¶11 The next four counts of misconduct alleged in the amended complaint arose out of Attorney Menard's representation of C.M. and D.D. Attorney Menard represented C.M. in a personal injury action. In December 2013, Attorney Menard deposited or directed the deposit of a $76,000 check related to C.M.'s claim to the Park Bank trust account. The firm also represented D.D. in a worker's compensation claim and a related civil action. Attorney Menard deposited or directed the deposit of a $90,000 check related to D.D.'s claim to the Park Bank trust account.

¶12 Between December 18, 2013 and February 3, 2014, Attorney Menard transferred $163,500 of the C.M. and D.D. settlements from the Park Bank trust account to the Park Bank business account. Most of the transfers occurred by telephone or internet. On December 20, 2013, the Park Bank business account was overdrawn by more than $15,000. A transfer from the Park Bank trust account briefly restored the business account to a positive balance but soon thereafter the Park Bank business account was again overdrawn. The business account was restored to a positive balance with another transfer from the trust account. This pattern of the business account being overdrawn and then restored to a positive balance by more transfers from the trust account was repeated multiple times.

¶14 The next client matter detailed in the amended complaint involved Attorney Menard's firm's representation of D.S. in a personal injury matter. On November 26, 2012, Attorney Menard deposited or directed the deposit of a $190,000 check relating to the D.S. matter to the Park Bank business account. Between November 26, 2012 and November 30, 2012, Attorney Menard used the D.S. settlement proceeds to cover numerous transactions, including pre-authorized debits to AT&T, Target, CITI Card, and Austin Ford.

¶16 The next client matter detailed in the amended complaint involved Attorney Menard's representation of B.H. in a personal injury matter. On December 3, 2012, Attorney Menard deposited or directed the deposit of a $93,893.53 check to the firm's Park Bank business account. By December 18, 2012, the Park Bank business account was overdrawn; none of the settlement proceeds had been paid to B.H.; and Attorney Menard had converted as much as $67,072.82 of the settlement. Attorney Menard eventually disbursed a total of $52,950 to B.H. despite the fact that the settlement breakdown specified that she was owed $62,950.32. Attorney Menard has provided no evidence that B.H. received the remaining $10,000 of her settlement funds.

¶19 The next client matter detailed in the amended complaint involved Attorney Menard's representation of J.B. regarding an auto accident. On April 15, 2013, Attorney Menard deposited or directed the deposit of a $92,330 check to the Park Bank business account along with two other checks. Prior to this deposit, the business account was overdrawn. The deposit restored the account to a positive balance. Between April 15 and April 22, 2013, Attorney Menard made numerous disbursements from the Park Bank business account, including a $28,300 cashier's check to his wife.

¶20 At the close of business on April 22, 2013, the business account was overdrawn by $244.19; none of the funds had been disbursed to J.B. and Attorney Menard had converted as much as $55,648.44 relating to the J.B. matter. Attorney Menard continues to owe J.B., or her subrogated care providers, $12,648.44.

¶22 The next client matter detailed in the amended complaint involved Attorney Menard's representation of J.L.-M. in a personal injury action and a related third- party worker's compensation claim. The settlement in the matter was paid via two checks issued to the Derzon & Menard trust account: a $108,000 check dated May 13, 2013, and a $12,000 check dated June 3, 2013. On June 3, 2013, Attorney Menard deposited or directed the deposit of the $108,000 check to the Park Bank business account. Prior to this deposit the account was overdrawn by over $12,000. Between June 3 and June 17, 2013, Attorney Menard made numerous disbursements from the business account for business and personal expenses. By June 17, 2013, the business account was overdrawn by $2,757.59 and no disbursements had been made to J.L.-M. Attorney Menard told J.L.-M. he had made disbursements in accordance with the settlement breakdown.

¶23 Specifically, Attorney Menard told J.L.-M. he had disbursed $12,491.77 to Athletic & Therapeutic Institute and $7,623.75 to Blount Orthopedic Clinic. Park Bank records show that neither check was ever presented for payment or cleared the business account.

¶24 In January 2014, against Attorney Menard's advice, J.L.-M. and her husband claimed all of her medical expenses as deductions on their 2013 joint income tax return. An IRS audit ensued in 2016.

¶25 J.L.-M. and her husband hired the law firm of Robinson & Henry, P.C., to represent them in the tax audit. Thereafter, both J.L.-M. and her new attorneys repeatedly requested medical billing information and documentation from Attorney Menard. While Attorney Menard was initially helpful in providing documents, he later became difficult to reach and never sent them all of the correct documents showing proof of medical payments he had made on J.L.-M.'s behalf.

