¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a report and recommendation filed by Referee John Murphy recommending the court suspend Attorney Scott E. Hansen's license to practice law for a period of six months consecutive to his present suspension for failure to pay Wisconsin bar dues, together with the imposition of restitution, costs, and certain conditions on reinstatement. No appeal was filed so this matter is considered pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).

¶4 On April 1, 2008, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney Hansen alleging 28 counts of misconduct involving four different client matters. Attorney Hansen claims a depression disorder contributed to his misconduct. The factual allegations contained in the complaint were resolved when the referee granted the OLR's motion for a default judgment, resulting in a finding of misconduct on all counts alleged in the OLR complaint. The parties then briefed the question of the appropriate sanction for the misconduct.

¶5 The OLR complaint alleged and the referee found that in May 2006 R.V. retained Attorney Hansen to represent him regarding an anticipated criminal summons. R.V. paid an advance fee of $1,000. In November 2006, after R.V. received the summons, he tried to contact Attorney Hansen regarding his initial appearance set for December 28, 2006. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to make contact with Attorney Hansen, R.V. reached him the second week in December. Attorney Hansen agreed to make an appearance on December 28, 2006. However, Attorney Hansen failed to appear for the hearing. The court rescheduled the initial appearance to February 1, 2007, and ordered R.V. to obtain new counsel. R.V. had no further contact with Attorney Hansen. R.V. filed a grievance with the OLR noting that he had to withdraw money from his IRA in order to hire a new lawyer.

¶8 The OLR complaint also alleged and the referee found that in January 2006 W.G. was convicted and incarcerated for felony crimes against a child. W.G.'s stepfather hired Attorney Hansen to represent W.G. on appeal and paid Attorney Hansen an advance fee of $5,000. In March 2006 Attorney Hansen met with W.G. in prison. Following the meeting, Attorney Hansen failed to file an entry of appearance, failed to secure a requested transcript, and failed to file any motion on behalf of W.G. Multiple attempts by W.G. and his stepfather to contact Attorney Hansen were unsuccessful. After the prison visit Attorney Hansen had no further contact with either W.G. or his stepfather. The $5,000 has never been returned.

¶10 The OLR complaint alleged and the referee found that in November 1990 R.P. was convicted of a number of serious felonies, including first-degree intentional homicide. He was sentenced to prison. R.P. filed a number of unsuccessful pro se motions and appeals of his convictions. In August 2005 R.P.'s wife, Robin P., retained Hansen to represent R.P. A fee of $2,500 was paid to Attorney Hansen.

¶11 R.P. asked Attorney Hansen to order a transcript from a March 2005 motion hearing. Attorney Hansen did not order the transcript. Attorney Hansen entered his notice of retainer with the court of appeals on October 14, 2005, and successfully obtained a briefing extension. However, he did not ever file the brief or appendix. He then failed to comply with the court of appeals' order to file a brief and missed a subsequent filing deadline imposed by the court of appeals. On January 12, 2006, one of R.P.'s two appeals was dismissed. On the second appeal, Attorney Hansen filed a statement on transcript but then failed to file the brief and appendix despite several extensions. Eventually, in August 2006, R.P. asked the court of appeals to discharge Attorney Hansen as his attorney and to allow R.P. to proceed pro se. By order dated September 26, 2006, the court discharged Attorney Hansen and ordered him to return R.P.'s papers, property, and any fee advance not yet earned by Attorney Hansen. Attorney Hansen eventually returned the files, although R.P. disputes whether all materials provided to Attorney Hansen were returned. Attorney Hansen did not return any portion of the advance fee.

¶12 Attorney Hansen then failed to respond to OLR's requests for information regarding his representation of R.P. Finally, on June 26, 2007, Attorney Hansen sent a fax to this court indicating that a "medical condition" prevented him from responding to the OLR requests. Attorney Hansen filed his response to R.P.'s complaints on September 24, 2007. By this time, the $2,500 had been returned to R.P. by payment from the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection.

¶14 The OLR complaint alleged and the referee found that on June 6, 2006, Attorney Hansen entered an appearance on behalf of C.E. in a criminal traffic matter. The initial appearance was handled by the filing of a written plea of not guilty. Attorney Hansen appeared on behalf of C.E. at the pretrial conference and appeared for a no- contest plea on September 25, 2006. The matter was set for sentencing on November 17, 2006. Attorney Hansen failed to appear at the sentencing hearing. The matter was reset for January 25, 2007. Attorney Hansen again failed to appear. Attorney Hansen failed to advise either the court or his client that he would not be appearing at these hearings. C.E. requested a new attorney.

¶15 Attorney Hansen then failed to respond in a timely fashion to OLR inquiries. He requested an extension of time to respond and did not respond until September 24, 2007, following an order from this court.

