¶5 In the present matter, Attorney Trudgeon entered a stipulation admitting numerous counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR complaint and pleading no contest to the remaining counts. Because Attorney Trudgeon did not dispute committing the 56 alleged violations, the only question for the referee to address at the disciplinary hearing was the level of the sanction to be imposed.

¶6 Attorney Trudgeon's representation of K.R. serves as the basis for the first five counts. On February 11, 2008, Attorney Trudgeon became counsel of record for K.R. in a family law action. After Attorney Trudgeon's license suspensions, he did not provide notice to the court of his need to withdraw from representation. As of the date of the OLR complaint, Attorney Trudgeon remained K.R.'s counsel of record.

¶7 As part of his representation of K.R., Attorney Trudgeon engaged in negotiations with opposing counsel regarding a proposed waiver of future child support. Attorney Trudgeon proposed that if the opposing party would agree to waive all future child support, certain concessions would follow. The OLR notes that a parent cannot waive future child support for a minor child or enter into a binding contract to refrain from seeking child support. See In re Marriage of Ondrasek v. Tenneson, 158 Wis. 2d 690, 462 N.W.2d 915 (Ct. App. 1990). Thus, the OLR alleges that if the opposing party had agreed to Attorney Trudgeon's proposed child support waiver, K.R. would nonetheless remain liable for child support.

¶8 Due to Attorney Trudgeon's license suspension, opposing counsel advised Attorney Trudgeon that he believed he had an obligation to report to the OLR Attorney Trudgeon's continued practice of law. Attorney Trudgeon told opposing counsel he would self-report and he would also notify K.R. that he could not represent him. Attorney Trudgeon did not report his actions to the OLR. In an unrelated matter, Attorney Trudgeon filed with the OLR an affidavit dated August 25, 2008, stating he had not engaged in the practice of law since March of 2008 and that his license had been suspended due to failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements. Attorney Trudgeon did not disclose to the OLR that he had continued to practice law after March 2008.

¶11 The referee further concluded that by failing to promptly notify the court of the suspension of his license to practice law, Attorney Trudgeon violated SCR 22.26(1) (c) via SCR 20:8.4(f). The referee also determined that Attorney Trudgeon's misrepresentations to the OLR in his correspondence and affidavit violated SCR 20:8.4(c). Additionally, the referee concluded that by failing to provide OLR with a timely written response containing the information requested by the OLR, Attorney Trudgeon violated SCRs 22.03(2) and 22.03(6), via SCR 20:8.4(h).

¶12 The referee found that Attorney Trudgeon committed 51 additional violations in 12 other client matters. In several cases the misconduct was similar to that committed in the K.R. client matter in that Attorney Trudgeon engaged in dishonest conduct, failed to provide information as requested by the OLR, and failed to notify the court of his suspension. Other misconduct involved his assertion that he represented an individual without the authority to do so. The referee also found that Attorney Trudgeon had failed to maintain confidentiality of files which he had left unsecured. Additional misconduct included the lack of diligence in client matters, failing to communicate with clients, failing to refund an unearned fee, trust account violations, engaging in an ex parte communication with the court, and making a false statement to a tribunal.

¶13 In another matter, Attorney Trudgeon converted to his own use at least $24,500 of settlement funds he received on behalf of client B.W. in connection with a car accident. The referee also found that Attorney Trudgeon had lied to his clients and, on at least one occasion, Attorney Trudgeon falsely authenticated a document. The referee observed Attorney Trudgeon's misconduct was extremely damaging not only to clients but also to the legal system. For example, the referee found that Attorney Trudgeon failed to appear for a scheduled pretrial conference in one matter and failed to appear at a jury trial in another matter. The referee stated that the damage the failure to appear at a scheduled jury trial does to the court system is enormous.

¶17 With respect to the amount converted in the B.W. client matter (counts 30 through 35), the referee determined B.W. was entitled to restitution of $12,000 and Dean Health Plan, Inc., was entitled to restitution of $13,000. The OLR advises that after the referee issued his report, client B.W. and the Dean Health Plan, Inc., were reimbursed by the Wisconsin Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection (the Fund). The OLR requests that if the court would adopt Referee Vocke's recommendation, the restitution be paid to the Fund rather than to B.W. and Dean Health Plan.

¶19 This court upholds a referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll, 2001 WI 130, ¶29, 248 Wis. 2d 662, 636 N.W.2d 718. This court independently reviews the referee's legal conclusions. Id. Here, the stipulation supports the referee's findings of fact and legal conclusions as to Attorney Trudgeon's professional misconduct. They are unchallenged. Therefore, this court approves and adopts the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

¶20 It is ultimately this court's responsibility to determine the appropriate discipline to impose. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Reitz, 2005 WI 39, ¶74, 279 Wis. 2d 550, 694 N.W.2d 894. The seriousness of Attorney Trudgeon's misconduct with respect to the 56 violations involving 13 clients demonstrates the need to revoke his law license to protect the public, courts, and legal system from the repetition of misconduct, as well as to impress upon Attorney Trudgeon the seriousness of his misconduct and deter other attorneys from engaging in misconduct.

¶21 We further conclude Attorney Trudgeon shall make restitution as determined by the referee, with the exception that restitution arising from counts 30 to 35 be made to the Fund, rather than to B.W. and Dean Health Plan.

¶22 We impose full costs of $4,514.06. Under SCR 22.24(1m), the court's general policy is to impose costs on the respondent. To award less than full costs, the court must find "extraordinary circumstances." Attorney Trudgeon has not objected to costs and has not claimed any extraordinary circumstances to justify a reduction in costs.

¶23 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Michael C. Trudgeon to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this order.

¶24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael C. Trudgeon comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.

¶25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Michael C. Trudgeon make restitution as follows:

¶26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 70 days of the date of this order, Michael C. Trudgeon pay the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.