¶26 Ultimately, the IRS did not allow the payments to Blount Orthopedic Clinic and Athletic & Therapeutic Institute to be included in its calculations because there was no proof those medical expenses had been paid out of J.L.-M.'s settlement. J.L.-M. and her husband eventually settled with the IRS for an additional tax burden of $3,973, plus interest on their 2013 tax return.

¶27 On November 26, 2013, Attorney Menard issued a check from his Park Bank business account payable to Blount Orthopedic Clinic in the amount of $3,000, which was presented and paid in December 2013. Attorney Menard acknowledged to the OLR that this check was paid on behalf of J.L.-M. to settle the debt she owed to Blount Orthopedic Clinic.

¶28 On July 24, 2014, Attorney Menard issued a check from his U.S. Bank business account payable to Athletic & Therapeutic Institute in the amount of $8,000, which was presented and paid on August 20, 2014. Attorney Menard acknowledged to the OLR that this check was paid on behalf of J.L.-M. to settle the debt owed to Athletic & Therapeutic Institute.

¶29 Attorney Menard never advised either J.L.-M. or Robinson & Henry of these reduced payments, despite their repeated requests during the IRS audit for evidence of all medical payments made. Until July 2018, Attorney Menard had led J.L.-M. to believe that the full bills of both of those creditors had been paid. To date, Attorney Menard has not made any refund to J.L.-M., either the $4,623.75 balance of any funds after the $3,000 payment to Blunt Orthopedic Clinic or the $4,491.77 balance of funds after the $8,000 payment to Athletic & Therapeutic Institute.

¶31 The next client matter detailed in the amended complaint involved Attorney Menard's representation of P.D. in a personal injury case. Attorney Menard's records include a copy of a $50,000 check payable to the firm's client trust account in the P.D. matter, but Attorney Menard has not identified the account into which the $50,000 was deposited and has not identified any disbursements made to P.D. from those funds.

¶32 On March 13, 2014, Attorney Menard deposited or directed the deposit of a $75,000 check relating to the P.D. matter to the firm's U.S. Bank business account.

¶33 Between March 13 and March 26, 2014, Attorney Menard made numerous disbursements from the U.S. Bank business account, including over $40,000 for advertising and payments to Attorney Menard, his law firm, or cash. Attorney Menard also disbursed two checks totaling $23,000 to another client whose personal injury case had been settled in December of 2013. No funds belonging to that client were ever deposited to the U.S. Bank business account.

¶35 The next client matter detailed in the amended client involved Attorney Menard's representation of T.R. in a worker's compensation matter. On February 4, 2015, Attorney Menard deposited or directed the deposit of two checks to the U.S. Bank business account in the T.R. case: a $55,289.57 check payable to T.R., which was not endorsed, and a $14,710.43 check payable to Attorney Menard. Prior to that deposit, the balance in the U.S. Bank business account was $8,259.25. That same day, there were two electronic withdrawals from the U.S. Bank business account by YP Advertising. On February 6, 2015, a check for over $28,000 payable to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue cleared the U.S. Bank business account. By February 9, 2015, the business account was overdrawn by $16.30, and none of T.R.'s funds remained in the account.

¶37 The next client matter detailed in the amended complaint arose out of Attorney Menard's representation of J.S. in a worker's compensation matter. On December 21, 2015, Attorney Menard deposited or directed the deposit of a $31,326.31 check to the U.S. Bank business account. That amount represented Attorney Menard's fees and costs in the matter. On December 31, 2015, Attorney Menard deposited or directed the deposit of a $95,637.56 check payable to J.S. to the business account. Prior to this deposit, there was $9,119.39 in the business account.

¶38 Between December 31, 2015 and January 6, 2016, over $140,000 in transactions cleared the U.S. Bank business account, including payments to the Milwaukee Athletic Club, Bank of America, Chase, and GM Financial.

¶39 On January 6, 2016, Attorney Menard transferred $15,000 of J.S.'s funds from the U.S. Bank trust account to the U.S. Bank business account. By the close of business that day, the business account was overdrawn and none of J.S.'s funds had been disbursed to her.

¶40 Between January 7 and February 9, 2016, Attorney Menard transferred $73,000 belonging in part to J.S. from the U.S. Bank trust account to the U.S. Bank business account. None of those transfers were used to pay J.S. The funds were all used for business and personal purposes.

