¶3 Attorney White was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in 2013. He practiced in Green Bay. In 2019 his Wisconsin law license was suspended, effective October 4, 2019, for a period of 15 months for 27 counts of professional misconduct arising out of four client matters. The misconduct included failing to hold advanced fees in trust; failing to respond to requests from opposing counsel; failing to take action to prosecute his clients' case; failing to respond to discovery requests; making false statements to his client about the status of a case and the conduct of the opposing parties; fabricating an email to the OLR; charging an unreasonable fee; and failing to return a client's file upon termination of the representation. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against White, 2019 WI 86, 388 Wis. 2d 277, 932 N.W.2d 410. In addition, Attorney White's law license is administratively suspended for failure to pay state bar dues and failure to provide a trust account certification.

¶5 On December 2, 2019, the OLR filed a notice of motion and motion to strike Attorney White's answer and a motion for default judgment. A hearing on the motion was held before the referee on December 3, 2019. The referee had previously signed an order for Attorney White to appear at the proceeding, but he did not in fact appear.

¶6 At the December 3, 2019 hearing, the referee granted Attorney Jaconi's motion to withdraw as counsel for Attorney White. Attorney Jaconi stated at the hearing that Attorney White had "essentially disappeared" and had not been heard from since early October, around the time his license suspension went into effect. Attorney Jaconi stated that Attorney White had cleared out his office and left a moving company with an unpaid bill. He further stated that all of Attorney White's telephone and email accounts were non- functional. Attorney Jaconi stated that he was not aware of Attorney White's current whereabouts but had heard from one source that he had gone to California and from another source that he had gone to Washington, D.C. Attorney Jaconi testified he heard that Attorney White's brother told some circuit court judges that Attorney White had committed suicide. There is no indication that this is true.

¶7 The referee then turned to the OLR's motion to strike Attorney White's answer and its motion for default judgment and granted both. The referee said he had "never seen anything quite like" the OLR's complaint against Attorney White and, "the attitude and statements that are cited in the complaint are not only stunning, but they show a degree of disrespect for clients and for the system that I've never encountered . . .." The referee found that Attorney White's conduct was egregious and that his abruptly leaving the area, without regard to his clients and without advising the OLR, was an extraordinary situation. The referee said, "to leave everyone in a lurch, as Attorney White has done, is unfathomable. Anyone would have to say how could any professional conduct himself in this way."

¶8 The referee said it was clear the public needed to be protected from Attorney White and for that reason he recommended that this court enter default judgment against Attorney White. The referee found that there was an adequate factual basis for each of the 44 counts of misconduct alleged in the OLR's complaint and that, by default, Attorney White was found to have committed all of the alleged violations. The OLR had asked for a two-year license suspension, and the referee concluded that was an appropriate sanction for Attorney White's misconduct. The referee recommended that Attorney White be required to pay restitution to a number of clients and that he be required to pay the full costs of this proceeding.

¶9 The allegations of the OLR's complaint will be briefly summarized here. In 2017, K.C. hired Attorney White to represent him in a case in which K.C. had been charged with resisting/obstructing an officer; possession of THC, 2nd or subsequent offense; possession of cocaine, 2nd or subsequent offense; and possession of drug paraphernalia. K.C. paid Attorney White $2,100. The funds were paid in contemplation of future services. Attorney White did not deposit the funds into his trust account. Attorney White appeared with K.C. for two court appearances, after which K.C. attempted to advise Attorney White that he no longer needed his services and he wanted a refund of any unearned fees. Attorney White failed to respond to K.C. and he failed to respond to the OLR's request for information after K.C. filed a grievance.

¶11 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint involves Attorney White's representation of J.B., who hired Attorney White in 2017 to represent him in three criminal matters. J.B. and his girlfriend, S.T., paid Attorney White $3,750. The funds were paid in contemplation of future services. Attorney White failed to deposit the funds into his trust account. Attorney White responded to a text message from S.T. by using profanity. After that exchange, S.T. and J.B. acted to terminate Attorney White's representation, which was followed by Attorney White's stipulated withdrawal from the cases.

