¶14 The second client matter discussed in the referee's revised report involved Attorney Din's representation of E.A S., a native of Mexico who moved to the United States in 1991. He returned to Mexico for a year and returned to the U.S. illegally in 1996. He has never had permission to reside in the U.S.

¶15 E.A-S. and his spouse sought Attorney Din's assistance in adjusting E.A- S.'s status from that of an illegal alien to a permanent resident or U.S. citizen, based on his marriage. On May 26, 2010, E.A-S. entered into a fee agreement with Attorney Din by which E.A-S. agreed to pay a flat fee of $2,500 in exchange for the preparation and filing of a family-based petition. Additional fees would be required if E.A-S. sought a hardship waiver. E.A-S. paid Attorney Din the $2,500 that day.

¶16 In June of 1010, Attorney Din's paralegal contacted E.A-S.'s spouse to advise that Attorney Din did not have all the documents needed and that it was essential he obtain a copy of E.A-S.'s I-94 document. The paralegal was told that E.A- S. did not have an I-94. Soon thereafter, Attorney Din contacted E.A S. and requested additional legal fees of $3,000 due to the fact that Attorney Din would need to seek a hardship waiver on E.A S.'s behalf.

¶17 On June 29, 2010, E.A-S. and his spouse met with Attorney Din and signed a second flat fee agreement, which called for additional legal services consisting of the preparation of a hardship waiver for overstay in the United States. E.A-S. told Attorney Din he would pay $1,500 of the $3,000 fee and would pay the balance the following afternoon.

¶18 On July 2, 2010, E.A-S.'s spouse requested a full refund of the $4,000 paid to Attorney Din as of that date. Attorney Din and E.A-S.'s spouse spoke by telephone on July 2, at which time Attorney Din advised he would not refund any money to E.A- S. A request was made for copies of any paperwork Attorney Din's office had generated. Attorney Din said that by early the next week he would send E.A-S. an itemization of his work performed and an explanation as to why he was not returning any part of a fee.

¶19 On July 9, 2010, Attorney Din wrote to E.A-S. saying he had performed six hours and 50 minutes of work and that he considered the $4,000 flat fee fully earned. On July 14, 2010, E.A-S. sent Attorney Din another request asking for a full refund of fees.

¶21 The third client matter discussed in the referee's revised report involved Attorney Din's representation of F.J.C L., a native of Mexico who resided in Dane County but did not have permission to reside in the U.S. On July 17, 2009, Attorney Din and F.J.C-L. signed a fee agreement under which Attorney Din agreed to represent F.J.C-L. in filing and appearing in court for a cancellation of removal. Attorney Din asked for payment of a $6,000 advanced flat fee. F.J.C-L. paid Attorney Din $3,000 on July 17, 2009.

¶22 By mid-September 2009, F.J.C-L. had submitted to Attorney Din all the documents Attorney Din had requested of him for filing the immigration petition. On October 15, 2009, Attorney Din and F.J.C-L. signed a second fee agreement, the terms of which were essentially the same as the first one. On October 16, 2009, F.J.C-L. provided Attorney Din with a check for $1,010, which included funds for the filing fee for the immigration petition. At the time that F.J.C-L. provided the check, Attorney Din told him that the petition was ready to file.

¶23 In November of 2009, F.J.C-L. asked Attorney Din to return the $1,010 because he was short on money. He informed Attorney Din he would give him that amount back within two weeks. Attorney Din complied with F.J.C-L.'s request. In December of 2009, F.J.C-L. contacted Attorney Din to advise him that he had the $1,010 again ready for him. Attorney Din informed F.J.C- L. that he did not intend to do anything further with F.J.C-L.'s case. F.J.C-L. asked for a refund of the $3,000 in fees he had paid up to the time Attorney Din filed the petition. Attorney Din provided no evidence of doing any legal work for F.J.C- L. Ultimately, Attorney Din told F.J.C-L. that the $3,000 fee had been earned. On July 7, 2010, F.J.C-L. filed an application with the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Fund), requesting the return of the $3,000 advanced fee. The Fund approved the claim and paid F.J.C-L. $3,000.

¶25 The final client matter discussed in the referee's revised report involved Attorney Din's representation of K.F. On November 19, 2010, K.F. and his father hired Attorney Din to prepare an investor visa petition for the father, who is a citizen of Iran. The father wanted to invest in a business in the U.S. with his son. Attorney Din charged a flat fee of $8,000 to prepare the visa petition. The fee agreement provided for payment of an additional $2,500 to SB Consulting Group, Inc. for preparation of a business plan. K.F. paid $7,500 with the remaining $3,000 to be paid upon completion of the business plan.

¶26 On October 12, 2011, the OLR received a grievance from K.F. against Attorney Din. In response, Attorney Din claimed he had completed all the necessary work in a timely fashion. In response to the OLR's request for a copy of his entire file, Attorney Din provided some paperwork but produced no work product and no draft of a business plan, completed visa application, or any other document related to a visa application.

¶28 The referee's revised report noted that Thomas C. Hochstatter was deposed as an expert witness on immigration law, and he expressed the opinion that Attorney Din did provide some useful work for all of the grievants, but not sufficient work to justify the full fees that were charged and retained. Hochstatter's testimony indicated that Attorney Din should refund $3,750 to A.N., $2,500 to E.A-S., $2,000 to F.J.C-L., and $5,000 to K.F.