¶42 The next client matter detailed in the amended complaint involved Attorney Menard's representation of P.M., who is Attorney Menard's uncle. P.M. has a winter home in Florida. In February of 2014, he was struck by a car while he was mowing his lawn at his home in Florida and suffered severe injuries requiring medical and surgical treatment.

¶43 On April 10, 2014, P.M. hired Attorney Menard to represent him in a personal injury action against the driver who hit him. The parties entered into a contingent fee agreement which provided that P.M. agreed to pay Derzon & Menard 33 1/3 percent of whatever total sum was collected, plus costs and disbursements.

¶44 The driver had $1,000,000 in liability coverage through State Farm. P.M. denies that Attorney Menard informed him about the policy limit. Attorney Menard said he was concerned about potential contributory negligence since there were reports that P.M. had stepped into the road in front of the car while mowing his lawn. P.M. had no recollection of the accident and would not be able to testify to rebut those reports.

¶45 In June 2014, State Farm offered to settle the case for $325,000. P.M. agreed Attorney Menard should attempt to negotiate a higher settlement and, if there was not a higher offer, the initial offer would be accepted. Attorney Menard negotiated a higher settlement figure of $500,000. P.M. accepted that settlement amount.

¶46 On July 3, 2014, State Farm issued a $500,000 check payable to Derzon & Menard Attorneys at Law Trust Account and mailed it to Attorney Menard. The check was deposited in Derzon & Menard's business account at U.S. Bank on July 8, 2014. Attorney Menard did not inform P.M. of the receipt of the funds. He did not disburse any portion of the settlement payment to P.M. or to any third party on P.M.'s behalf.

¶47 On July 9, 2014, P.M. signed a release agreeing to the $500,000 settlement. Between July 8 and July 28, 2014, Attorney Menard made numerous disbursements from the U.S. Bank business account for business and personal expenses unrelated to his representation of P.M. By October 17, 2014, following numerous deposits and disbursements unrelated to P.M.'s case, the balance in the U.S. Bank business account was $131.93. By November 24, 2014, the balance of the business account was $16.96. Thus, by November 24, 2014, Attorney Menard had converted $333,333.33 of P.M.'s settlement funds.

¶48 From April 2015 through early 2018, P.M. repeatedly contacted Attorney Menard by telephone and email inquiring about the status of his settlement proceeds. Attorney Menard gave excuses to P.M. as to why he was not able to disburse the funds.

¶49 P.M.'s own insurance agreed to cover his medical expenses. P.M.'s insurance carrier paid out $648,478.14 to medical care providers on P.M.'s behalf, discharging most of the medical bills for less than the original amount billed, which was $1,993,103.10.

¶50 Attorney Menard did not disburse any portion of the $500,000 settlement as payment for any of P.M.'s medical bills.

¶51 In early 2018, P.M. hired Attorneys Lenz and Meadows as successor counsel. In July 2018, P.M. sued Attorney Menard, his former firm, his current firm, and others to recover the settlement proceeds to which he was entitled. The case settled following meditation. The settlement is confidential.

¶53 The amended complaint alleges two counts of misconduct for commingling funds. It alleges that between December 2012 and February 2014, Attorney Menard deposited or directed the deposit of at least 72 checks to the Park Bank business account that were payable to the firm's trust account, to a specific client, to the firm and a specific client or a third party. Those deposits totaled $1,801,858.13.

¶54 Between March 2014 and September 2016, Attorney Menard deposited or directed the deposit of at least 102 checks to the U.S. Bank business account that were payable to the firm's trust account, to a specific client, to the firm and a specific client or a third party. Those 103 deposits total $2,806,497.51.

¶55 Attorney Menard admitted under oath in an interview conducted by the OLR that the checks deposited to the Park Bank business account were more likely than not all attorney fee checks from worker's compensation cases. He also admitted under oath he did not keep track of whose funds were deposited to the business account and that he would use funds in that account for his own purposes.

¶58 In his report, the referee noted that a number of witnesses testified at the hearing and, in the referee's opinion, the most convincing witness was Mary Hoeft Smith, the former Trust Account Program Administrator for the OLR, who is now retired. Ms. Smith testified that Attorney Menard was unable to produce the required trust account records, but he did produce voluminous business account records. She testified it was a common practice for him to move client trust funds into his business account and then use those funds to pay "very hefty expenses for things like advertising, radio, and billboards." She described this as a practice of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" and using funds belonging to one client in order to pay back a client who was previously the victim of a conversion by Attorney Menard. She testified that the matters that were charged in this case were only the largest of many, many conversions and in her opinion "virtually every client whose funds went into the business account were converted."

