¶12 In mid-April 2014, N.W. retained Attorney Alfredson to represent him in a custody and paternity matter. This matter arose after a domestic incident occurred between N.W. and the mother of his children, D.N. As a result of the incident, N.W. was taken into custody. D.N. moved to the State of Oregon with the children.

¶13 D.N. filed for, and obtained, a restraining order against N.W. After being served with the restraining order, N.W. entered into a retainer contract with Attorney Alfredson, which provided that she would represent him on custody and placement issues for an advanced fee of $1,500. N.W. also entered into a fee agreement with Attorney Alfredson, which provided that the advanced fee would be placed into Attorney Alfredson's business account. N.W.'s mother made an initial payment of $400 by credit card, which was deposited into Attorney Alfredson's business account. The remaining $1,100 of the advanced fee was later paid to Attorney Alfredson and deposited into her business account.

¶14 Attorney Alfredson drafted court papers, including a petition for custody, placement, and child support, but did not file the paperwork in a Wisconsin circuit court until almost three months later, in July 2014. Attorney Alfredson told the OLR that she delayed filing the paperwork because she did not know where to serve D.N.

¶15 Attorney Alfredson and N.W. never discussed the delay in filing the legal action. Had Attorney Alfredson told N.W. that she did not know where to serve D.N., N.W. would have provided Attorney Alfredson with an address at which he had recently and successfully served D.N. in a different legal matter. In addition, both N.W. and Attorney Alfredson were aware of D.N.'s address in Oregon because it was included on the restraining order that had been served upon N.W.

¶16 After filing the petition for custody, placement, and child support, Attorney Alfredson made no effort to obtain service on D.N. Nevertheless, she claimed that a process server in Oregon had twice attempted to obtain service on D.N., and she billed N.W. $75 for a service fee in August 2014. In a letter to the OLR, Attorney Alfredson claimed that "service was not delayed" until August 2014; rather, that was "simply when the bill was paid." In a subsequent letter to the OLR, Attorney Alfredson stated that she never received a bill from a process server and that she was unable to provide proof of attempted service.

¶17 In late August 2014, N.W. requested that Attorney Alfredson refund the full advanced fee of $1,500. Attorney Alfredson responded that she was unable to return the fee and that "monies have to be transferred from the trust account (where your retainer sits) and a grace period is required to be waited." This statement was false, as the funds had been deposited into Attorney Alfredson's business account.

¶18 On August 28, 2015, Attorney Alfredson sent a letter to N.W. stating that she was terminating her representation of N.W. and closing her file. She did not include in the closing letter any information about the ability to contest the fee.

¶19 During the course of the OLR's investigation, Attorney Alfredson told the OLR in an email that N.W. "never contested" his bill, even though she had sent him "a letter upon closing that stated that he had 30 days to let me know if he contested his bill, per the terms of our retainer agreement." This statement was false, as Attorney Alfredson did not include in the closing letter any information about N.W.'s ability to contest the fee. Moreover, far from having "never contested" his bill, as Attorney Alfredson claimed, N.W. had requested a full refund of the $1,500 advanced fee. Although Attorney Alfredson acknowledged to the OLR during the course of its investigation that N.W. is entitled to some sort of refund, Attorney Alfredson has not refunded any portion of the $1,500 fee to N.W.

¶20 In early September 2014, N.W. asked a different attorney to take over his case in place of Attorney Alfredson. On September 9, 2014, successor counsel sent Attorney Alfredson a Consent and Order for Substitution of Attorneys. On September 14, 2014, N.W. sent Attorney Alfredson an email asking her to "sign off on my case." Attorney Alfredson replied to N.W.'s email by stating that she had received the Consent and Order for Substitution of Attorneys on September 11, 2014, and that she had "turned it in" on September 12, 2014. However, Attorney Alfredson did not file the Consent and Order for Substitution of Attorneys until October 9, 2014. Her signature on the document was dated September 8, 2014——a day before successor counsel sent her the document and three days before she received the document.

