1. PER CURIAM. We review the referee's report, findings of fact, and conclusions of law, based on the parties' comprehensive stipulation that Attorney Joe E. Kremkoski committed five counts of professional misconduct as alleged by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) in the complaint it filed in this court on August 12, 2003. The referee recommended that a private reprimand be issued as a sanction for this misconduct. After reviewing the parties' responses to this court's order to show cause why a public reprimand should not be imposed, we reject the referee's recommendation and publicly reprimand Attorney Kremkoski for his professional misconduct. We accept the referee's recommendation that Attorney Kremkoski pay all the costs related to this disciplinary proceeding now totaling $4116.33. Also, as the referee recommended, we impose certain conditions upon Attorney Kremkoski's license to practice law in this state.

4. This court appointed Attorney Dennis J. Flynn to act as referee in this matter. After a public hearing was scheduled by the referee, the parties entered into a comprehensive stipulation by which Attorney Kremkoski admitted to the five counts of professional misconduct as alleged by the OLR's complaint. More specifically, Attorney Kremkoski has now stipulated to the following facts and admitted committing the following counts of misconduct.

5. In August 2000 Kremkoski represented C.S. and filed a petition on C.S.'s behalf seeking a domestic injunction against B.V. That injunction was granted and B.V. was barred from contacting C.S. for a period of two years.

6. In May 2001 B.V. asked Kremkoski to represent him on "a couple of misdemeanors"; Kremkoski agreed to do so for a fee of $500. One of the misdemeanor counts against B.V. included an allegation that he had violated the domestic abuse injunction Kremkoski had obtained for C.S. nine months earlier.

7. Two days after B.V.'s initial appearance on the misdemeanor counts, Kremkoski appeared on B.V.'s behalf at his initial appearance on a four-count felony complaint that had been filed. Kremkoski informed B.V. that due to the nature of the felony counts, Kremkoski required an additional "nonrefundable" retainer of $1500. Kremkoski also informed B.V. that Kremkoski's hourly fee was $150. There were, however, no written fee agreements with respect to either the $500 B.V. had paid Kremkoski for the misdemeanor representation or for the additional $1500 on the felony matters. B.V. subsequently paid the $1500 in two installments of $750 each by checks dated May 23, 2001, and June 4, 2001. Kremkoski, however, did not deposit those checks into his client trust account.

8. On June 27, 2001, Kremkoski appeared on behalf of B.V. at an initial appearance on two new cases in Racine county both of which involved allegations of B.V.'s violation of the domestic abuse injunction Kremkoski had previously obtained for C.S., as well as a bail jumping count. Kremkoski, however, had not obtained C.S.'s written consent prior to representing B.V. in these criminal cases.

9. C.S. later informed the assistant district attorney handling the cases about Kremkoski's prior representation of C.S. in obtaining the domestic abuse injunction that B.V. was charged with violating. The assistant district attorney notified the circuit court and subsequently Kremkoski withdrew from representing B.V. in the felony and misdemeanor matters.

10. Kremkoski's office records reflect that he worked 6.1 hours on B.V.'s criminal matters; accordingly, at Kremkoski's quoted $150 per hour fee rate, he had earned fees totaling $915. When B.V. subsequently asked Kremkoski if he would refund any of the $1500 retainer B.V. had paid, Kremkoski told B.V. that the fee was nonrefundable.

11. In November of 2001, after Kremkoski had withdrawn from representing B.V. in the earlier criminal cases, Kremkoski represented B.V. in other legal matters. When B.V. was released from jail in October 2001 he again asked Kremkoski if he would refund any of the $1500 fee previously paid and Kremkoski responded that he would not do so but that B.V. should " . . . not worry about the fees in his other legal matters."

13. B.W. retained Kremkoski to represent her in her divorce action; the divorce was granted on April 3, 2001, and the judgment was filed on April 12, 2001. As part of the property division, B.W. was awarded the marital home; this required a transfer of her former husband's interest by quitclaim deed which Kremkoski was responsible for drafting. Kremkoski brought with him to the divorce hearing that was held on April 3, 2001, a quitclaim deed he had drafted for B.W.'s former husband to sign; however, that quitclaim deed contained an error and therefore could not be signed until it was redrafted. Kremkoski told his client B.W. that he would redraft the document but despite her repeated telephone calls after the divorce hearing, he failed to do so. Kremkoski also did not respond to many of the phone calls. Because B.W. needed the quitclaim deed in order to refinance her home and take advantage of the then available interest rate, she had to obtain someone else to redraft the deed for her. B.W. then obtained her former husband's signature on the redrafted quitclaim deed.

14. In addition, the divorce judgment provided that B.W.'s former husband was to transfer to her the sum of $10,500 by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) which Kremkoski was to draft. B.W. did not have access to those funds, held in her former husband's 401k account, until completion of the QDRO.

15. From April 3, 2001, through March 11, 2002, B.W. frequently telephoned Kremkoski urging him to complete the QDRO. Kremkoski returned only one of B.W.'s phone calls and then spoke to a person other that B.W. Kremkoski finally called the 401k plan administrator in December of 2001 and prepared a QDRO which he forwarded to the plan administrator. The plan administrator, however, rejected that QDRO in March 2002.

16. Following the commencement of the OLR investigation in May of 2002, Kremkoski prepared a new QDRO and sent it to the plan administrator on July 17, 2002. That QDRO was accepted in August of 2002 and was ultimately accepted by the divorce court on September 27, 2002.

19. Furthermore, the OLR asserted that a public reprimand was appropriate in this case because Kremkoski breached a fundamental duty to his client-the duty of loyalty-by representing B.V. after having earlier represented C.S. in obtaining a domestic abuse injunction against B.V. The OLR noted that that conduct carried a significant risk that Kremkoski might reveal confidential information that C.S. had provided to him during the time he represented her.

20. In addition, the OLR asserted that Kremkoski had breached his duty to B.V. by failing to place the $1500 retainer he had received in a trust account and then in failing to return any of the retainer after only performing 6.1 hours of legal work for B.V. The OLR asserted that the remaining amount of that retainer should have been immediately returned to B.V. upon termination of Kremkoski's representation.

22. Finally, the OLR argued that Kremkoski's misconduct in this case was aggravated by the fact that he had previously been disciplined for neglect of a client matter. According to the OLR, a public reprimand was necessary to emphasize to Kremkoski the serious nature of his misconduct and to deter him and other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct in the future.

25. The referee was persuaded by Kremkoski's claim that he was under stress at the critical time this misconduct occurred. The referee noted that although Kremkoski was not claiming that he was suffering from a mental illness, he was claiming that the number of stressors he faced during this period of time should be considered as mitigation of his conduct. The referee agreed that the evidence was relevant and concluded that there was no need for expert testimony to establish a causal connection between these stressful events and Kremkoski's actions.

27. In addition to the private reprimand, the referee recommended that Kremkoski be ordered to obtain at least eight hours of continuing legal education focusing on ethics education each year for the next three years. The referee suggested that special emphasis should also be on CLE seminars relating to the use and management of client trust accounts, reasonably responding to contacts from clients regarding the status of a case, conflicts of interest, utilization of written retainer agreements, and the timely performance of legal services by counsel. In addition, the referee recommended that Kremkoski should inform himself about bar programs providing help to lawyers who are "experiencing significant, non-law-practice-related stress."

30. After reviewing the parties' arguments and respective positions, as well as the referee's report and analysis, we conclude- especially in light of the fact that Kremkoski previously received a private reprimand in 1997 for conduct involving the neglect of a client matter-that a public reprimand is warranted in this case in order to emphasize the serious nature of Kremkoski's misconduct and to deter him and other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct in the future. Although not unsympathetic to the stress Kremkoski was experiencing during the relevant periods, the court thinks that such stress does not explain Kremkoski's failure to appreciate the serious conflict of interest he faced by representing both C.S. and B.V. in the situation described in the OLR complaint.

31. Under all the circumstances, we conclude that Joe E. Kremkoski should be publicly reprimanded for his five counts of misconduct as committed in this case. We further conclude, as the referee recommended, that Kremkoski obtain continuing legal education credits focusing on the specific areas suggested by the referee, including at least eight hours per year for the next three years of continuing legal education credits dealing with ethics. In addition, we conclude that Kremkoski must pay all costs related to this disciplinary proceeding now totaling $4116.33.

32. IT IS ORDERED that Joe E. Kremkoski is publicly reprimanded for professional misconduct.

33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joe E. Kremkoski must obtain eight hours of continuing legal education each year for the next three years focusing on ethics and that during that same period, he shall attend continuing legal education seminars emphasizing the following: the use and management of client trust accounts; the duties of attorneys to reasonably respond to client contacts regarding the status of cases; the avoidance of conflicts of interest; the utilization of written retainer agreements; and the timely performance of legal services by counsel.