¶59 The referee noted that J.L.-M. testified by telephone from Colorado and the referee found her to be intelligent, honest, and straightforward. J.L.-M. testified she felt a lot of betrayal from Attorney Menard and that it had been a very harrowing experience.

¶60 The referee noted that P.M., Attorney Menard's 71-year-old uncle, also testified and although the matter has been resolved and P.M. has no further claim for restitution, the entire experience has left a bad taste in P.M.'s mouth.

¶61 The referee found that Attorney Menard "gave the impression of not being entirely trustworthy." The referee said Attorney Menard felt he was entitled to the full $500,000 settlement proceeds from his uncle's settlement and that his uncle was entitled to nothing. The referee said "this assertion lacked a rational basis and was a rather cold-hearted way to treat a family member. It showed a distinct lack of remorse on Respondent's part in depriving his uncle of his settlement proceeds."

¶62 The referee also noted that Attorney Menard claimed that each of his clients gave him a power of attorney to do whatever he wanted with their money and that included depositing the money into the business account and using it for whatever purposes Attorney Menard wanted. The referee said:

(Emphasis added.)

¶63 The referee said Attorney Menard acknowledged that he was sloppy and "crappy" in regards to his accounting practices but said "a revocation would ruin me and would ruin everything that I've worked for 30 years."

¶64 The referee said that the evidence revealed that over at least a six-year period, Attorney Menard converted over $1,000,000 in client funds. The referee said additionally, between December 2012 and September 2016, Attorney Menard deposited as many as 175 checks made out to clients, to his trust account, or to third parties, all of which should have gone into the trust account, into his business accounts and these out-of-trust deposits at two different banks totaled over $4,000,000.

¶65 After considering a variety of cases cited by both parties, the referee said this case was similar to In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Weigel, 2012 WI 124, 345 Wis. 2d 7, 823 N.W.2d 798. Attorney Weigel was charged with ten counts of misconduct involving failure to maintain proper trust account records and converting funds belonging to clients. He claimed the trust account violations already existed when the former founding member of his law firm was bought out by Attorney Weigel and others. At times, the trust account may have been out of balance as much as $1,000,000, but by the time Attorney Weigel was charged the out of balance amount was down to $100,000.

¶66 The referee noted that Attorney Weigel claimed, as Attorney Menard does here, that the OLR did not present testimony from a client or third party demonstrating an actual monetary loss. Therefore, he argued that the OLR had failed to prove conversion. The referee noted that this court disagreed, noting that an attorney must hold the property of others with the care required of a professional fiduciary. This court described Attorney Weigel's conduct, just as Mary Hoeft Smith did here, as "robbing Peter to pay Paul," and this court revoked Attorney Weigel's license to practice law.

¶67 The referee said that the conduct in Weigel is almost on all fours with the conduct involved here and in both cases, over an extended period of time, client trust funds were used as slush funds to pay off other clients, firm expenses, or whatever was most pressing at the moment. The referee said that Attorney Menard's trust accounts, as the Weigel trust account, were continuously overdrawn or out of trust. The referee said the amount converted here, well over $1,000,000, is in the same order of magnitude as in Weigel, and likely represents just the tip of the iceberg. In addition, the referee noted that over $4,600,000 was out of trust over a span of four years. The referee agreed with the OLR that revocation was the appropriate remedy. He said:

¶68 In addition to recommending revocation of Attorney Menard's license, the referee recommended that Attorney Menard be ordered to make restitution as follows:

¶69 Finally, the referee recommended that Attorney Menard pay the full costs of the proceeding.

¶70 Attorney Menard has appealed the referee's recommendation of revocation as the appropriate sanction. He asserts that appropriate discipline should be a suspension between 18 and 24 months.

¶71 Attorney Menard notes that he testified at the evidentiary hearing that there were several reasons why he developed the practice of obtaining client consent to commingle funds in his business account rather than depositing them in trust, and for obtaining durable power of attorney forms from all clients in order to do so in the first place. He says he testified that some of his clients did not have bank accounts and they asked him to cash checks and pay portions of the proceeds on demand, while other clients were afraid that depositing a large settlement check into their own accounts might upset their SSDI or Medicare status. He says still others felt overwhelmed with the prospect of having to resolve unpaid medical expenses and liens on their own out of the settlement proceeds and Attorney Menard agreed to handle those tasks on his clients' behalf. He says during the pertinent timeframe, his law business was generally good and he never perceived his accounting practices as "robbing Peter to pay Paul."

