¶3 Attorney Crandall was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 1991. He was admitted to practice law in Minnesota in 1998. He has been the subject of five prior disciplinary proceedings. In 2006, his Wisconsin law license was suspended for three months as reciprocal discipline as to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court for neglecting client matters, failing to communicate with clients, failing to appear at court hearings, failing to comply with discovery rules, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 2006 WI 6, 287 Wis. 2d 102, 708 N.W.2d 690.

¶4 In 2008, Attorney Crandall was publicly reprimanded for advancing a frivolous claim, failing to file a client's affidavit or a brief in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, failing to keep clients reasonably informed, failing to return clients' files in a timely manner, and failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigation. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 2008 WI 14, 307 Wis. 2d 536, 745 N.W.2d 679.

¶5 In addition to the public reprimand in 2008, Attorney Crandall's Wisconsin law license was suspended for 30 days as reciprocal discipline to that imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court for failing to act with diligence and promptness, failing to communicate with clients, engaging in conduct involving dishonesty and misrepresentation, and failing to cooperate with the Minnesota disciplinary investigation. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 2008 WI 112, 314 Wis. 2d 33, 754 N.W.2d 501.

¶6 In 2011, Attorney Crandall's Wisconsin law license was suspended for five months for failing to hold advanced fees in trust, failing to refund unearned fees, and failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigation. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 2011 WI 21, 332 Wis. 2d 698, 798 N.W.2d 183.

¶7 In 2015, Attorney Crandall was publicly reprimanded for failing to comply with the requirements of the supreme court rule relating to the duties of an attorney whose license has been suspended and failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigation. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crandall, 2015 WI 111, 365 Wis. 2d 682, 872 N.W.2d 649.

¶10 In March 2018, Attorney Crandall asked J.C. for the $2,500 fees for his case, and J.C. authorized Attorney Crandall to charge him $2,500 on an American Express credit card. On March 16, 2018, Attorney Crandall charged $3,500 to J.C.'s American Express card and deposited those funds, less a processing fee, into his operating account at U.S. Bank. After receiving the advanced fees, Attorney Crandall took no further action in either representation.

¶12 J.C. emailed and called Attorney Crandall numerous times to inquire about the status of his matter, but Attorney Crandall did not substantively respond beyond a single promise that he would file a complaint within a few weeks.

¶13 J.C. terminated Attorney Crandall's representation in August 2018 in both matters. J.C. requested Attorney Crandall return the client files and refund the $3,500. On August 14, 2018, Attorney Crandall mailed J.C. the files, and indicated he would refund the advanced fees soon but failed to do so.

¶14 J.C. filed a grievance with the OLR on September 4, 2018. The OLR wrote to Attorney Crandall on November 15, 2018 asking him to respond to the grievance and requesting a copy of J.C.'s and L.S.'s files as well as Attorney Crandall's records regarding the $3,500 fee.

¶16 On December 10, 2018, the date by which the OLR had asked Attorney Crandall to respond to the grievance, Attorney Crandall faxed a letter to the OLR asking for more time to respond. After Attorney Crandall failed to respond to two more OLR requests for a response to the grievance, on February 13, 2019, the OLR moved this court for an order to show cause as to why Attorney Crandall's license should not be suspended for failure to cooperate in the investigation. Attorney Crandall eventually sent the OLR a response sufficient for it to continue its investigation. On May 1, 2019, this court granted the OLR's request to withdraw its motion for a temporary suspension.

¶18 Attorney Crandall filed an answer to the OLR's complaint on October 31, 2019.

¶19 A hearing was held before the referee on May 11, 2021. Two witnesses testified at the hearing: Attorney Crandall and J.C. J.C. was an angry witness, refused Attorney Crandall's request to refer to him as either Attorney Crandall or Mr. Crandall, claimed that after he terminated Attorney Crandall's representation no other lawyer would touch his case because Attorney Crandall had tainted it, although he refused to disclose the names of attorneys that he had tried to retain. At the end of his testimony, J.C., said, "[y]ou're a bad person, dude. You're a bad, bad individual. . . . I don't respect you. You screwed me over, . . . I'm telling you, you're a bad person, and I hope you're happy. . . . you're a treat. You're a real tool, dude."

¶22 The referee also noted that Attorney Crandall indicated that during his representation of J.C. and L.S., he was experiencing family health issues that included taking care of his father who was suffering from dementia, and he was trying to balance his law practice with his family responsibilities. The referee said these factors caused Attorney Crandall to be distracted and impacted his ability to manage his client responsibilities although they did not relieve him of meeting those responsibilities. The referee said although Attorney Crandall's family situation was not necessarily a mitigating factor for the misconduct, it did at least explain, to some extent, some of the conduct.

¶23 The referee noted that Attorney Crandall's prior disciplinary matters involved conduct somewhat similar to what occurred in this case, i.e. neglect of client matters, failing to communicate with clients, failing to return client files in a timely manner, and failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigation. Although Attorney Crandall had suggested that a public reprimand would be an appropriate level of discipline, the referee said a reprimand would minimize the significance of Attorney Crandall's prior disciplinary history and the similarity of his past violations to the ones at issue here. The referee said even though the record would support a longer suspension, given the circumstances surrounding the entire matter, the referee deemed a 60-day suspension appropriate.

¶24 We will affirm a referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. 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. 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.

¶26 With respect to the appropriate sanction, upon careful consideration, we agree that a 60-day suspension of Attorney Crandall's law license is appropriate. We reach this conclusion in spite of the fact that this is Attorney Crandall's sixth disciplinary proceeding, and, as the referee pointed out, there does appear to be a common theme running through the proceedings, which is Attorney Crandall's failure to perform the work for which he was hired.

¶27 We note, however, that it has been ten years since Attorney Crandall's last suspension, and the misconduct at issue in this case does not appear to rise to the level of the misconduct that gave rise to that five-month suspension.

¶28 Although no two disciplinary matters are identical, the imposition of a 60-day suspension is somewhat similar to the sanction imposed in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Harris, 2021 WI 31, 396 Wis. 2d 374, 956 N.W.2d 891, in which an attorney who had six prior disciplinary cases received a 60-day suspension for four counts of misconduct that involved failing to keep his clients informed about the status of their cases and failing to meet basic requirements with respect to court filings and court dates. In addition, this case is somewhat analogous to in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hudec, 2019 WI 39, 386 Wis. 2d 371, 925 N.W.2d 540. In that case, an attorney who had been a subject of five prior disciplinary proceedings received a 60- day suspension for six counts of misconduct involving failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client and failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter. Based on the particular circumstances of this case, and guided by past precedent, we conclude that a 60-day suspension of Attorney Crandall's license is an appropriate sanction.

¶29 As is our normal practice, we deem it appropriate to impose the full costs of this proceeding on Attorney Crandall.

¶30 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Eric L. Crandall to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, effective February 1, 2022.

¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Eric L. Crandall shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the full costs of this proceeding, which are $5,824.25 as of October 6, 2021.

¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Eric L. Crandall 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.