¶2 After carefully reviewing this matter, we accept the stipulation and impose the requested discipline. Pursuant to the stipulation and because Attorney Caspari has already reimbursed the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) for fees she did not earn, we do not order any restitution. Because this matter has been resolved by a stipulation under SCR 22.12 without the need for the appointment of a referee, we also do not impose any costs on Attorney Caspari.

¶5 In the stipulation in the present case, Attorney Caspari states that she fully understands the allegations against her and her right to contest those allegations. She represents that she also understands her right to consult with counsel and the ramifications of the imposition of the requested level of discipline. Finally she affirms that her entry into the stipulation is knowing and voluntary and that it was not the product of negotiation for any reduction in charges or requested level of discipline. Attorney Caspari admits all of the allegations of misconduct and assents to the level of discipline requested by the OLR.

¶6 The first matter addressed in the stipulation is Attorney Caspari's representation of M.W. The SPD appointed Attorney Caspari in July 2012 to represent M.W. in postconviction proceedings. Over the next nearly three years, Attorney Caspari failed to advance M.W.'s case through the postconviction proceedings into an appeal of his conviction. She filed multiple motions seeking extensions of time, but then often failed to meet the new deadline. She did not file a postconviction motion for over a year. Even after she filed the motion, she did not schedule a hearing date with the circuit court for another five months. In that intervening time period, she failed to provide a status report to the court of appeals as she was ordered to do. After the circuit court conducted the hearing and denied M.W.'s postconviction motion, Attorney Caspari failed to ensure that a written order was submitted to the circuit court for approximately nine months.

¶7 Once the order was finally submitted, the court of appeals extended the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. Attorney Caspari, however, failed to file a notice of appeal or a further extension motion by the new deadline, causing M.W.'s appeal rights to lapse. When the SPD communicated with her about this matter, she stated that she had developed a new theory of the defense for appeal and that she was now planning to file a second postconviction motion and to request a further extension of the deadline for filing an appeal so she could pursue the second postconviction motion. She still failed, however, to file any second postconviction motion or to seek a further extension of time from the court of appeals.

¶9 Attorney Caspari stipulates that her conduct in failing to pursue postconviction or appellate relief for M.W. in a timely manner constitutes a violation of SCR 20:1.3.

¶10 The second matter stems from Attorney Caspari's appointment to represent M.W. in a criminal case pending against him in the circuit court. After M.W. was found guilty and sentenced, the SPD appointed Attorney Diane Erickson in May 2014 to represent M.W. in postconviction proceedings and on appeal. Attorney Erickson made several requests to Attorney Caspari for her complete file on M.W.'s case. Eventually, Attorney Caspari produced only some of the materials requested by Attorney Erickson. Various materials that should have been in the file were missing, including various items of discovery. Attorney Erickson was forced to obtain some of these items from the investigator who had worked on M.W.'s case and to reconstruct other parts of the discovery and case file from the files of the police department and the district attorney's office. The failure of Attorney Caspari to provide a complete file and the time and effort required to reconstruct the file resulted in substantial delays to M.W.'s postconviction proceedings and appeal.

¶12 In the stipulation, Attorney Caspari agrees that her failure to deliver her case file for M.W. to successor counsel constituted a violation of SCR 20:1.16(d). She also agrees that her submission of invoices containing charges for tasks that she did not actually perform and her failure to correct her invoices or refund those fees for years constituted a violation of SCR 20:8.4(c).

¶14 In Count 4 of the stipulation, Attorney Caspari admits that her false statements to the circuit court, which she failed to correct, violated SCR 20:3.3(a) (1).

¶17 The stipulation requests that the court suspend Attorney Caspari's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 60 days, which is the level of discipline initially sought by the OLR. In its memorandum in support of the stipulation, the OLR points to two prior decisions in which this court imposed 60-day suspensions for analogous conduct. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Callahan, 2016 WI 8, 366 Wis. 2d 503, 874 N.W.2d 98 (imposing 60- day suspension for professional misconduct that included failing to perform necessary work, advancing a settlement offer not authorized by client, misrepresenting settlement authority, and failing to keep client informed of status of her matter); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Fitzgerald, 2008 WI 101, 314 Wis. 2d 7, 752 N.W.2d 879 (accepting stipulation for 60-day suspension for misconduct that included appearing in court on behalf of clients during license suspension, billing the SPD for court appearances during license suspension, misleading a county clerk about the status of her license, and failing to cooperate with the OLR's investigation). The OLR further notes that there are both aggravating and mitigating factors here. The aggravating factors include the fact that Attorney Caspari has been privately reprimanded on a previous occasion, some evidence of a dishonest motive, multiple offenses, and two patterns of misconduct. On the mitigating side of the ledger are the fact that the overcharge to the SPD was a small amount and was ultimately repaid, Attorney Caspari's cooperation with the OLR's investigation, and her prompt entry into a comprehensive stipulation that admits her misconduct and resolves this disciplinary proceeding. Thus, the OLR believes that a 60-day suspension, consistent with Callahan and Fitzgerald, would be an appropriate level of discipline in this matter.

¶18 After carefully reviewing this matter, we accept the stipulation and impose the requested 60-day suspension. In light of the fact that Attorney Caspari has recently refunded the overcharges to the SPD, we do not impose any restitution obligation. Finally, given the filing of a stipulation at the outset of this proceeding that avoided litigation costs and the need to appoint a referee, we do not impose any costs on Attorney Caspari.

¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Diane R. Caspari to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, effective August 8, 2016.

¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Diane R. Caspari shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.