¶72 Attorney Menard says the evidence showed that none of his clients or former clients were harmed by his conceded trust account violations, with the exception of J.S., who he acknowledges is still owed $60,000 and who recently filed a claim with the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection. However, he says he "was willing to pay whenever she requested" and she had stopped making requests.

¶73 Attorney Menard argues that "his business practices were uniquely set up in such a way to create financial flexibility for the benefit of his clients, and were set up as such with the expressed consent of his clients." He says the referee fails to discuss or simply overlooked the following:

¶74 Attorney Menard argues that the OLR fell short of proving that the alleged amounts that the referee recommends be paid as restitution were in fact owed. He complains that the OLR presented evidence inferring that, if Attorney Menard could not produce documentation proving full payment of settlement proceeds, when it was abundantly clear that his recordkeeping practice was sloppy at best, then he must owe restitution in the presumed, unproven deficit amount, irrespective of the fact that no one, except P.M., whose case has been settled, had made a claim against Attorney Menard for restitution owed. Attorney Menard again acknowledges that he is a poor record keeper, but he says poor recordkeeping and the absence of documentation available to confirm full satisfaction of settlement proceeds owed to clients is not the same as clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence of nonpayment.

¶75 Attorney Menard complains that the referee unfairly compared his case to Weigel, in which the attorney's license was revoked. He says:

-

He also says unlike Weigel, he did keep records and settlement statements "providing a detailed picture of each and every client settlement and accounting of funds commingled, albeit, sloppy, unorganized records." Id.

¶76 Attorney Menard argues the fact he kept all of his clients and former clients informed about his accounting practices and the commingling of funds for purposes of resolving medical bills, negotiating subrogation liens, and paying clients structured settlement proceeds should have been a factor taken into consideration by the referee but it was not.

¶77 Rather than revocation, as was ordered in Weigel, Attorney Menard argues that his case is more similar to In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Voss, 2014 WI 75, 356 Wis. 2d 382, 850 N.W.2d 190. The complaint in Voss alleged 11 counts of misconduct arising from Attorney Voss' work as a court-appointed guardian. Rather than setting up a guardianship account to handle his clients' income and expenses, Attorney Voss used a personal checking account not subject to interest accrual as a standard IOLTA account would have been, and he did not establish a separate fiduciary account for his clients' assets. In suspending Attorney Voss' license for 18 months, this court held that in spite of the fact it was Attorney Voss' third instance of discipline, that the conduct went on for a significant period of time and that the client at issue was vulnerable, revocation was reserved for the most egregious cases and Attorney Voss' conduct, although serious, did not rise to that level.

¶78 The OLR argues that revocation is indeed appropriate for Attorney Menard's admitted 30 counts of misconduct. The OLR points out that although Attorney Menard claims he obtained powers of attorney or some other agreement from his clients purporting to authorize him to use their money as he saw fit, no such documents were ever introduced into evidence. In addition, the OLR says even if Attorney Menard had induced his clients to sign such documents, this would amount to nothing more than an attempt to circumvent this court's clear cut ethical rules, and even Attorney Menard confirmed that his scheme did not change his underlying ethical obligations or excuse the underlying misconduct.

¶79 As for Attorney Menard's claim that one reason he deposited client money into his business account was to shield clients from negative consequences in relation to their government benefits, the OLR says even if Attorney Menard was holding client funds to shield them from government discovery, he fails to explain why he could not have held that money in his trust account rather than his business account. In addition, the OLR says Attorney Menard does not explain why this alleged motivation required or allowed him to convert client funds to his own use. It says "under his theory the clients needed their money hidden, not spent by their attorney." In addition, the OLR says this claimed motivation smacks of fraud. The OLR asks whether Attorney Menard was hiding client funds in his bank account so that government entities would not factor those sums into his clients' benefit eligibility determination. If so, it says it was not his place to assist clients in circumventing government benefit eligibility standards.

