¶5 On September 29, 2008, the OLR and Muwonge stipulated that Muwonge had a medical incapacity that precluded him from defending against the disciplinary charges. On October 22, 2008, a referee concurred, concluding that Muwonge had a medical incapacity due to PTSD, alcoholism, chemical addictions, social phobia, suicide ideation, and migraine headaches, making his defense of the disciplinary proceeding impossible. The referee recommended we abate the pending disciplinary proceedings and suspend Muwonge's license. On December 23, 2008, the court issued an order adopting the referee's findings and conclusions. We suspended Muwonge's license to practice law indefinitely pursuant to SCR 22.16(4) and SCR 22.36.

¶6 In the following years, Muwonge sought and obtained treatment for his mental health and substance abuse issues.

¶8 Reinstatement from a determination of medical incapacity is governed by SCR 22.36. Under SCR 22.36(6) Muwonge has the burden to prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that the medical incapacity has been removed and that he is fit to resume the practice of law, with or without conditions.

¶9 The referee first considered whether Attorney Muwonge has met his burden of proving that his medical incapacity has been removed. The record includes favorable opinions from Muwonge's medical and mental health treatment providers. The referee observed that those who have been involved in Muwonge's treatment view him as "totally committed to maintaining his recovery status." His treating psychiatrist is unequivocal in stating that Muwonge is fit to return to the practice of law, but recommends that he be supervised by another attorney and limit his work to 40 hours per week. Another therapist concurs, stating that Muwonge has regained control of his life and effectively manages his psychological issues through psychotherapy and medication.

¶11 Demonstrating that the medical incapacity has been removed is not enough to warrant reinstatement. With respect to the "fitness" requirement in a medical incapacity reinstatement, we have stated:

In re Medical Incapacity Proceedings Against Schlieve, 2010 WI 22, ¶24, 323 Wis. 2d 654 780 N.W.2d 516 (2010). As the referee correctly observed, Muwonge must demonstrate that he has reached a state of preparedness to render competent legal services and that he can be safely recommended to the community as a person to be consulted by and represent others.

¶12 To assess this, the referee addressed certain concerns identified by the OLR during this proceeding.

¶13 First, Muwonge intends to resume an immigration practice. This is potentially concerning because it was, in part, his immigration practice that triggered his PTSD to the point of incapacitation. More specifically, when faced with his clients' immigration problems and the prospect of their deportation, he would relive his own horrific traumas.

¶14 Second, Muwonge has been unemployed since 2008. This is potentially concerning because his ability to handle the day-to-day stress of a law practice remains an open question. Muwonge has explained that he did not obtain outside employment because he was unable to earn a sufficient salary to meet his family's needs and also provide and pay for appropriate care for his son, who is severely autistic. Accordingly, he served as the primary caretaker for his children, including his autistic son, during his suspension.

¶15 Notably, however, the OLR does not oppose Attorney Muwonge's reinstatement but rather recommends the court impose certain conditions on his practice intended to address both the aforementioned concerns. Muwonge acknowledges that conditions are appropriate to address lingering concerns about his fitness to practice law.

¶16 In addition to considering specific concerns, the referee made general observations about Muwonge's reinstatement and his fitness to practice law. Muwonge has acknowledged that he should have sought treatment sooner, but the referee found that the credible evidence indicates that he accepts responsibility for wrongful conduct toward clients during the period leading up to his suspension in December 2008. Muwonge submitted numerous impressive and highly favorable character references in support of his petition. He has entered into an agreement with the OLR to repay the costs assessed against him relating to his prior disciplinary and medical incapacity proceedings, in the amount of $5,586.82. He has stated his intent to make restitution for sums paid to former clients by the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, which total $47,743.35, subject to his ability to pay. The record also reflects that in January 2016, the Board of Bar Examiners filed a letter indicating that Muwonge is currently in compliance with the Supreme Court's CLE and EPR requirements for reinstatement.

¶18 No appeal has been filed, so we consider this matter pursuant to SCR 22.33(3). A referee's findings of fact will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶ 5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. We independently review the referee's legal conclusion, noting that whether the petitioner has demonstrated fitness to resume the practice of law presents a legal question which we review de novo. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Chavez, 2012 WI 83, ¶ 14, 342 Wis. 2d 419, 816 N.W.2d 265.

¶20 The referee, the OLR, and Attorney Muwonge himself have all proposed various conditions that could be imposed on Attorney Muwonge's law practice. While the level of detail and the wording of these various proposals differ, fundamentally, there is consensus. All concur that continued WisLAP monitoring is critical, and we agree. All concur that Attorney Muwonge's practice of law should be monitored by an experienced Wisconsin attorney, and we agree. Attorney Muwonge has identified a suitable attorney willing to monitor his law practice. Attorney Harold Block, who has known Muwonge for over 30 years and represented Muwonge when he sought immigration status after coming to Wisconsin from Uganda, testified that he was willing to monitor Muwonge if he is reinstated and the referee supports his appointment.

¶21 The practice monitor will oversee Attorney Muwonge's practice of law and will seek to ensure that Attorney Muwonge limits his practice to no more than 40 hours per week until his treatment provider advises the monitor that this limit is no longer necessary.

¶22 Some of the proposed conditions are typically required in WisLAP monitoring contracts. WisLAP requires that attorneys in the monitoring program execute a written monitoring contract, the terms of which are modeled after industry standards for monitoring lawyers and other impaired professionals and are specific and tailored to meet the individual lawyer's needs. For example, a monitoring agreement may require a lawyer to abstain from the use of alcohol and all non-prescribed controlled substances, may require attendance at a requisite number of AA meetings each week, may require daily check-ins, and may require random drug and/or alcohol testing. Appropriate monitoring requirements will be set forth in Attorney Muwonge's monitoring contract with WisLAP so we decline to enumerate them here.

¶23 Other proposed conditions are designed to ensure appropriate communication among and between Attorney Muwonge, his practice monitor, WisLAP, and the OLR. We impose the following conditions on Attorney Muwonge's practice of law:

¶25 The underlying disciplinary proceeding that brought Attorney Muwonge’s medical condition to this court’s attention in 2008 could not be resolved at that time. When Attorney Muwonge was deemed subject to a medical incapacity, his defense of the underlying proceeding was not possible and, consistent with our court rules, the misconduct proceeding was held in abeyance until such time as the court ordered reinstatement of his license under SCR 22.26. See SCR 22.16(4)(d). That day has arrived.

¶26 Our rules require that, upon reinstatement, “the court shall direct the referee to proceed with the misconduct action.” Id. The court will, consistent with the rules, issue a separate order directing the referee to proceed with the abated misconduct action. Nearly a decade has elapsed since the OLR filed the disciplinary complaint and Attorney Muwonge has been suspended for over eight of those years so we trust that the parties will work to resolve the underlying matter expeditiously.

¶27 Finally, we accept the referee's recommendation and impose on Attorney Muwonge the full costs of this proceeding, which are $8,118.32 as of April 27, 2016.

¶28 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for reinstatement of the license of Godfrey Y. Muwonge to practice law in Wisconsin is granted, effective the date of this order.

¶29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as conditions of the reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, Godfrey Y. Muwonge shall comply with the following mandatory conditions:

¶30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 120 days of the date of this order, Godfrey Y. Muwonge shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, absent a showing of his inability to pay.

¶31 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that restitution is to be completed prior to paying costs to the Office of Lawyer Regulation.

¶32 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court will, by separate order, appoint a referee to proceed with the abated misconduct action as required by SCR 22.16(4)(d).

¶33 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all of the terms of this order remain a condition of Godfrey Y. Muwonge's license to practice law in Wisconsin.