[523]*523PER CURIAM.
¶ 1. Attorney Pablo Carranza has filed a petition for voluntary revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.19.1 Attorney Carranza is the subject of eleven Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) grievance investigations in which the Preliminary Review Committee (PRC) found cause to proceed with a total of 38 counts of misconduct. In addition, Attorney Carranza is the subject of two additional pending OLR grievance matters that have not yet been fully investigated by the OLR or brought to the PRC. Attorney Carranza states in his petition that he cannot successfully defend [524]*524against the multiple allegations of misconduct that the OLR is currently investigating.
¶ 2. Attorney Carranza was admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin in 2005. He has no prior disciplinary violations. His license is, however, currently administratively suspended for failure to pay mandatory bar dues, failure to comply with reporting requirements for continuing legal education, and failure to cooperate with OLR investigations.
¶ 3. The OLR asks this court to order restitution in two matters. Attorney Carranza acknowledges that restitution is appropriate. The multiple allegations of misconduct will be briefly summarized.
Matter of A.E.
¶ 4. In January 2012, A.E. hired Attorney Carranza to obtain a release of her boyfriend from Immigration Customs Enforcement. A.E. paid Attorney Carranza a $500 advanced fee that was immediately deposited into Attorney Carranza's business account. There was no written fee agreement. Attorney Carranza thereafter failed to take any action on the immigration matter and failed to respond to several telephone calls requesting information. A.E. terminated Attorney Carranza's services and requested a refund of her advanced fee. Attorney Carranza did not refund the advanced fee.
¶ 5. In a subsequent investigative interview with the OLR, Attorney Carranza stated he had not yet prepared a final accounting but agreed A.E. was entitled to a refund. Attorney Carranza repeatedly promised and failed to provide a final accounting and failed to refund the $500 advanced fee to A.E. [525]*525The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney Carranza for alleged violations of SCR 20:1.15(h)(4m),2 [526]*526SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)b., SCR 20:1.16(d),3 and SCR 22.03(6),4 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h).5 We direct Attorney Carranza to pay restitution to A.E. in the amount of $500.
Matter of C.S.S.
¶ 6. On January 21, 2013, C.S.S. retained Attorney Carranza to help him renew his visa. C.S.S. paid [527]*527Attorney Carranza a $300 advanced fee. Attorney Carranza took copies of all of C.S.S.'s documents and told C.S.S. that he would contact him in about two weeks and "get things filed." Attorney Carranza thereafter failed to either communicate with C.S.S. or take any action on C.S.S.'s behalf, despite C.S.S.'s numerous attempts to contact Attorney Carranza by telephone, text, and email. He also failed to return C.S.S.'s documents.
¶ 7. On September 10, 2013, C.S.S. filed a grievance against Attorney Carranza. Attorney Carranza then failed to respond to several letters from the OLR requesting information about the matter.
¶ 8. The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney Carranza for alleged violations of SCR 20:1.3,6 SCR 20:1.4(a),7 two counts of SCR 20:1.16(d), and SCR 22.03(2),8 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). On May 13, 2014, [528]*528the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Fund) approved payment of $300 to C.S.S. The parties agreed that restitution to the Fund is appropriate, and we direct Attorney Carranza to pay restitution to the Fund in the amount of $300.
¶ 9. The PRC also found cause to proceed in six client matters in which restitution might be appropriate, but because Attorney Carranza failed to provide a final accounting, the amount potentially owed to each client cannot be determined. Those matters are summarized as follows.
Matter of MM.
¶ 10. In January 2012, M.M. retained Attorney Carranza to represent her in a divorce. She paid Attorney Carranza a $2,000 advanced fee. There was no written fee agreement. Attorney Carranza attended three motion hearings between January and May 2013, then his communication with M.M. ceased. A pre-trial conference was scheduled for August 14, 2013. Attorney Carranza failed to keep M.M. informed of the status of her case and failed to inform her that his license was suspended on August 1, 2013, for failing to cooperate in other OLR investigations.