¶30 The referee said the only substantive issues remaining were the appropriate amount of discipline, including the amount of restitution, and costs. Although the parties' stipulation recommended that Attorney Din make restitution to F.J.C-L. in the amount of $2,000, the referee pointed out that F.J.C- L. filed a claim with the Fund for the return of his $3,000 advanced fee, and the Fund paid him the full $3,000. The referee further pointed out that the stipulation and no contest plea stated that the payment of restitution was to be "without prejudice to any claims held by the [Fund] as to the various grievants, provided such claims do not duplicate the amounts of restitution agreed to herein, and subject to any defenses [Attorney] Din may raise to such claims." The referee said there was no apparent ambiguity about the Fund's claim and, accordingly, it was appropriate to order Attorney Din to repay $3,000 to the Fund. Thus, the referee recommended that Attorney Din make restitution as follows: $3,750 to A.N.; $2,500 to E.A S.; $5,000 to K.F.; and $3,000 to the Fund.

¶31 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, the referee noted that the purposes of professional discipline are to protect the public from further misconduct by the offending attorney, to deter other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct, and to foster the attorney's rehabilitation. Although the parties stipulated that a private reprimand was appropriate, the referee said that given the number of rule violations and the number of charges and clients affected, a private reprimand was not sufficient. The referee explained:

¶32 The referee went on to say that even though the purpose of discipline is not to impose punishment per se, appreciating the unpleasant consequences of unprofessional behavior is part of rehabilitation. The referee said he would seriously worry that imposing only a private reprimand would have only minimal rehabilitative effect on Attorney Din. The referee concluded that the purposes of discipline can only be achieved here by the imposition of a public reprimand.

¶33 With respect to costs, the referee noted that the parties made a joint recommendation that Attorney Din pay one- half of the OLR's pre-appellate costs. The referee noted that this joint recommendation was based largely on the "number of counts charged, contested and proven" factor set forth in SCR 22.24(1m)(a), in that certain counts charged in the original complaint were removed from the amended complaint to which Attorney Din pled no contest. The referee found the joint recommendation to be reasonable and recommended that Attorney Din pay one-half of the pre-appellate costs as filed in the OLR's preliminary statement of costs. In its supplemental statement of costs filed on July 28, 2014, the OLR recommended that Attorney Din also be assessed one-half of the appellate costs.

¶34 Attorney Din has appealed the referee's recommendation for a public reprimand and argues that a private reprimand is an appropriate sanction. Attorney Din notes that the OLR voluntarily withdrew 70 percent of the counts of misconduct alleged in its original complaint and amended nearly all the counts that remained.

¶35 While Attorney Din acknowledges that this court is free to impose whatever discipline it deems appropriate, he says this court should impose a private reprimand with restitution because:

¶37 Attorney Din says the need to document the stage of work completed under flat fee agreements may not be appreciated by lawyers early in their practice. He says an inexperienced lawyer may not anticipate issues that arise if the lawyer's engagement is terminated before the lawyer's work is complete. He says these issues have been brought home to him by this proceeding and he has taken steps to improve his practices to avoid a recurrence of this problem in the future. Attorney Din acknowledges that he exercised poor judgment in failing to make any refund to his clients, but he says the absence of bright line rules determining the proper amount of flat fee refunds ameliorates in some measure the severity of his conduct.

¶38 Attorney Din says he acknowledges his mistakes, and he argues that a private reprimand with restitution will fulfill the purposes of discipline. He says:

¶39 The OLR asserts that the referee's revised report addresses Attorney Din's objections to the initial report. The OLR argues that a flat fee agreement does not excuse the repeated failure to return unearned fees when a lawyer fails to complete the agreed upon services. The OLR says that regardless of the description of the fee, the fact is that a lawyer must perform the agreed upon services. In this matter, Attorney Din collected fees from several clients but failed to provide sufficient useful work for the client and then refused to refund any fees upon the client's request. The OLR disagrees with Attorney Din's argument that he ought to be afforded some special consideration due to the fact that the fee was a flat fee.

¶41 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed unless clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. The court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit, regardless of the referee's recommendation. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.

¶42 There is no showing that any of the referee's findings of fact are erroneous. Accordingly, we adopt them. We also agree with the referee's conclusions of law that Attorney Din violated the supreme court rules set forth above.

¶43 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, upon careful review of the matter, we agree with the referee that Attorney Din's misconduct warrants a public reprimand. Even though Attorney Din had been practicing law for only a few years at the time he undertook the representations that gave rise to this case, and even though he has no prior disciplinary history, he pled no contest to eight counts of misconduct involving four clients, and he does not dispute the fact that he owes restitution of $14,250. The misconduct allegations at issue here are not insignificant, nor are the violations technical in nature. Attorney Din took fees from clients and failed to complete the agreed upon services. When the clients asked for refunds, he refused to provide them.

¶45 We agree with the referee that Attorney Din should be required to make restitution in the total amount of $14,250. Finally, we find it appropriate to reduce the amount of costs in this case by 50 percent. SCR 22.24(1m) notes that it is this court's general policy, upon a finding of misconduct, to impose all costs upon the respondent. In appropriate cases, the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, reduce the amount of costs imposed upon a respondent. The OLR's original complaint alleged 28 counts of misconduct and sought a one-year suspension. The amended complaint alleged 12 counts of misconduct and sought a public reprimand. The OLR subsequently agreed to dismiss an additional four counts and concluded that a private reprimand would be sufficient. In its supplemental statement of costs, filed on July 28, 2014, the OLR recommends that 50 percent of the total costs, $10,003.65, be assessed against Attorney Din. We agree that assessing one- half of the costs is appropriate under the facts of this case.

¶46 IT IS ORDERED that Khaja M. Din is publicly reprimanded for professional misconduct.

¶47 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Khaja M. Din shall make restitution as follows: $3,750 to A.N.; $2,500 to E.A-S.; $5,000 to K.F.; and $3,000 to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection.

¶48 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Khaja M. Din shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation one-half of the costs of this proceeding, $10,003.65.

¶49 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified above is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer Regulation.