¶2 Attorney Lamb was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1989. He is a sole practitioner practicing in Menomonie, Wisconsin. In 1997 Attorney Lamb received a consensual private reprimand for failing to cooperate with the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility's investigation into his misconduct and failing to appear at investigative interviews. In 2003 he received a consensual private reprimand for mishandling fees and failing to return a case file to successor counsel.

¶3 On January 10, 2011, the OLR filed a complaint alleging Attorney Lamb engaged in 21 counts of misconduct with respect to four separate client matters. The first client matter detailed in the complaint involved Attorney Lamb's representation of D.N. D.N. was granted guardianship of her four step- great-grandchildren in January of 2006. In the summer of 2006 the mother of some of the children filed motions in circuit court to terminate D.N.'s guardianship and obtain custody of the children. D.N. hired Attorney Lamb to represent her in the guardianship matters. He had previously represented her in other matters. Attorney Lamb's representation of D.N. continued until July 2008.

¶4 The OLR's complaint alleged that D.N. sent Attorney Lamb numerous e-mails posing various questions about the case. Attorney Lamb failed to respond to the vast majority of D.N.'s e-mails.

¶5 In February of 2008 D.N. paid Attorney Lamb $1,000 in cash. Attorney Lamb did not enter into a written fee agreement with D.N., nor did he place the $1,000 in his trust account. A week later D.N. borrowed money and paid Attorney Lamb $2,500. Attorney Lamb did not put the $2,500 into his trust account, nor did he enter into a written fee agreement with D.N.

¶6 On May 27, 2008, Attorney Lamb's license to practice law in Wisconsin was suspended for failure to comply with CLE requirements. A telephone conference in D.N.'s case was held in early June 2008. Attorney Lamb did not participate in the telephone conference. He also did not advise the court or D.N. that he would be unable to participate in the phone conference because his law license was still suspended. D.N. believed that Attorney Lamb had participated in the telephone conference. Attorney Lamb's license was reinstated on June 24, 2008.

¶7 Between June 24 and July 3, 2008, D.N. made a number of visits to Attorney Lamb's office. No one answered when she knocked on the door. Attorney Lamb's vehicle was in the parking lot during those attempted visits, and the children who accompanied D.N. to Attorney Lamb's office looked under the door and could see someone was in the office. On another occasion, D.N. was waiting in her vehicle in the parking lot outside Attorney Lamb's office when she saw Attorney Lamb pull in behind her and observed in her rearview mirror that he was making a cell phone call. The cell phone call came to her and Attorney Lamb reported he would be unable to make the meeting because he was "tied up in court." On yet another occasion, Attorney Lamb gave notice of cancelling an appointment with D.N. by leaving a note on his office door that was visible to passersby in a common hallway.

¶8 D.N. hired a new attorney on July 10, 2008. The following day D.N. e-mailed Attorney Lamb and raised the issue of obtaining a $2,800 refund from the $3,500 she had paid him. D.N. informed Attorney Lamb of the name of her new attorney and asked for a copy of everything in Attorney Lamb's file to give to the new attorney. Attorney Lamb did not provide a copy of his file to D.N. D.N. sent numerous additional e-mails asking for a $2,800 refund. Attorney Lamb never provided an accounting of the fees he claimed to have earned, nor did he return any of the advance fee paid by D.N.

¶9 On December 1, 2008, D.N. contacted the OLR to file a grievance against Attorney Lamb. In January 2009 the OLR sent Attorney Lamb notice of its formal investigation and requested a complete response to D.N.'s grievance. In May 2009 Attorney Lamb provided the OLR with his formal response to the grievance. The OLR assigned the matter to its District 8 committee to conduct a thorough investigation. The lead investigator attempted to contact Attorney Lamb and left a number of voicemails asking to meet with Attorney Lamb to discuss D.N.'s grievance as well as another grievance filed by K.D. Attorney Lamb left a voicemail message for the lead investigator saying he was out of the office and giving a date on which the investigator was to call him. When the investigator's office staff attempted to contact Attorney Lamb and again left a voicemail message at Attorney Lamb's office phone, Attorney Lamb failed to respond. The lead investigator then sent Attorney Lamb a letter by certified mail and regular first-class mail concerning D.N.'s grievance. Attorney Lamb received the letter but failed to respond. Attorney Lamb failed to attend an investigative meeting that was scheduled by the lead investigator, and he never provided his file in the D.N. grievance matter to the investigator.