[529]*529¶ 11. Just prior to the August 14, 2013 pre-trial conference, Attorney Carranza telephoned M.M. and informed her that he was running late but would be there. He failed to appear at the conference.
¶ 12. On August 15, 2013, M.M. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney Carranza. Attorney Carranza then failed to respond to several letters from the OLR seeking information. The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney Carranza for alleged violations of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3), two counts of SCR 20:1.16(d), SCR 22.26(l)(a) and (b),9 SCR 20:l.5(b)(2),10 SCR 20:8.4(c),11 and SCR 22.03(2), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). To date, because Attorney Carranza has not submitted an accounting, the amount of a refund, if any, owed to M.M. is unknown.
Matter of C.S.
¶ 13. In February 2013, C.S. retained Attorney Carranza to represent her in relation to pending [530]*530charges of Operating While Intoxicated-Second and Operating with Prohibited Blood Alcohol Content-Second. She paid Attorney Carranza a $1,000 advanced fee. Attorney Carranza was present at C.S.'s initial appearance on February 28, 2013, and attended her status conferences on May 14, 2013, and June 26, 2013. The next status conference was scheduled for August 20, 2013.
¶ 14. Attorney Carranza failed to keep C.S. informed of the status of her case. For the most part, he only contacted her on the day of her court appearances, despite the fact that C.S. called and left multiple messages with Attorney Carranza and sent him several emails. Attorney Carranza also failed to inform C.S. that his license was suspended, effective August 1, 2013.
¶ 15. On August 20, 2013, Attorney Carranza sent an email to C.S. reminding her of a court date that afternoon. Later that day, Attorney Carranza texted C.S. and told her he was late for her status conference because he was at a doctor's appointment. At the status conference, the court informed C.S. that Attorney Carranza could no longer represent her. C.S. subsequently texted Attorney Carranza, who told her he would line up another attorney to represent her and that she would not have to "shell out any more money." The next day, C.S. texted Attorney Carranza that she had discovered that his license was suspended and asked for a refund. Attorney Carranza never responded to this text message.
¶ 16. On August 21, 2013, C.S. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney Carranza. Attorney Carranza then failed to respond to multiple letters from the OLR seeking information. The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney Carranza for alleged violations of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4), two counts of SCR 20:1.16(d), SCR 22.26(l)(a) and (b), SCR 20:8.4(c), and [531]*531SCR 22.03(2), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). To date, because Attorney Carranza has not submitted an accounting, the amount of a refund, if any, owed to C.S. is unknown.
Matter of R.A.
¶ 17. In the spring of 2010, R.A. hired Attorney Carranza to advise him about options relating to his personal and business debts. On June 25, 2010, R.A. paid Attorney Carranza a $1,000 advanced fee. Over the next nineteen months, Attorney Carranza and R.A. had several conversations about R.A.'s financial problems, including the option of filing bankruptcy. In August 2010, Attorney Carranza closed his office and moved, and failed to notify R.A.
¶ 18. On December 22, 2011, R.A. contacted the OLR to file a grievance. The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney Carranza on an alleged violation of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3). To date, Attorney Carranza has not submitted an accounting in this matter, so the amount of a refund, if any, owed to R.A. is unknown.
Matter of A.A.
¶ 19. On June 2, 2009, A.A. hired Attorney Carranza to represent his brother in connection with a criminal sexual assault case filed in Jefferson County. Because a jury trial was scheduled within nine days, Attorney Carranza informed A.A. that he would only represent the brother if the judge agreed to reschedule the trial date. A.A. paid Attorney Carranza an advanced fee of $2,500. The trial court declined to reschedule the trial. Attorney Carranza then agreed to act in a consultation capacity. After the brother entered a no contest [532]*532plea, Attorney Carranza agreed to represent him in a subsequent immigration deportation case.
