¶6 On September 29, 2008, the OLR and Attorney Muwonge stipulated that Attorney Muwonge had a medical incapacity and that, because of the medical incapacity, Attorney Muwonge could not successfully defend against the allegations of professional misconduct. On October 22, 2008, a referee agreed, recommending, consistent with this court's rules, that we suspend Attorney Muwonge's law license indefinitely, pursuant to SCR 22.16(4), and that we hold the pending disciplinary proceeding in abeyance. On December 23, 2008, we issued an order adopting the referee's findings and conclusions; the 2007 disciplinary proceeding was held in abeyance. )In re Medical Incapacity Proceedings Against Muwonge, No. 2007AP776, unpublished order (S. Ct. Dec. 23, 2008).

¶8 In June 2015, Attorney Muwonge sought reinstatement of his license to practice law, asserting that his medical incapacity had been removed. An extensive evidentiary proceeding ensued. The referee agreed, and ultimately this court concluded that Attorney Muwonge had demonstrated by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that he is no longer medically incapacitated and that he is fit to practice law. In re Medical Incapacity Proceedings Against Muwonge, 2016 WI 55, 369 Wis. 2d 658, 881 N.W.2d 25. On July 1, 2016, we reinstated Attorney Muwonge's law license subject to a number of stringent conditions designed to monitor his continued fitness to practice law and to ensure protection of the public. Id.

¶9 Upon reinstating Attorney Muwonge's law license, we also issued an order pertaining to the underlying 2007 disciplinary proceeding that had been held in abeyance during his period of medical incapacity. See SCR 22.16(4)(d) (" [u]pon reinstatement, the court shall direct the referee to proceed with the misconduct action.") We directed the referee and the parties to proceed with the 2007 disciplinary proceeding.

¶10 The parties executed a stipulation that the referee has accepted. Our task now is to review the referee's recommendation regarding the 2007 disciplinary proceeding.

¶11 The misconduct alleged in the 2007 disciplinary proceeding is serious. The amended complaint alleged 43 counts of professional misconduct involving 15 clients, primarily in immigration cases. It reflects a pattern of failure to pursue client matters, failure to respond to client inquiries, failure to communicate with clients, failure to keep clients informed, failure to refund retainers or costs that were not expended, and failure to return client files. For example, Attorney Muwonge was retained to help A&W Iron Metal, Inc. (A&W) obtain permanent resident status for certain employees. Attorney Muwonge failed to meet with the clients to address their questions, failed to return filed documents, and "[n]one of the workers received permanent status." Individual clients were also harmed when Attorney Muwonge failed to appear at hearings or to complete work he had undertaken for them.

¶13 In the stipulation, Attorney Muwonge represented that he fully understands the misconduct allegations; fully understands his right to contest the matter; fully understands the ramifications of his entry into the stipulation; acknowledges that he has had the representation and advice of counsel; and states that his entry into the stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily.

¶14 The referee found that the facts alleged in the amended complaint adequately support the allegations of misconduct. The referee determined that Attorney Muwonge's plea was made freely, knowingly and voluntarily, and that Attorney Muwonge fully understands the misconduct allegations as well as his right to contest those charges. Further, the referee determined that Attorney Muwonge understands the ramifications of his decision to stipulate to the alleged misconduct. The referee concluded that the record in this case establishes by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that Attorney Muwonge engaged in the misconduct as alleged in each of the 43 counts set forth in the amended complaint. The referee thus approved Attorney Muwonge's no contest plea to the allegations of misconduct in the amended complaint.

¶16 No appeal has been filed, so we review the referee's report pursuant to SCR 22.17(2). We will adopt a referee's findings of fact unless they are 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.

¶17 We adopt the referee's findings of fact and his conclusion that Attorney Muwonge violated the supreme court rules as alleged in the OLR's amended complaint, and as admitted in the stipulation.

¶18 Typically, misconduct as serious as that alleged here would warrant a lengthy license suspension or revocation, which bars an attorney from seeking reinstatement for at least five years. Here, Attorney Muwonge's law license was suspended for eight years, from 2008 until 2016, when he successfully demonstrated that his medical incapacity had been removed.

¶19 To suspend or revoke Attorney Muwonge's law license again, for misconduct that occurred prior to the lengthy suspension for medical incapacity, would not serve the interests of justice and is not necessary to protect the public. Under the specific facts of this case, we are satisfied that the imposition of additional conditions and restitution, as stipulated by the parties and recommended by the referee, is sufficient discipline for the misconduct described in the 2007 disciplinary proceeding.