¶12 J.B. requested an itemized billing statement for the work Attorney White had performed. Attorney White refused to provide the itemization and told J.B. not to contact him again. J.B. pursued fee arbitration through the State Bar of Wisconsin, but Attorney White failed to respond to the State Bar, which resulted in dismissal of the arbitration request. After J.B. filed a grievance against Attorney White, Attorney White told the OLR investigator he would not participate in the process because he believed the investigation was the result of racial bias. After this court issued an order to show cause why Attorney White's license to practice law should not be temporarily suspended as a result of his willful failure to cooperate with the OLR's investigation, Attorney White provided the OLR with a response to J.B.'s grievance. This court then granted the OLR's request to withdraw its motion for temporary license suspension.

¶14 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint involved Attorney White's representation of J.D. J.D.'s father, J.B., hired Attorney White to represent J.D. in an appeal arising out of two criminal matters in Milwaukee County. J.B. paid Attorney White an advanced fee of $2,400. Attorney White did not provide a written communication regarding the representation, nor did he deposit the fees into his trust account. Attorney White was subsequently asked to provide a refund of fees paid, but he refused to comply with the request. He also failed to cooperate with the OLR's investigation of a grievance until he was served with an order to show cause from this court.

¶16 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint involved Attorney White's representation of D.E., who hired Attorney White to represent him with respect to a bench warrant that had been issued against him in Dodge County and with respect to a civil claim against Madison Metro Transit. Attorney White received two payments of $300 from D.E. and agreed to a contingent fee arrangement regarding the civil claim. Attorney White did not have a written fee agreement with D.E., nor did he deposit the fees paid into his trust account even though the funds paid were in contemplation of future services.

¶18 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint involved Attorney White's representation of K.G., who hired Attorney White with respect to a civil rights claim against the Village of Elm Grove Police Department. Attorney White advised K.G. by email that he had reviewed documents relating to his potential civil rights claim and that he believed K.G. likely had a basis for a civil lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. K.G. paid Attorney White $3,000 toward attorney fees, believing that Attorney White had agreed to file a civil suit on his behalf. Attorney White did not have a written fee agreement with K.G., nor did he deposit the fees paid into his trust account. K.G. subsequently emailed Attorney White to request a refund of the $3,000 and an accounting of work that had been performed. Attorney White failed to provide an accounting or a refund.

¶20 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint involved Attorney White's representation of C.C., who hired Attorney White to represent her son in a postconviction juvenile criminal matter. C.C. paid Attorney White $3,000 as an advanced fee. Attorney White did not have a written fee agreement with C.C. Attorney White told C.C. he would take action to attempt to have her son's guilty plea withdrawn. Although Attorney White represented to C.C. that he had submitted petitions in the case, in fact he had not made any filings. C.C. subsequently advised Attorney White she was terminating his representation and asked for a full refund of fees. She then filed a grievance with the OLR. Attorney White responded to the grievance by saying he never represented C.C. or her son and that he did not take on juvenile matters.

¶21 In March of 2018, the State Bar of Wisconsin notified Attorney White that the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (the Fund) had approved payment of $3,000 to C.C. with the explanation that money had been "lost because of [White's] dishonest conduct."

¶23 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint involved Attorney White's representation of J.J., who hired Attorney White to represent him in a divorce matter and a criminal matter. J.J. paid Attorney White $18,000.

¶25 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint involved Attorney White's representation of W.M., who filed a Fair Housing Discrimination complaint against his landlord. The Equal Rights Division (ERD) found probable cause to believe that the landlord had discriminated against W.M. because of race, color, and national origin under the Wisconsin Open Housing Law. W.M. hired Attorney White to represent him with respect to claims of eviction allegedly based on race, color, and national origin and paid Attorney White $750 for his representation. Although the fees were paid in contemplation of future services, Attorney White did not provide W.M. with a written fee agreement nor did he place the $750 into his trust account.

