern of lying and deceit committed by Attorney Hammis.

¶45 Attorney Hammis concedes he committed these ethical violations at a time of significant disruption to his legal practice, while overextended professionally and trying to maintain his practice during the break-up of his legal partnership. He acknowledges he "made a serious error: he tried to do too much." Many of his ethical infractions such as failing to timely maintain compliance with CLE credits and billing anomalies, suggest office management issues. We conclude that our goal of protecting the public from similar misconduct would be served by imposing certain conditions on Attorney Hammis' license to practice law and seeking to ensure better case handling practices in the future. We direct him to successfully complete a law office management class approved by the OLR, such as the State Bar of Wisconsin's Law Office Management Program, within six months of the date of this order. Finally, we accept the referee's recommendation that we impose the full costs of this proceeding on Attorney Hammis.

¶46 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James E. Hammis to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of four months, effective March 1, 2011.

¶47 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within six months of the date of this order James E. Hammis shall complete an OLR-approved office management course. If James E. Hammis fails to comply with this condition absent a showing of his inability to do so, James E. Hammis' license to practice law in Wisconsin may be suspended until further order of the court.

¶48 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order James E. Hammis pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which total $16,526.73 as of September 28, 2010. If costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing of his inability to pay, James E. Hammis' license to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the court.