¶17 As noted, the referee considered the appropriate sanction for Attorney Hansen's misconduct. The OLR filed a detailed brief in proceedings before the referee on August 15, 2008. The OLR indicated it considered Attorney Hansen's depression a mitigating factor, but noted that there was insufficient medical evidence submitted in this proceeding to substantiate the scope of his condition. The OLR observed that progressive discipline was warranted because of Attorney Hansen's disciplinary history. It noted that sanctions in other cases ranged from revocation to a six-month suspension for comparable misconduct. The OLR noted further that Attorney Hansen's failure to return unearned fees and his failure to cooperate with the OLR were aggravating factors not easily attributable to depression. The OLR eventually recommended a one-year suspension of Attorney Hansen's license, citing several cases in support of this recommendation. The OLR specifically cited three cases involving lawyers with health or depression issues. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cavendish-Sosinski, 2004 WI 30, 270 Wis. 2d 200, 676 N.W.2d 887; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Shindell, 2002 WI 133, 258 Wis. 2d 63, 654 N.W.2d 844; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cotten, 2002 WI 112, 256 Wis. 2d 1, 650 N.W.2d 551.

¶18 The OLR explicitly asserted that a six-month suspension seemed "inadequate" "given the multiplicity of counts, the vulnerability of [Attorney] Hansen's clients and the need to protect the public from attorneys incapable of providing competent and diligent legal representation." The OLR noted further that "aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors" in this case.

¶19 In his report, the referee acknowledged that there was no independent corroboration for Attorney Hansen's claim that he has suffered from depression since 1994. Attorney Hansen did file a letter from a nurse that states that he has had a "major depressive disorder" for the past "several years."

¶21 The referee then recommended a six- month suspension of Attorney Hansen's license describing his depression as "a partial mitigating factor." The referee also recommended this court order Attorney Hansen to make restitution to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in the amount of $1,000 for the R.V. matter, $2,500 in the R.P. matter, as well as restitution in the amount of $5,000 to M.H. and W.G., and $1,500 to client C.E. The referee agreed with the OLR's assertion that a professional competence assessment should be a "critical prerequisite" to reinstatement. The referee rejected Attorney Hansen's request to select his own consultant to submit this assessment, but agreed that Attorney Hansen should be able to submit an "alternative report" at his own expense. Finally, the referee rejected Attorney Hansen's request that the fees and costs of this proceeding be waived. As of October 22, 2008, the costs of this proceeding total $2,412.53.

¶23 Accordingly, on December 22, 2008, this court issued an order directing the parties to explain why a one-year suspension was not more appropriate discipline in this matter.

¶24 The OLR submitted a written response reiterating its opinion that a one-year suspension is more appropriate on these facts. Attorney Hansen filed a pro se written response asking this court to defer to the referee's recommendation. He asserts that it is significant that the referee, who had the opportunity to observe the respondent's acceptance of responsibility and sincerity, recommended a shorter suspension. He reminds the court that the OLR did not appeal this recommendation and he provides examples of cases in which the court imposed less stringent sanctions for comparable conduct. See, In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Guenther, 2005 WI 133, 285 Wis. 2d 587, 700 N.W.2d 260 (nine-month suspension), and In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Jones, 2008 WI 53, 309 Wis. 2d 585, 749 N.W.2d 603 (four-month suspension). He also provided the court with a personal statement regarding the proposed discipline in which he expressed sincere remorse for his misconduct and its effect upon his clients.

¶25 After having independently reviewed the record we adopt the referee's findings of fact. We also agree with the referee that those factual findings demonstrate that Attorney Hansen committed each of the 28 counts of professional misconduct alleged in the complaint. With respect to the discipline to be imposed, we determine the appropriate level of discipline given the particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's recommendation, but benefiting from it. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. After careful consideration of the report and recommendation, the record in this matter, and the written statements of the parties, we accept the referee's recommendation regarding restitution, costs, and conditions on reinstatement. However, while we recognize that depression apparently played a role in Attorney Hansen's misconduct, we conclude that a six-month suspension is inadequate in light of the pervasive misconduct that affected four clients. We have determined that a nine-month suspension is necessary to address Attorney Hansen's misconduct in this matter.

¶26 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Scott E. Hansen to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of nine months, effective the date of this order.

¶27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order Scott E. Hansen shall make restitution to the State Bar of Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in the amount of $1,000 for the R.V. matter and in the amount of $2,500 for the R.P. matter, and he shall further make restitution of $5,000 to M.H. and W.G. and $1,500 to C.E. If the restitution is not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay restitution within that time, the license of Scott E. Hansen to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the court.

¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Scott E. Hansen shall undergo a medical evaluation by a medical professional selected by the Office of Lawyer Regulation and a copy of that evaluation shall be provided to the Office of Lawyer Regulation as a condition for reinstatement, with the understanding that Scott E. Hansen may also submit an evaluation performed by a medical professional of his choice. If this condition is not met, the license of Scott E. Hansen to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of this court.

¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Scott E. Hansen shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. If the costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay those costs within that time, the license of Scott E. Hansen to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the court.

¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution to the State Bar of Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection and the restitution to M.H. and W.G. and to C.E. are to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer Regulation.