¶11 The second client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint involved Attorney Lamb's representation of K.D. in a post-divorce proceeding. K.D. retained Attorney Lamb on July 9, 2008, and paid him a $750 retainer with funds her father had loaned to her. A hearing was held on July 14, 2008, before a circuit court commissioner. K.D. appeared in person and Attorney Lamb appeared by telephone. K.D.'s former husband appeared in person and with his attorney. The court commissioner ordered mediation of child placement issues. K.D. thereafter unsuccessfully tried to contact Attorney Lamb by telephone and by going to his office to seek information and guidance about the case. K.D. and Attorney Lamb spoke by telephone once in mid-August 2008. Because of her inability to contact Attorney Lamb and her dissatisfaction with his representation, K.D. retained new counsel in October of 2008.

¶12 Both K.D. and her father repeatedly contacted Attorney Lamb asking for an itemization of fees and costs for a potential refund of amounts that had been paid to him. Attorney Lamb never provided the requested itemization.

¶13 K.D. filed a grievance against Attorney Lamb with the OLR. In April 2009 an OLR investigator wrote to Attorney Lamb concerning the grievance and told him to provide a complete copy of his file for K.D. Attorney Lamb responded but failed to deliver the file to the OLR.

¶15 The third client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint involved Attorney Lamb's representation of C.H. regarding a speeding ticket and operating while intoxicated (OWI) ticket issued in Eau Claire County. C.H. lived in Illinois. Attorney Lamb offered C.H. two representation options: a flat fee of $2,000 or an advance payment of $1,000 to be billed at $250 per hour. C.H. said he accepted the second option and sent Attorney Lamb checks in the amounts of $600 and $400. Attorney Lamb acknowledged receipt of the two checks by e-mail and promised to forward to C.H. copies of a "not guilty appearance and motion." Attorney Lamb never deposited C.H.'s advance fee payments into a trust account.

¶16 On February 3, 2009, Attorney Lamb submitted a letter to the court containing not guilty pleas to both charges. On February 11, 2009, C.H. e-mailed Attorney Lamb and noted he had not yet received any of the promised paperwork. As part of a plea agreement negotiated by Attorney Lamb, C.H. entered a plea of no contest to the speeding charge and agreed to pay a forfeiture in return for which the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the OWI charge. The plea hearing took place on February 27, 2009. Despite requests, C.H. never received any paperwork or an itemized statement from Attorney Lamb. Except for one phone call in March of 2009, Attorney Lamb failed to return any of C.H.'s phone calls.

¶17 After almost a year of failed attempts to reach Attorney Lamb to discuss the matter, C.H. filed a grievance with the OLR. An OLR investigator sent Attorney Lamb a notice of the investigation and requested his response to C.H.'s grievance. Attorney Lamb failed to respond. Attorney Lamb also failed to respond to a second letter that OLR sent by both certified and first-class mail. The Dunn County Sheriff's Department personally served Attorney Lamb with another letter from the OLR. Attorney Lamb finally responded to the OLR, but never provided a copy of his file in the C.H. matter and never provided a copy of a letter Attorney Lamb allegedly sent to C.H. regarding the fee arrangement.

¶19 The final client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint involved Attorney Lamb's representation of G.B., who retained Attorney Lamb to represent him in a small claims lawsuit against his neighbors. G.B. paid Attorney Lamb a $700 flat fee. Attorney Lamb sent G.B. a receipt for the payment but there was no written fee agreement. G.B. did not hear from Attorney Lamb again. When he called Attorney Lamb in February of 2009 he was informed that Attorney Lamb was busy working on a high profile murder case. Thereafter, G.B. called Attorney Lamb once a week for the next eight months and stopped by Attorney Lamb's law office several times but was unable to reach Attorney Lamb.

¶20 G.B. filed a grievance with the OLR. The OLR sent Attorney Lamb a notice of the investigation and requested his response to G.B.'s grievance. Attorney Lamb did not respond. Attorney Lamb also failed to respond to a second letter the OLR sent by certified mail and regular first-class mail. He also failed to respond to a third letter personally served on him by the Dunn County Sheriff's Department.

¶21 On March 30, 2010, the OLR filed a notice of motion and motion with this court seeking an order to show cause why Attorney Lamb's license should not be temporarily suspended for failure to cooperate with an OLR investigation. On April 1, 2010, this court issued an order to show cause in the matter. On April 16, 2010, Attorney Lamb finally submitted a response to G.B.'s grievance. Attorney Lamb's response claimed that he did some preliminary investigation and research, wrote G.B.'s neighbors a letter, obtained underlying police reports, and spoke to the Pepin County District Attorney. Attorney Lamb claimed he spent three to four hours on the matter. Attorney Lamb never filed a small claims action against G.B.'s neighbors, nor did he refund any money to G.B.

¶24 The stipulation also states that in recommending discipline, the OLR director took into consideration that the grievances against Attorney Lamb demonstrated a pattern of serious misconduct including repeated failure to account for fees properly and an unwillingness to cooperate with the OLR's investigations. The parties stipulated that an appropriate level of discipline to impose in response to Attorney Lamb's misconduct is a 60-day suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin. The parties also stipulated that Attorney Lamb should provide restitution to G.B. in the amount of $700.

¶25 The stipulation was referred to Referee Erickson. On July 15, 2011, the referee issued a report adopting and incorporating by reference all of the facts relating to the 21 counts of misconduct set forth in the OLR's complaint and the stipulation. The referee concluded that Attorney Lamb violated each supreme court rule as alleged in each of the 21 counts charged in the complaint and as agreed to in the stipulation. The referee recommended that Attorney Lamb's license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for no less than 60 days; that Attorney Lamb be ordered to make restitution to G.B. in the amount of $700; that Attorney Lamb be ordered to pay the full costs associated with the proceeding; and that Attorney Lamb be ordered to participate in remedial education, at his own expense, relating to trust account requirements and supreme court rules obligations.

¶27 After reviewing the parties' stipulation and the referee's report and recommendation, on September 29, 2011, this court issued an order directing the parties to show cause why a 60-day suspension was an appropriate level of discipline in light of Attorney Lamb's prior disciplinary history and the discipline imposed in other similar cases, and why orders for restitution were not appropriate for the other former clients mentioned in the OLR's complaint.

¶28 The OLR filed a response to the order to show cause on October 14, 2011. With respect to the appropriate level of discipline the OLR notes that this court has frequently followed the concept of progressive discipline, and it notes that Attorney Lamb received two prior private reprimands. The OLR says this is not a reprimand case. It cites a number of cases it views as somewhat analogous in which the attorney received a 60-day suspension. For example, in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Artery, 2006 WI 11, 288 Wis. 2d 339, 709 N.W.2d 54, the attorney received a 60- day suspension for multiple counts of misconduct involving six criminal defendant clients. In In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Smead, 2010 WI 4, 322 Wis. 2d 100, 777 N.W.2d 644, the attorney received a 60- day suspension for 15 counts of misconduct involving four clients.

¶30 With respect to the issue of restitution, the OLR says a $700 restitution award to G.B. is appropriate because the amount is readily ascertainable and it is undisputed that Attorney Lamb did nothing to earn the fee. The OLR says it appears the fees paid to Attorney Lamb by K.D. and C.H. were reasonable so the OLR director is not seeking restitution in those cases. In the D.N. case the OLR says it appears that Attorney Lamb's efforts over a period of approximately two and one-half years were moderately successful, suggesting that he provided a reasonable amount of services to account for at least much of the $3,500 fee. Consequently, the OLR is not seeking restitution in the D.N. matter.

¶31 After careful review, and taking into account the OLR's response to the order to show cause, we adopt the stipulated facts and discipline recommended by the referee. We agree with the referee that a 60-day suspension is relatively modest. While the referee expressed concern that a longer suspension would have a detrimental impact on Attorney Lamb's ability to practice law and his livelihood, we do not view this as an appropriate factor in establishing a level of discipline. Any suspension of an attorney's license to practice law is likely to have a detrimental impact on the attorney's livelihood. The sanction imposed in each case should be tailored to the misconduct at issue, should take into account the attorney's prior disciplinary record, and should be generally in accord with the sanction imposed in other somewhat analogous cases. We conclude that a 60-day suspension is consistent with these considerations.

¶32 We remind Attorney Lamb that the court may impose progressively severe sanctions when an attorney engages in a pattern of misconduct. We impose the sanction recommended by the referee, incorporating the parties' stipulation, with the expectation that Attorney Lamb will not commit future misconduct subjecting him to additional discipline. We also deem it appropriate to require Attorney Lamb to make restitution to G.B., to require him to participate in CLE relating to trust account requirements and ethical obligations of Wisconsin attorneys, and to require him to pay the full costs of this proceeding.

¶33 IT IS ORDERED that the license of William R. Lamb to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, effective January 23, 2012.

¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William R. Lamb shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.

¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 180 days of the date of this order, William R. Lamb make restitution to G.B. in the amount of $700.

¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 12 months of the date of this order William R. Lamb complete a minimum of 12 hours of continuing legal education credits relating to trust account requirements and ethical obligations of Wisconsin attorneys.

¶38 ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part). I would order Attorney Lamb to pay restitution to D.N. in the amount of $2,800.