4. Attorney Hicks formerly practiced law in Madison in association with Attorney Lauren Brown-Perry. In 1997 a client was referred to the law firm by a legal services plan. The client's case involved a prospective buyer who had backed out of an agreement to purchase real estate from the client shortly before the closing. Attorney Brown-Perry accepted the client's case and did most, if not all, of the client's legal work.

5. The client made advance payments of $1500 toward the legal fees and signed a fee agreement that provided the retainer would be applied toward hourly fees and expenses but would not be placed in a trust account. The agreement did not state an hourly rate but the legal services plan required the fee to be set at a maximum of $70 per hour. The agreement also provided the client would receive monthly billing statements.

6. The case was settled in July of 1998 with the prospective buyer and the realtor each paying the client $2000. The client was not provided with any monthly billing statements as required by the fee agreement. The client said she understood that her $1500 retainer fee covered all or nearly all of her fees, and she expected to receive a check for the full amount of the $4000 settlement.

7. At the time the two settlement checks were received, the law firm did not have a client trust account so Attorney Brown-Perry deposited the two settlement checks into the law firm's business checking account. Prior to the date the first check was deposited the account had a balance of $2439.10. In the next week 14 checks cleared the account, 10 signed by Attorney Hicks and 4 signed by Attorney Brown-Perry. The checks signed by Attorney Hicks included a late payment to the Internal Revenue Service, two checks to Attorney Brown-Perry, and three checks to Attorney Hicks personally. Five days after the client's second settlement check was deposited, the balance in the account was only $3520.21, which was less than the $4000 in settlement proceeds allegedly being held for the client. In the next two weeks numerous other checks were written on the account, several deposits were received, and the account became overdrawn. No distribution had yet been made to the client.

8. Attorney Hicks said he was advised by Attorney Brown-Perry that she would deposit the client's settlement funds into an account with the law firm. Attorney Hicks said it was his understanding that Attorney Brown-Perry intended to promptly satisfy the client's claim, but no payment was made to the client for four months after her settlement proceeds were received. In late November 1998 Attorney Hicks signed a check payable to the client in the amount of $2028. Attorney Brown-Perry mailed the check to the client indicating the settlement balance was enclosed but she provided no explanation for the deduction of $1982 from the $4000 settlement.

9. Although Attorney Brown-Perry's cover letter to the client said a billing statement was enclosed, no billing statement was in fact enclosed, nor had one been prepared. The client did not cash the check. Instead she made frequent phone calls to the law firm asking for an explanation why the check was written for less than the $4000 settlement. Attorney Hicks personally took some of the phone calls from the client inquiring about the balance of her settlement proceeds. Attorney Hicks said he advised Attorney Brown-Perry of the calls and requested that she take appropriate action.

10. In February 1999 Attorney Hicks opened a money-market savings account entitled "Hicks & Brown-Perry Law Office, [client] Account" and deposited fee payments totaling $2587 into the account. No checks were ever written on the account, and the client never received an accounting or billing statement.

11. In April 1999, while the check previously sent to the client was still outstanding, the law firm closed the business account on which the check had been written and transferred the remaining funds into a new account. A new check was not provided to the client so the check she was holding would no longer have been honored had it been presented for payment.

12. On April 14, 1999, Attorneys Hicks and Brown-Perry signed a new account authorization for removing the client's name from the account Attorney Hicks had previously opened for her and retitled the account as the law firm's IOLTA Trust Account. Attorneys Hicks and Brown-Perry reported this account as their firm's trust account to the state bar and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR).

13. The client hired a lawyer to file a small claims action against Attorney Brown-Perry to recover her settlement proceeds. The small claims case was concluded in December of 1999, more than 16 months after the law firm had received the settlement funds, with an agreement that Attorney Brown-Perry would pay the client the full amount of the settlement plus an additional $1000, for a total payment of $5000. Part of the settlement was paid out of the firm's IOLTA Trust Account. Attorney Hicks' association with Attorney Brown-Perry ended soon thereafter.

19. We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Attorney Hicks' misconduct with respect to the handling of the client's funds and the mishandling of his firm's trust account are serious failings. As discipline for the professional misconduct we impose a public reprimand. We also order Attorney Hicks to pay the costs of this proceeding, as recommended by the referee. Attorney Hicks chose to litigate the matter, and the OLR incurred costs which are appropriately assessed against Attorney Hicks.

20. IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Leo Barron Hicks be publicly reprimanded for his professional misconduct.

21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order Attorney Leo Barron Hicks shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $1644.84. If the costs are not paid within the time specified, and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of Attorney Leo Barron Hicks to practice law in Wisconsin shall be suspended until further order of the court.