¶22 Attorney Alfredson practiced as Alfredson Law Offices for just over two years, from mid-November 2013 through late January 2016. Attorney Alfredson was the only attorney affiliated with that firm. Attorney Alfredson maintained a trust account at U.S. Bank.

¶23 During the time that she operated Alfredson Law Offices, Attorney Alfredson represented L.Z. in a divorce matter. L.Z. removed and partially spent about $5,000 from the couple's joint bank account. The circuit court ordered L.Z. to provide an accounting of the money that had been spent, pay $1,000 to the opposing counsel for attorney fees, and deposit the balance of the money in Attorney Alfredson's trust account. Notwithstanding this court order, no funds related to L.Z.'s case were ever deposited in Attorney Alfredson's trust account.

¶24 The opposing counsel in the matter repeatedly tried to contact Attorney Alfredson to determine the status of the accounting and the payment of his $1,000 fee award. Attorney Alfredson did not respond to the opposing counsel's inquiries.

¶25 At a subsequent court hearing, Attorney Alfredson told the opposing counsel that her trust account contained $900 of the funds at issue, which she would in turn forward to him in partial payment of his fee award. This statement was false; Attorney Alfredson had no funds relating to L.Z. in her trust account, and the balance in the account was $11.49.

¶26 Approximately two months after making this statement, Attorney Alfredson disbursed a $900 check from her trust account to opposing counsel, even though there were no funds relating to L.Z. in her trust account and the balance in the trust account at that time was $1.29. The check cleared several days later, after Attorney Alfredson deposited a $284 check from the State Public Defender's Office for earned legal fees to the trust account, as well as $640 in cash.

¶27 Several other trust account discrepancies are at issue in this disciplinary proceeding. Between September 5, 2014, and April 3, 2015, Attorney Alfredson deposited six checks totaling $1,698.29 to her trust account that consisted of earned fees or other funds belonging to her. Between September 5, 2014, and April 15, 2015, Attorney Alfredson made six disbursements totaling $1,783 from her trust account for personal purposes; she wrote one trust account check for her law office rent, and five trust account checks to family members (her father, brother-in- law, and husband). Starting on April 2, 2015, Attorney Alfredson's trust account was overdrawn. Attorney Alfredson did not attempt to rectify the deficit in her trust account. The account had a negative balance of $309.71 until June 3, 2015, when the bank charged off the negative balance and closed the trust account.

¶28 In addition, between September 2014 and April 2015, Attorney Alfredson made seven internet deposits to her trust account via her cell phone, totaling $1,733.29.

¶29 Finally, Attorney Alfredson failed to timely cooperate with the OLR's investigation of the above-described trust account discrepancies. She either failed to respond to the OLR's inquiries, or when she did respond, she provided incomplete or contradictory information.

¶31 The parties' stipulation provides that Attorney Alfredson does not contest the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR or the discipline that the OLR is seeking. The stipulation further provides that Attorney Alfredson fully understands the misconduct allegations against her, her right to contest those allegations, and the ramifications that would follow from this court's imposition of the stipulated level of discipline. The stipulation further provides that Attorney Alfredson understands her right to counsel, that she is entering into the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily, and that her entry into the stipulation represents her admission of the misconduct described above. Attorney Alfredson agrees in the stipulation that it would be appropriate for this court to impose a 60-day suspension of her license to practice law in Wisconsin. Attorney Alfredson further agrees that a restitution award in the amount of $1,500 to N.W. and $309.71 to U.S. Bank would be appropriate.