¶27 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint involved Attorney White's representation of P.W. According to an engagement letter and fee agreement, P.W. would pay Attorney White a flat fee of $7,500, which included representation "up and through trial if necessary." P.W. paid Attorney White $2,000 and agreed to pay him the remainder of the balance through monthly payments of at least $400. P.W. through his girlfriend, S.A., made $400 payments to Attorney White by check on four occasions, although P.W. or S.A. later placed a stop payment on the final check. Attorney White did not deposit the fees paid into his trust account although they were paid in contemplation of future services.

¶28 Attorney White made several court appearances on behalf of P.W. P.W. appeared in court for his final pretrial conference, but Attorney White did not appear. The circuit court noted that Attorney White's license had been suspended and, as a result, he could not provide legal representation to P.W. The court ordered Attorney White withdrawn from the case and referred P.W. to the state public defender's office to be evaluated for representation.

¶29 After P.W. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney White, Attorney White told the OLR that P.W. told him he had hired another attorney. In February of 2018, Attorney Jaconi forwarded to the OLR a profanity laden email from Attorney White regarding three grievance investigations, including P.W.'s grievance. Among other things, Attorney White's email said, "I plan on doing nothing until [OLR investigator] is lying in her own blood. Please feel free to tell her, I am this close to becoming violent."

¶31 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint arose out of Attorney White's representation of R.S., who hired White Law Offices LLC to represent M.A. in a medical malpractice suit and to represent R.S. with respect to a probate matter involving his mother's estate. The engagement letter and fee agreement signed by R.S. provided that R.S. agreed to pay White Law Offices LLC a $5,000 flat fee plus a 25 percent contingent fee on any settlement or award in the medical malpractice suit. Attorney White signed the engagement letter and fee agreement on behalf of White Law Offices LLC.

¶32 Jonathan Gigot, an attorney formerly associated with Attorney White's firm was the attorney assigned to handle these cases. The engagement letter and fee agreement stated that R.S. and M.A. gave "informed consent after Jonathan Gigot has proposed the course of conduct, has communicated adequate information, and has explained all material risks of and reasonable available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct."

¶33 R.S. paid Attorney White $5,000, which was characterized by the engagement letter and fee agreement as "in the form of a Firm Credit, secured by Cole White." The firm credit resulted from the sale of a camper vehicle from R.S. to Attorney White, with the Bill of Sale listing a total purchase price for the camper of $6,700, of which $5,000 was a legal fee credit and $1,700 was paid in cash. Neither R.S. nor M.A. provided informed consent, in writing and signed, as to Attorney White's role in the camper transaction. Attorney White did not advise them in writing of the desirability of seeking independent legal counsel on the transaction.

¶34 Attorney Gigot subsequently left White Law Offices LLC, at which time he explained to R.S. and M.A. that he believed their cases were too much for a one- or two- person law firm to handle and advised them to seek out a larger law firm to handle their matters. Attorney White offered to return the camper vehicle to R.S. in exchange for a return of the $1,700 paid by Attorney White plus all maintenance, upkeep, and everything else that went into it. Attorney White made no other effort to refund any unearned fees to R.S. or M.A.

¶35 After R.S. filed a grievance with the OLR, Attorney White told the OLR at various times: that he told R.S. and M.A. to speak to a different firm about the camper transaction; that he did not advise them of the desirability of seeking the advice of independent legal counsel about the camper transaction; and that R.S. and M.A. did provide a signed written informed consent, but Attorney White was not able to produce it.

¶36 Attorney White made profane Instagram comments directed at R.S. including, "keep fucking with me [R.]. I promise you'll live to regret it. I'm keeping a tab on everyone who's crossed me, and the bill is going to come due soon." Attorney White also stated in an Instagram comment directed to R.S., "you are such an obsessed, pathetic loser."

