¶3 Attorney Davis was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin in 1998. He currently resides in Orlando, Florida. His law license is presently suspended for both disciplinary and administrative reasons. In June 2020 we issued a per curiam decision suspending Attorney Davis' law license for one year for 36 counts of professional misconduct committed in eight client matters. That misconduct included practicing law while suspended, failure to inform clients of his suspensions, neglect of client matters, and failure to account for advanced fees or to refund unearned fees. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Davis, 2020 WI 48, ¶11, 392 Wis. 2d 21, 943 N.W.2d 885.

¶4 His law license has been administratively suspended for failure to pay State Bar dues and failure to provide a required trust account certification since November 2, 2018. It has also been administratively suspended for failure to comply with CLE reporting requirements since June 5, 2019.

¶5 On December 20, 2019, while the above-referenced disciplinary matter was still pending, the OLR filed the disciplinary complaint now before us. In it, Attorney Davis was charged with 11 counts of professional misconduct in two client matters and the OLR sought a six- month license suspension, restitution, and costs. Attorney Davis was personally served, but did not file an answer to the complaint. We appointed Referee David G. Deininger to preside over this matter.

¶6 Attorney Davis attempted to resolve all of his then pending disciplinary matters by filing a Petition for Revocation by Consent on May 19, 2020. However, by the time he filed that petition, our review of the first disciplinary matter was complete and our June 2020 opinion was awaiting release. Accordingly, we dismissed Attorney Davis' initial petition for license revocation and directed the parties to proceed in this matter. We further directed the parties to advise Referee Deininger if Attorney Davis opted to file an amended Petition for Revocation by Consent. He subsequently did so, the referee has issued a report, and the matter is now properly before us.

¶7 We first consider the pending disciplinary complaint. The first five counts arise from Attorney Davis' representation of D.R. D.R. retained Attorney Davis in February 2017 to represent him regarding his employment termination from the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families. D.R. paid Attorney Davis $3,500 in advanced fees to represent him. Over the next two years, Attorney Davis repeatedly failed to notify D.R. when Attorney Davis' law license was suspended; continued his representation of D.R. during these license suspensions; missed the deadline for filing a Notice of Claim with the Wisconsin Attorney General (a prerequisite for filing suit on D.R.'s termination); and did not provide D.R.'s case file to him when requested. After D.R. filed a grievance with the OLR, Attorney Davis failed to respond to the OLR's request for a response.

¶9 The remaining allegations in the OLR complaint relate to Attorney Davis' representation of the National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse, Inc. and related parties (collectively NASGA). On May 31, 2017, Attorney Davis' Wisconsin law license was administratively suspended for non- compliance with CLE reporting requirements. On August 1, 2017, NASGA retained Attorney Davis to represent them in an ongoing dispute with another advocacy group. Attorney Davis was paid $7,500 in advanced fees for that representation.

¶10 Attorney Davis did not inform NASGA that his Wisconsin law license was suspended and he failed to advise them of a subsequent license suspension for failure to pay bar dues. As the referee observed:

The client filed a grievance and Attorney Davis then failed to respond to the OLR's requests for information.

¶12 On August 18, 2020, Attorney Davis filed an amended petition for consensual license revocation pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.19. In his amended petition Attorney Davis discloses that in addition to the complaint before us now, the OLR is also investigating two additional grievances against Attorney Davis. Attorney Davis admits that he cannot successfully defend against the allegations of this complaint or the pending grievances. He states that is aware of his right to legal counsel but he is freely, voluntarily, and knowingly giving up his right to further contest the allegations of misconduct in this complaint and in the pending grievances. Attorney Davis further agrees that he should be ordered to make restitution to three former clients in the amount of $7,500 to NASGA, $7,500 to C.F., and $4,000 to P.A.R., relating to a pending grievance.

¶13 The OLR supports Attorney Davis' petition for consensual license revocation. The OLR confirms that certain grievances against Attorney Davis remain under investigation and contends that Attorney Davis has engaged in "serious misconduct." The OLR states: "[d]avis misled his clients into thinking he had a valid law license, collected fees, then abandoned them after intermittent work."

¶14 The referee determined, based on the disciplinary complaint, Attorney Davis' amended petition for consensual license revocation, and the OLR's response, that Attorney Davis has engaged in serious misconduct, and he recommends that we accept the petition, order restitution, and revoke Attorney Davis' license to practice law. No appeal has been filed in this matter, so our review proceeds pursuant to SCR 22.17(2).

¶15 As the OLR stated, and the referee agreed, we have accepted SCR 22.19 consent revocation petitions involving similar levels of misconduct in the past. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stubbins, 2014 WI 115, 358 Wis. 2d 358, 854 N.W.2d 682 (granting petition where previously undisciplined attorney faced 17 potential counts of misconduct in three matters including lack of diligence, failure to communicate, and where the attorney repeatedly lied to cover up his lack of diligence); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Whitnall, 2003 WI 146, 267 Wis. 2d 28, 673 N.W.2d 674 (granting petition where attorney faced six counts including failure to act diligently for clients, failure to communicate with clients, and failure to return their files).

¶16 The OLR alleged, and the referee agreed that, Attorney Davis "misled his clients into thinking he had a valid law license, collected fees, then abandoned them after intermittent work. The result was a lack of diligence, communication and follow through similar to Stubbins and Whitnall." Indeed, the referee describes Attorney Davis as "an attorney who has lost all interest, let alone diligence . . . in advocating for his clients or protecting their interests." The referee added that in addition to his failure to diligently and competently pursue legal matters his clients entrusted to him and to timely communicate relevant information to them, Attorney Davis has also repeatedly shirked his obligations as a member of the bar.

¶17 We agree that the seriousness of Attorney Davis' misconduct demonstrates a need to protect the public, the courts, and the legal system from repetition of this misconduct, to impress upon Attorney Davis the seriousness of his misconduct, and to deter other attorneys from engaging in similar misconduct. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur, 2005 WI 40, ¶78, 279 Wis. 2d 583, 694 N.W.2d 910. Accordingly, we accept the referee's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. We order Attorney Davis to pay restitution in the amount of $7,500 to NASGA, $7,500 to C.F., and $4,000 to P.A.R., we grant Attorney Davis' petition for revocation by consent, and we revoke Attorney Davis' Wisconsin law license effective the date of this order.

¶18 Finally, we direct Attorney Davis to pay the costs of this proceeding, which are $1,497.67 as of October 8, 2020. Attorney Davis has provided no reason for this court to deviate from its usual practice of imposing full costs. SCR 22.24(1m).

¶19 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for revocation by consent is granted and the license of Stanley Whitmore Davis to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this order.

¶20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent he has not already done so, Stanley Whitmore Davis shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked.

¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Stanley Whitmore Davis is ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $7,500 to NASGA, $7,500 to C.F., and $4,000 to P.A.R.

¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a condition of any future petition for reinstatement of his license to practice law in Wisconsin, Stanley Whitmore Davis will be required to prove that he has made restitution to or settled all claims of all persons injured or harmed by his misconduct, including reimbursement to the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection for all payments made by that fund, or, if restitution has not been made, Stanley Whitmore Davis will need to explain his failure or inability to do so. See SCR 22.29(4m).

¶23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Stanley Whitmore Davis shall pay the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $1,497.67 as of October 8, 2020.

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