¶11 Counts Fourteen and Fifteen allege two instances of violating former SCRs 20:8.4 (f) and 22.03(2) and (6). They allege that by failing to respond to multiple letters from the OLR requesting information regarding real estate proceeds with respect to Attorney Gedlen's own divorce, and by altering six trust account stubs he provided to the OLR during an investigation to obscure information on those stubs, Attorney Gedlen willfully failed to provide relevant information in the course of an investigation and made misrepresentations. Count Sixteen states that Attorney Gedlen engaged in conduct involving dishonesty contrary to former SCR 20:8.4(c) by altering the six trust account check stubs to obscure them.

¶12 Next, Counts Seventeen through Twenty-five relate to client G.K., who retained Attorney Gedlen to represent him in divorce proceedings. On November 17, 2003, Attorney Gedlen deposited $66,093.97 into his trust account, constituting G.K.'s portion of the family home sale proceeds. On December 2, 2003, before disbursing a check totaling $72,547.65 to another client, Attorney Gedlen's trust account balance was $125,310.45. Following the $72,547.65 disbursement, the trust account balance was reduced to $52,762.80. By making this other client's disbursement, Attorney Gedlen improperly utilized funds belonging to G.K. Between December 2, 2003, and April 30, 2004, Attorney Gedlen disbursed 30 checks totaling $15,270.37 to either himself or his law firm from funds in trust attributable to G.K. By April 21, 2004, Attorney Gedlen converted all, or virtually all, of G.K.'s funds for his own purposes and his trust account balance fell to $145.37.

¶16 Count Twenty-three alleges that by misrepresenting to G.K. the reason for his failure to make timely payment to G.K., Attorney Gedlen engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation in violation of former SCR 20:8.4(c). Count Twenty-four charges that by misrepresenting to the OLR that G.K.'s funds had always been held in trust, Attorney Gedlen violated former SCRs 20:8.4 (f) and 22.03(2) and (6). Count Twenty-five states that by failing to respond to multiple letters from the OLR requesting a response to the G.K. grievance, Attorney Gedlen willfully failed to provide relevant information and answer questions during the course of an investigation, contrary to former SCRs 20:8.4(f) and 22.03(2) and (6).

¶17 Counts Twenty-six through Twenty- eight involve client A.G., who retained Attorney Gedlen in May 2004 to represent him in a divorce action. A.G. paid Attorney Gedlen a $2000 retainer. In January 2005 A.G. received an invoice from Attorney Gedlen indicating a credit balance of $200 and $600 owing for future services. A.G. paid the $600 and requested an itemized bill. Attorney Gedlen failed to provide an itemized bill.

¶19 Count Twenty-six alleges that by converting for his own purposes A.G.'s advance fee, Attorney Gedlen engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation contrary to former SCR 20:8.4(c). Count Twenty-seven states that by failing to deposit the advance fee into his trust account, Attorney Gedlen failed to hold his client's property in trust separate from his own property, contrary to former SCR 20:1.15(a) (effective through June 30, 2004). Count Twenty-eight alleges that by failing to respond to the OLR's letters between November 22, 2005, and January 3, 2006, requesting a response regarding the A.G. grievance, Attorney Gedlen willfully failed to provide relevant information and answer questions in the course of the investigation as required by former SCRs 20:8.4(f) and 22.03(2) and (6).

¶22 It is this court’s responsibility to determine the appropriate discipline. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Reitz, 2005 WI 39, ¶74, 279 Wis. 2d 550, 694 N.W.2d 894. This court considers the seriousness of the misconduct, the need to protect the public, courts and the legal system from repetition of misconduct, the need to impress upon the attorney the seriousness of the misconduct, and the need to deter other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 634 N.W.2d 910. This court agrees with the referee that the seriousness of Attorney Gedlen's misconduct warrants the revocation of his license to practice law. We conclude that Attorney Gedlen should be responsible for the costs the OLR incurred in this disciplinary proceeding. The sum of $4005.82 costs are imposed against Attorney Gedlen. We further conclude that as a condition of reinstatement Attorney Gedlen is required to demonstrate that restitution is not owed.

¶23 IT IS ORDERED that the license of James M. Gedlen to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this opinion. It is a condition of reinstatement that James M. Gedlen is required to demonstrate that restitution is not owed.

¶24 IT IS ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this opinion James M. Gedlen pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding in the sum of $4005.82. 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 James M. Gedlen will remain revoked until further order of the court.

¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not done so, James M. Gedlen comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.