¶38 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint involved Attorney White's representation of D.N., who hired Attorney White to represent him in an Oconto County case. The engagement letter and fee agreement signed by D.N. provided that he would pay Attorney White a flat fee of $10,800. D.N. paid Attorney White $10,800 and made an additional $40 payment. Although the funds paid were in contemplation of future services, Attorney White did not place the advanced fees into his trust account.

¶39 Attorney White entered an appearance in D.N.'s case on February 12, 2018 and withdrew on March 22, 2018. On February 20, 2018, Attorney White met with D.N. to review discovery. D.N. asked Attorney White about any disciplinary complaints that were pending against him at that time. Attorney White told D.N. that any disciplinary complaints had been resolved and there were no complaints currently pending. This was a false statement.

¶40 On March 23, 2018, D.N. requested a full refund of the $10,800 he had paid Attorney White. Attorney White did not provide D.N. with a closing letter or accounting after his representation was terminated, nor did he refund any fees. Attorney White did not earn the $10,800 he was paid.

¶41 After D.N. filed a grievance with the OLR, Attorney White told the OLR he had completed "total trial prep" for the case, but he provided no documentation to support this claim. Attorney White accused D.N. of sending "a threatening lie filled text message that shows OLR influenced his behavior and decision making." He also accused D.N. of using "racially charged language" on the phone. In fact, D.N.'s text messages to Attorney White did not contain any threatening language.

¶42 On October 9, 2018, the Fund approved payment of $10,840 to D.N. because the funds had been, "lost because of [White's] dishonest conduct."

¶44 The next client matter detailed in the OLR's complaint alleged four counts of misconduct arising out of Attorney White's representation of C.T., who hired him to represent her on a petition to obtain court approval to move from Wisconsin to Puerto Rico with her minor children. She shared custody of the children with her ex-husband. C.T. paid Attorney White $1,500 to "cover the drafting of a stipulation and notice to your ex-husband for the purposes of moving the children." The engagement letter and fee agreement provided that if the ex- husband agreed to the stipulation, the matter would be concluded, but if he did not agree, C.T. would pay an additional $2,000 to Attorney White to undertake additional proceedings relating to the custody of the children. Although the funds paid by C.T. were paid in contemplation of future services, making them advanced fees, Attorney White did not place the money in his trust account.

¶45 On July 18, 2017, Attorney White advised C.T. that he had filed the notice of her move with the circuit court and the ex- husband had failed to respond. At that time, Attorney White had not in fact filed anything in C.T.'s case. On September 21, 2017, Attorney White advised C.T. that there had been a hearing that morning in which the court granted his request for a default and that C.T. was free to move. Attorney White did not provide any documentation to C.T. relating to any hearing or her ability to move with the children. C.T. subsequently contacted the circuit court to obtain records regarding the default judgment and discovered nothing had ever been filed with the court and there had been no hearing or default judgment entered.

¶46 After C.T. filed a grievance with the OLR, Attorney White denied sending communications to C.T. He also told the OLR he had no recollection of C.T.'s case and that he had limited recollection of any matters from June 2017 through the summer of 2018 due to mental health treatment.

¶47 On October 9, 2018, the State Bar of Wisconsin notified Attorney White that the Fund had approved payment of $1,500 to C.T. because the funds had been "lost because of [White's] dishonest conduct."

¶49 The final matter detailed in the OLR's complaint arose out of Attorney White's representation of F.T., who hired Attorney White to represent him and his wife (the T.s) in a real estate contract dispute regarding the release of an earnest money deposit of $17,000 relating to the purchase of property in Puerto Rico. There was no fee agreement to define or limit the scope of Attorney White's representation. F.T. paid Attorney White a $1,000 advanced fee, which Attorney White did not place in his trust account.

¶50 On July 30, 2017, Fox Communities Credit Union returned the $17,000 earnest money payment to the T.s from escrow. On December 6, 2017, the sellers of the property in Puerto Rico demanded that the T.s replace the $17,000 to escrow, and the T.s bank placed a hold on the $17,000 earnest money deposit as a result of the dispute.