¶32 The OLR filed a memorandum in support of the stipulation. The OLR cited several cases that it claims support its request for a 60–day suspension: In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bartz, 2015 WI 61, 362 Wis. 2d 752, 864 N.W.2d 881 (60-day suspension for five counts of misconduct related to one client matter; lawyer had one prior private reprimand); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Paul, 2007 WI 11, 298 Wis. 2d 629, 726 N.W.2d 253 (60-day suspension for eight counts of misconduct related to one client matter; lawyer had no prior discipline); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bowe, 2011 WI 48, 334 Wis. 2d 360, 800 N.W.2d 367 (public reprimand for five counts of misconduct related to one client matter; lawyer had one prior private reprimand); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tishberg, 2014 WI 118, 358 Wis. 2d 483, 860 N.W.2d 263 (public reprimand for five counts of misconduct related to one client matter; lawyer had no prior discipline).

¶34 The OLR additionally notes that there are more aggravating than mitigating factors here. On the aggravating side of the ledger, the OLR notes that Attorney Alfredson engaged in dishonest conduct with selfish motives by making misrepresentations to K.H., N.W., and the OLR, each of which was designed to conceal her misconduct or delay refunding unearned fees. The OLR also notes that Attorney Alfredson engaged in a pattern of inappropriate behavior, has expressed no remorse, and appears indifferent to making restitution, having failed to refund any portion of N.W.'s fee advance or to refund U.S. Bank for the overdrafts on her trust account. Only one factor is present on the mitigating side of the ledger: the fact that Attorney Alfredson does not have a prior disciplinary record.

¶35 The central issue for this court is whether a suspension greater than the 60-day minimum suspension is in order. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Grady, 188 Wis. 2d 98, 108-09, 523 N.W.2d 564 (1994) (explaining that generally the minimum length of a license suspension is 60 days). After careful review, we accept the stipulation and impose the jointly requested sanction of a 60-day suspension of Attorney Alfredson's Wisconsin law license, plus restitution payments of $1,500 to N.W. and $309.71 to U.S. Bank. We note that this sanction, on these facts, is modest. We also note that Attorney Alfredson has no prior disciplinary history. If she had been previously disciplined, a longer suspension would be in order. We remind Attorney Alfredson that the court may impose progressively severe sanctions when an attorney engages in repeated misconduct. We impose the sanction to which the parties stipulated with the expectation that Attorney Alfredson will not commit future misconduct subjecting her to additional discipline.

¶36 Because Attorney Alfredson entered into a comprehensive stipulation, thereby obviating the need for the appointment of a referee and a full disciplinary proceeding, we do not impose costs in this matter.

¶37 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Melinda R. Alfredson to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, effective March 15, 2017.

¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Melinda R. Alfredson shall make restitution in the amount of $1,500 to N.W. and $309.71 to U.S. Bank.

¶39 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Melinda R. Alfredson shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended.

¶41 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (concurring). I write separately to point out that this decision seems to continue a trend of this court's imposing too light discipline following the parties' entry into a stipulation. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Krogman, 2015 WI 113, 365 Wis. 2d 628, 872 N.W.2d 657 (Abrahamson, J., dissenting); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 2015 WI 111, 365 Wis. 2d 682, 872 N.W.2d 649 (Abrahamson, J., dissenting).

¶42 I am concerned that the stipulation has become a way to engage in plea (including sentencing) negotiations forbidden by this court. The court has written:

¶43 I concur rather than dissent because it is too cumbersome for the court to reject a stipulation.

¶44 I advocated for the creation of a committee to review the procedures of the OLR and recommend changes. A majority of the justices finally created such a committee. I would hope that the Office of Lawyer Regulation Procedure Review Committee studies both plea negotiations and stipulations.

¶45 Unfortunately, the Committee was formed without any input from the bench, bar, or public.

¶46 The members of the Committee are:

¶47 Unfortunately the Committee has only one public member. No charge was provided to the Committee, but it has adopted a mission statement. No time has been proposed within which the committee is to complete its work. Unfortunately, the committee has no web site and does not publicly announce its meetings or distribute its minutes widely. Fortunately, the committee has an able reporter——Attorney Marsha Mansfield of the University of Wisconsin Law School faculty.

¶48 I hope that the Committee's work will be more public and will benefit from public participation to improve the procedures for disciplining lawyers, for both the public and for lawyers.