¶80 The OLR says another justification used by Attorney Menard is the fact that an alleged former client named Jessup, who he claims filed a grievance against him, resulted in an OLR investigation that ultimately resulted in no discipline. The OLR says this purported "evidence" provides no defense whatsoever since there is no evidence in the record as to the existence or facts of any Jessup grievance; what investigation, if any, the OLR did; or what the OLR advised or did not advise Attorney Menard regarding the matter. The OLR says it is barred by this court's rules from even confirming or denying that any client named Jessup ever filed a grievance. It notes that upon its objection at the evidentiary hearing, the referee confirmed he would not factor the alleged Jessup grievance into his decision.

¶81 The OLR says Attorney Menard's conduct is not analogous to that in the Voss case because Attorney Menard repeatedly conceded he did use client funds for his own personal or business needs and, unlike Voss, the conversions here involved at least 12 clients over the course of many years. In addition, the OLR notes Attorney Menard's conversions total over $1,000,000 and his out of trust deposits exceeded $4,000,000.

¶82 The OLR says the referee appropriately concluded that this case was analogous to Weigel. The OLR notes that Attorney Weigel's license was revoked despite no finding that his conversions were to pad his own pocket, whereby in this case Attorney Menard repeatedly converted funds not only to pay clients and others in client matters, he also converted funds to his own use.

¶83 The OLR also argues that the referee appropriately ordered restitution in the amounts set forth above. While Attorney Menard complains that the OLR's restitution request shifts the burden of proof on restitution to him, the OLR says it repeatedly asked Attorney Menard for documents to support any payments he made to or on behalf of clients. It says Mary Hoeft Smith conducted her analysis based on what Attorney Menard produced and what she received from his banks. The OLR says while Attorney Menard is correct that SCR 22.38 requires the OLR to prove misconduct by evidence that is clear, satisfactory, and convincing, he fails to note the impact of SCR 22.39, which shifts the burden of proof to a respondent who fails to produce trust account records to the OLR, or provide an accounting or fiduciary property to the OLR by creating a presumption of trust account misconduct. See SCR 22.39(2). The OLR says Attorney Menard did not provide it with trust account records or accountings, and Mary Hoeft Smith had to recreate those records. The OLR says, "Menard did not provide a scintilla of documentary evidence, much less evidence that is clear, satisfactory or convincing to rebut OLR's restitution proof or any presumption permitted under SCR 22.39."

¶84 The OLR says Attorney Menard mischaracterizes Mary Hoeft Smith's testimony about her investigation by calling it "rushed and incomplete." The OLR says she never said any such thing and to the contrary she testified that the OLR prioritized promptly presenting the case to the Preliminary Review Committee with some clients rather than waiting to conduct an exhaustive audit of each and every one of Attorney Menard's clients.

¶85 The OLR concludes by saying that the testimony at the hearing was clear, unequivocal, and compelling that Attorney Menard used his clients' funds as his own personal slush fund or piggy bank rather than holding them in trust as required by Supreme Court Rules. It says his scheme displayed an utter disregard for the most fundamental of an attorney's fiduciary obligations: the duty to hold his clients' funds in trust. It says his "rob Peter to pay Paul" pyramid scheme violates a most basic and important part of the Supreme Court Rules.

¶87 A referee's findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. This court is free to impose whatever discipline it deems appropriate, regardless of the referee's recommendation. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686.

¶88 Attorney Menard stipulated to 30 counts of misconduct. The record clearly supports the referee's findings of fact, based on that stipulation, that the OLR met its burden of proof on all of those counts.

¶89 Turning to the appropriate sanction, upon careful review of the matter, we agree with the referee that revocation of Attorney Menard's license is appropriate. Although no two disciplinary cases are identical, we agree with the referee's assessment that this case is very similar to Weigel. Here, as in Weigel, monies belonging to one client were routinely used to pay off other clients as well as firm and personal expenses. As in Weigel, in virtually every client matter he handled, Attorney Menard "robbed Peter to pay Paul." As we said in Weigel:

¶90 We also agree with the referee's recommendations that Attorney Menard should be assessed the full costs of the proceeding and that he should be ordered to make restitution to the clients mentioned above.

¶91 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Robert C. Menard to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this order.

¶92 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Robert C. Menard shall make restitution to the following clients:

¶93 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Robert C. Menard shall pay to the Office of Law Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $18,191.42 as of October 25, 2019.

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

¶95 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not already done so, Robert C. Menard shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license to practice law has been revoked.

¶96 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary suspension of Robert C. Menard's license to practice law, which was issued on March 20, 2020, is hereby lifted.