1. PER CURIAM. This case is before this court under SCR 22.12 on a stipulation between the parties, Attorney Larry Farris and the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). The stipulation consists of Attorney Farris's admission of the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR and his agreement to the level of discipline that the OLR is seeking.

2. We accept the stipulation and determine that the seriousness of Attorney Farris's misconduct warrants the imposition of the recommended 60-day license suspension.

3. Attorney Farris was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin in 1973. He has no prior disciplinary history except for license suspensions in 1985 and 1990 for noncompliance with Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements.

4. A third such license suspension on June 3, 2002, is at the heart of the current proceeding. Attorney Farris sought reinstatement on July 25, 2002, from that suspension. He indicated in his petition that he had only appeared in a small claims matter during the period of suspension. Shortly thereafter during a telephone conversation with OLR personnel, he similarly did not allude to any other acts that would constitute the practice of law during his suspension. However, OLR later determined that during the period of suspension Attorney Farris had actually participated in 11 legal matters either by making a court appearance or by signing and/or filing court documents.

5. As a result of this misconduct, Attorney Farris initially entered a diversion/alternative to discipline program under SCR 22.10 on September 20, 2002, during which he was not to be practicing law. However, OLR later determined that during this program Attorney Farris had actually participated in another 12 legal matters. Attorney Farris was reinstated to the practice of law on October 6, 2003. During OLR's subsequent investigation of his prior unauthorized practice he repeatedly gave an incomplete report of its extent.

6. Attorney Farris and the OLR have stipulated that Farris committed the following misconduct.

7. First, he violated SCR 31.10(1) by engaging in the practice of law while his state bar membership was suspended for a CLE violation which, in turn, is designated misconduct under SCR 20:8.4(f).

8. Second, he violated SCR 20:8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, by failing to disclose in his July 2002 petition for reinstatement the exact extent of his prior unauthorized practice.

9. Third, he violated SCR 22.03(6), prohibiting a willful failure to provide information to the OLR during an investigation which, in turn, is designated misconduct under SCR 20:8.4(f).

10. The OLR submits that a 60-day suspension is appropriate. It notes there are similar cases that range between a public reprimand and a 90-day suspension. The OLR submits this case is particularly similar to In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grady, 2003 WI 144, 267 Wis. 2d 115, 671 N.W.2d 649, where a 90-day license suspension was imposed because the attorney had improperly practiced for two years. The OLR submits that a shorter suspension here is appropriate because the period of unauthorized practice was less, Attorney Farris has no prior discipline other than CLE matters, and he has been remorseful and apologetic. At the same time, the OLR submits that a suspension of some length is warranted because Attorney Farris is an experienced attorney who should have been aware of his professional obligations and because the extent of his unauthorized practice was not insignificant.

11. The parties advise the court that the terms of this stipulation were not bargained for or negotiated between the parties. Attorney Farris admits the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR and agrees to the level of discipline that the OLR seeks. There is no indication that he does not fully understand the misconduct allegations, the ramifications should the court impose the stipulated level of discipline, his right to contest the matter including consultation with retained counsel, and that his entry into this stipulation is knowing and voluntary.

14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Larry Farris comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended.