¶3 After the appointment of a referee, Attorney Cooper entered into a stipulation with the OLR. Pursuant to the stipulation, Attorney Cooper withdrew his answer, agreed that the referee could use the allegations of the complaint as a factual basis for a determination of misconduct, and pled no contest to each of the counts set forth in the OLR's complaint. The stipulation requested the referee to recommend that the court (1) impose a two-year suspension as sought by the OLR and (2) make that suspension retroactive to the date on which Attorney Cooper's prior suspension expired. In the stipulation, Attorney Cooper represents that he fully understands the allegations of misconduct against him and his right to contest those charges of misconduct, that he understands the ramifications of entering into the stipulation, that he understands his right to consult with counsel and has decided to proceed on a pro se basis, and that he is entering into the stipulation knowingly and voluntarily.

¶4 Pursuant to the stipulation, the referee made findings of fact based on the allegations of the complaint. Those findings are summarized in the following paragraphs.

¶7 Those OLR investigations led to the first disciplinary proceeding against Attorney Cooper. The OLR's amended complaint in that matter alleged 33 counts of misconduct. In light of Attorney Cooper's failure to participate in that disciplinary proceeding, the referee declared him to be in default and found that Attorney Cooper had committed each of the 33 counts of misconduct. Attorney Cooper's misconduct included conversion of client funds, multiple misrepresentations to clients, depositing client trust funds into his personal account, failing to notify others of his receipt of funds belonging to them, failing to deliver a client file to successor counsel, failing to act with diligence, failing to communicate with clients, and failing to cooperate with the OLR's grievance investigations. Ultimately, this court imposed a three-year suspension of Attorney Cooper's license to practice law in this state. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Cooper, 2007 WI 37, 300 Wis. 2d 61, 729 N.W.2d 206 (Cooper I) (suspension effective March 23, 2007).

¶8 At the time of the Cooper I disciplinary proceeding, the OLR was investigating each of the nine representations/grievances that form the basis for the current complaint. Within a few days after the Cooper I decision was released, the OLR sent a letter to Attorney Cooper advising him that it was placing its nine pending investigations on hold until such time as Attorney Cooper petitioned for the reinstatement of his license and informing him that he should contact the OLR at any time if he wished to resolve any of the investigated matters.

¶9 In December 2010 Attorney Cooper filed a petition for the reinstatement of his license. Ultimately, Attorney Cooper entered a stipulation with the OLR for the dismissal of his reinstatement petition. Based on the stipulation, this court dismissed the reinstatement petition in September 2011.

¶10 As noted above, the OLR's current complaint addresses nine client representations and alleges 42 separate counts of professional misconduct. Describing each of those client representations and the accompanying charges of misconduct is unnecessary to demonstrate the nature and scope of Attorney Cooper's misconduct. Each of those nine representations followed a similar, but not identical pattern.

¶11 An illustrative example is sufficient to show the types of misconduct committed by Attorney Cooper. In the summer of 2004, Attorney Cooper was retained by K.W. to represent him regarding a work- related injury. Over the next year, the attorney representing the worker's compensation insurer, or his paralegal, asked Attorney Cooper to provide authorizations signed by K.W. that would allow them to obtain K.W.'s medical records. Attorney Cooper failed to obtain K.W.'s signature or to provide the authorizations to opposing counsel.

¶12 In April 2005 opposing counsel wrote a letter to the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) explaining the actions that still needed to be completed before K.W.'s worker's compensation case would be ready for a hearing. Opposing counsel stated that the case had not moved forward because of Attorney Cooper's failure to respond to his repeated requests for the medical records release authorizations. On June 17, 2005, the administrative law judge (ALJ) ordered Attorney Cooper to provide the authorizations within 45 days or K.W.'s claim would be dismissed. On July 27, 2005, just four days prior to the 45-day deadline, Attorney Cooper sent the authorization forms to K.W. He did not, however, advise K.W. of the deadline that needed to be met in just a few days in order to avoid dismissal of K.W.'s worker's compensation claim. When the authorization forms were not provided, opposing counsel sought dismissal of K.W.'s claim for failure to prosecute, which the ALJ granted on August 15, 2005.

¶13 During the representation, K.W. had approximately five or six discussions with Attorney Cooper regarding his case. On the few occasions when K.W. was able to reach Attorney Cooper by telephone, Attorney Cooper would cut off the conversation, stating that he needed to get off the telephone but would call K.W. back. Attorney Cooper, however, never made the promised return calls. In addition, at one point during the representation, Attorney Cooper told K.W. that he had received a settlement offer from opposing counsel and would forward it to K.W. This was a false statement, however, as there was no evidence of any such settlement offer.

¶14 After K.W. learned that his case had been dismissed, he called Attorney Cooper's office numerous times, but Attorney Cooper failed to return any of K.W.'s calls. K.W. then terminated Attorney Cooper's representation and requested in writing that Attorney Cooper send his file to him. Attorney Cooper failed to respond.

¶16 On the basis of these stipulated facts, the referee concluded that Attorney Cooper had committed six counts of professional misconduct related to his representation of K.W. First, Attorney Cooper violated SCR 20:1.3 due to his lack of diligence in obtaining the medical records release authorizations from K.W., providing those authorizations to opposing counsel, or otherwise preparing K.W.'s case to be ready for a hearing before the ALJ. Attorney Cooper's failure to communicate adequately with K.W. or to respond to K.W.'s reasonable requests for information violated former SCR 20:1.4(a). Attorney Cooper also violated former SCR 20:1.16(d) by failing to provide K.W. with a copy of his file when requested. The referee further concluded that Attorney Cooper had made a misrepresentation to K.W., in violation of SCR 20:8.4(c), when he had falsely stated that he had received a settlement offer from opposing counsel. In addition, by failing to notify K.W. of the October and December 2005 suspensions of his license to practice law, Attorney Cooper violated SCRs 22.26(1) (a) and (b), which are enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f). Finally, the referee found that Attorney Cooper had failed to provide a timely response to K.W.'s grievance, as requested in two letters from the OLR, in violation of SCRs 22.03(2) and (6), which are also enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f).

¶19 The OLR further noted that there were a number of aggravating factors in the present case, including Attorney Cooper's prior discipline, the presence of a pattern of misconduct, the presence of multiple violations, the fact that a number of violations involved intentional failure to comply with his obligations to the disciplinary agency and to tribunals, his substantial experience at the time of the violations, and his refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct. On the mitigating side, the OLR noted that the misconduct had occurred during substantially the same time period as the misconduct that formed the basis for the three-year suspension imposed in 2007, and that Attorney Cooper had alleged that stress and emotional problems had essentially caused him to "check out" of his law practice during the relevant time period.

¶20 The OLR's memorandum also provided its rationale for requesting that any suspension be imposed retroactively. Because the misconduct here occurred during the same time as the misconduct that resulted in the prior three-year suspension, the OLR contended that it would be unfair to make a new suspension prospective.

¶22 When reviewing a referee's report and recommendation in an attorney disciplinary proceeding, we affirm a referee's findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous, but we review the referee's conclusions of law on a de novo basis. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶5, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125. We determine the appropriate level of discipline given the particular facts of each case, independent of the referee's recommendation, but benefiting from it. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.

¶23 In light of Attorney Cooper's stipulation and no contest plea, we adopt the referee's findings of fact, which are based on the OLR's complaint. We also agree with the referee that those findings of fact support a legal conclusion that Attorney Cooper committed each of the 42 counts of professional misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint.

¶25 We recognize, however, that the misconduct alleged in this case occurred nearly a decade ago, during the same period as the misconduct that was at issue in the previous disciplinary proceeding. If all of Attorney Cooper's misconduct from that time period had been addressed in a single proceeding, the most severe discipline that could have been imposed would have been a revocation of Attorney Cooper's license to practice law in this state, which would have allowed him to petition for the reinstatement of his license after a period of five years. Imposing an additional suspension of two years in this proceeding, retroactive to the end of the prior three- year suspension, would similarly result in a five-year period of ineligibility to seek reinstatement. A retroactive suspension would also comport with our prior cases, where we have said that retroactive suspensions may be appropriate in situations, like the one here, where the "misconduct occurred prior to the [earlier] disciplinary proceeding and [the attorney's] license has remained suspended well beyond the period of suspension previously imposed." In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against and Reinstatement of Mandelman, 182 Wis. 2d 583, 592, 514 N.W.2d 11 (1994). Moreover, there is support in our prior decisions for a two-year suspension given the nature and scope of Attorney Cooper's misconduct, regardless of the fact that the misconduct at issue here occurred at the same time as the misconduct charged in the prior disciplinary proceeding. Accordingly, we conclude that Attorney Cooper's license to practice law in Wisconsin should be suspended for a period of two years, retroactive to March 23, 2010, the date on which the prior three-year suspension expired.

¶26 Finally, we turn to the issue of costs. Our general policy is to impose the full costs of a disciplinary proceeding on the respondent attorney who is found to have committed professional misconduct. See SCR 22.24(1m). We see no reason to depart from that policy in this matter. Although Attorney Cooper did ultimately enter into a stipulation and no contest plea, he initially filed an answer that denied each of the material allegations of misconduct in the OLR's complaint, which required the appointment of a referee and the accompanying costs of litigating this matter. It is therefore appropriate that he pay those costs.

¶27 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Patrick M. Cooper to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of two years, effective March 23, 2010.

¶28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Patrick M. Cooper shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.

¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Patrick M. Cooper shall continue compliance with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.