¶21 The parties have stipulated and the referee recommends that Attorney Muwonge should be ordered to pay restitution to three former clients, A.B., A.K., and A&W. Apparently the parties were unable to reach agreement on the precise amount of restitution that Attorney Muwonge should pay to each client. This is evidenced by language in the parties' stipulation stating that the $2,500 and $800 in restitution due to A.B. and A.K., respectively, may be "reduced by any amount Muwonge can establish to the satisfaction of OLR that represents the value of services he actually performed" for each of these clients. The parties also stipulate that restitution is due to A&W employees in an amount "believed to be $11,800 to $16,800" that should be "determined by an accounting of the value of the services [Attorney Muwonge] actually performed for [the clients], that Muwonge must provide to the satisfaction of OLR."

¶22 This court is not a fact finder and we are disinclined to accept indeterminate restitution recommendations. We are also disinclined to accept a recommendation that does not impose a time frame for the parties to resolve the amount of restitution owed to a client injured by an attorney's misconduct.

¶23 We direct Attorney Muwonge to make restitution of $2,500 to A.B. Consistent with the terms of the parties' stipulation, this amount may be reduced by any amount that Attorney Muwonge can establish, to the satisfaction of the OLR, represents the value of legal services he actually performed for A.B. However, any appropriate reduction in A.B.'s restitution award must be determined promptly.

¶24 The parties are thus directed to advise this court, in writing, within 90 days of the date of this order, whether a reduction in the restitution award to A.B. is appropriate. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, they shall so advise the court and the court may submit the matter to a referee for a determination of appropriate restitution and for a recommendation as to which party should bear the costs of the referee's supplemental review to determine the amount of restitution that should be paid to A.B.

¶25 We direct Attorney Muwonge to make restitution of $800 to A.K. Consistent with the terms of the parties' stipulation, this amount may be reduced by any amount Attorney Muwonge can establish, to the satisfaction of the OLR, represents the value of legal services actually performed for A.K. Again, any appropriate reduction in A.K.'s restitution award must be determined promptly.

¶26 The parties are directed to advise this court, in writing, within 90 days of the date of this order, whether a reduction in the amount of restitution owed to A.K is appropriate. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, they shall so advise the court and the court may submit the matter to a referee for a determination of the appropriate restitution and for a recommendation as to which party should bear the costs of the referee's supplemental review to determine the amount of restitution that should be paid to A.K.

¶27 Attorney Muwonge is also ordered to make restitution to A&W. The parties' stipulation indicates that the appropriate amount of restitution to A&W is likely between $11,800 and $16,800. The parties are directed to advise this court, in writing, of the appropriate amount of restitution due to A&W within 90 days of the date of this order. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the parties shall so advise the court and the court may submit the matter to a referee for a determination of appropriate restitution due to A&W and for a recommendation as to which party should bear the costs of the referee's supplemental review to determine the amount of restitution that should be paid to A&W.

¶28 The referee also recommends we require Attorney Muwonge to successfully attend continuing legal education and legal ethics (CLE) courses as deemed appropriate by the OLR. We agree that the OLR may direct Attorney Muwonge to attend specific CLE courses during the period it monitors Attorney Muwonge's law practice, provided those CLE course recommendations will not require overnight travel and do not exceed the requirements Attorney Muwonge must fulfill to satisfy his continuing legal education requirements. See SCR Chapter 31 (Continuing Legal Education).

¶29 Finally, we also deem it appropriate, as is our usual custom, to impose the full costs of this disciplinary proceeding on Attorney Muwonge.

¶30 IT IS ORDERED that compliance with all of the terms of this order and our July 1, 2016 order are conditions of Godfrey Y. Muwonge's license to practice law in Wisconsin.

¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Godfrey Y. Muwonge shall pay restitution of $2,500 to A.B., less any appropriate reduction to be determined as set forth in this order.

¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties are directed to advise this court, in writing, of the appropriate amount of restitution due to A.B., within 90 days of the date of this order.

¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Godfrey Y. Muwonge shall pay restitution of $800 to A.K., less any appropriate reduction to be determined as set forth in this order.

¶34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties are directed to advise this court, in writing, of the appropriate amount of restitution due to A.K., within 90 days of the date of this order.

¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Godfrey Y. Muwonge is ordered to make restitution to A&W Iron Metal, Inc., in an amount to be determined as set forth in this order.

¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties are directed to advise this court, in writing, of the appropriate amount of restitution due to A&W Iron Metal, Inc., within 90 days of the date of this order.

¶37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the restitution specified above is to be completed prior to paying costs.

¶38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Godfrey Y. Muwonge shall attend continuing legal education and legal ethics courses as directed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation during its monitoring period, subject to the limitations set forth in this order.