¶51 By correspondence dated February 22, 2018, counsel for the sellers of the property wrote to the T.s requesting return of the earnest money deposit and advising that if the T.s did not respond within 10 days the sellers intended to initiate litigation. On February 27, 2018, F.T. contacted Attorney White about the February 22, 2018 letter and asked Attorney White to meet to discuss the next step. Attorney White agreed to meet.

¶52 On March 30, 2018, Attorney White emailed F.T. advising that he had sent notices and a denial of claim relating to the earnest money deposit issue and that he would try to contact them again regarding the status of the matter.

¶53 On March 31, 2018, the T.s were served with a lawsuit by the sellers of the Puerto Rico property. F.T. contacted Attorney White about the lawsuit. Attorney White had not been aware of it.

¶54 On April 3, 2018, the T.s terminated Attorney White's representation and asked to have their file returned. Upon receiving their file, the T.s discovered that Attorney White had not prepared or sent anything on their behalf in response to the February 22, 2018 letter and had not attempted any contact with the sellers' attorney.

¶55 After the T.s filed a grievance against Attorney White with the OLR, Attorney White told the OLR he did not represent the T.s with respect to the sellers' demand as outlined in the February 22, 2018 letter. Attorney White also questioned the veracity of the emails between himself and F.T., saying, "Bullshit. That's the totality of my response . . . I got them their 17k back. You people really are fucking unbelievable. Don't message me with any of these bullshit liars anymore."

¶57 The OLR requested, and the referee agreed, that Attorney White should be required to make restitution to the following clients in the following amounts:

¶59 A referee's findings of fact are affirmed 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. The court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit, 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.

¶60 We agree with the referee that Attorney White should be declared in default. Although Attorney White was given notice of the hearing on the motion for a default judgment, he failed to appear or present a defense.

¶61 We also agree with the referee that the allegations in the OLR's complaint have been established and that Attorney White engaged in all of the acts of the misconduct alleged in the complaint.

¶62 As to the sanction, after careful review of the matter, we conclude that a two-year suspension is an inadequate sanction for Attorney White's misconduct. As noted, in the previous disciplinary action, Attorney White apparently commenced his solo law practice shortly after graduating from law school and almost immediately got himself into trouble due to his apparent disdain for doing the necessary research or work to perform as a capable advocate for his clients. In the previous disciplinary matter, Attorney White was found to have committed 27 counts of professional misconduct in his handling of four client matters. In this case, he was found to have committed 44 counts of misconduct involving 13 separate clients. He showed an utter lack of regard for his clients, and when called to account for his actions he lashed out at both the clients and the OLR investigators with profane comments and threats of physical violence.

¶63 Although no two disciplinary matters are precisely alike, we find that the misconduct at issue here is somewhat analogous to that presented in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hicks, 2012 WI 101, 343 Wis. 2d 411, 816 N.W.2d 316. In Hicks, we imposed a four-year suspension as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee. The misconduct rose out of six separate grievances and included neglecting client matters, charging an unreasonable fee, failing to respond to client inquiries, and making multiple misrepresentations to a client, to opposing counsel, and the State's lawyer regulatory agency. Given the number of counts of misconduct at issue here, which included threats by physical violence against the OLR's investigator and at least one client, the number of clients affected by the misconduct, and the seriousness of the misconduct, a four-year suspension is appropriate.

¶64 Finally, we find that Attorney White should be required to make restitution to the clients listed in the referee's report as well as the additional client identified in the OLR's October 5, 2020 response to this court's order to show cause. We also agree with the referee that Attorney White should pay the full costs of the proceeding.

¶65 IT IS ORDERED that that the license of Cole J. White to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of four years, effective the date of this order.

¶66 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Cole J. White shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $2,514.74 as of January 7, 2020.

¶67 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Cole J. White shall make restitution as follows:

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

¶69 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not already done so, Cole J. White 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.

¶70 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative suspension of Cole J. White's license to practice law in Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues and for failure to file Office of Lawyer Regulation trust account certification, will remain in effect until each reason for the administrative suspension has been rectified pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).