¶ 20. Attorney Carranza apparently did some legal research into the possibility of getting the brother deported before finishing his prison sentence, but found out this was unlikely. Attorney Carranza advised A.A. that pursuing such a strategy would probably not result in a sentence modification. A. A. asked if there would be any money refunded. Attorney Carranza informed him that he would do a final bill and refund any leftover money. In August 2010, Attorney Carranza closed his law office and moved. Attorney Carranza failed to notify A.A. of his move.
¶ 21. On March 26, 2012, A.A. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney Carranza. The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney Carranza for alleged violations of SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) and (4), SCR 20:1.15(b)(4m)b, and SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). Attorney Carranza promised and failed to prepare a final accounting, so the amount of restitution owed, if any, to A.A. is unknown.
Matter of G.S.
¶ 22. In January 2012, G.S. and his wife (collectively, G.S.) retained Attorney Carranza to prepare and file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy on their behalf. G.S. paid Attorney Carranza an advanced fee of $1,200. In late May or early June 2012, G.S. informed Attorney Carranza that he wanted the bankruptcy filed immediately. Attorney Carranza informed G.S. that there were information and documents still needed before the bankruptcy could be filed.
¶ 23. On June 15, 2012, G.S. contacted the OLR to file a grievance against Attorney Carranza, complaining [533]*533that Attorney Carranza had taken no action on the bankruptcy and had failed to respond to requests for information during the representation. On June 21, 2012, Attorney Carranza filed the Chapter 7 bankruptcy. However, Attorney Carranza then failed to respond to several requests for information from the OLR, resulting in this court issuing an order directing Attorney Carranza to respond or face temporary license suspension for willful failure to cooperate in an OLR investigation.
¶ 24. Attorney Carranza then emailed a response to the OLR. At a subsequent investigative interview, Attorney Carranza admitted that G.S. had problems contacting him and that "[t]here were various stretches where I just wasn't returning their calls." Attorney Carranza then failed to provide a promised final accounting despite numerous written reminders from the OLR.
¶ 25. The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney Carranza for alleged violations of SCR 20:1.4(a)(4), SCR 22.03(2), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h), and SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). To date, because Attorney Carranza has not submitted an accounting, the amount of a refund, if any, owed to G.S. is unknown.
Matter of KM.
¶ 26. On January 16,2012, K.M. retained Attorney Carranza to prepare and file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. K.M. paid Attorney Carranza a $600 advanced fee. Attorney Carranza represented K.M. for about six months. On June 20, 2012, K.M. left a voicemail message informing Attorney Carranza that she was discharging him and requesting that Attorney Carranza forward her $600 advanced fee to her new attorney.
[534]*534¶ 27. K.M. then contacted the OLR on June 26, 2012, to file a grievance complaining that Attorney Carranza had taken no action on her bankruptcy, had failed to respond to her requests for information, and had failed to refund any unearned advanced fee. Attorney Carranza then failed to respond to several letters from the OLR, resulting in this court issuing an order to show cause directing Attorney Carranza to respond within 20 days of the order or face suspension of his license to practice law. Attorney Carranza then sent an email response to OLR.
¶ 28. At a subsequent investigative interview, Attorney Carranza admitted that K.M. was entitled to a refund, but also stated that he had not yet prepared a final billing. Attorney Carranza then failed to provide the promised final accounting to the OLR despite receiving several written reminders from the OLR. The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney Carranza for alleged violations of SCR 20:1.16(d), SCR 22.03(2), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h), and SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). To date, because Attorney Carranza has not submitted an accounting, the amount of a refund, if any, owed to K.M. is unknown.
¶ 29. The PRC also found cause to proceed in three matters in which restitution is not an issue.
Matter of J.S.
¶ 30. In December 2006, Attorney Carranza was appointed by the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) to represent J.S. in a Dane County criminal case and probation revocation proceedings. On May 7, 2007, pursuant to a plea agreement, J.S. was convicted. His probation was revoked. On May 26, 2012, J.S. filed a grievance with the OLR complaining that Attorney [535]*535Carranza had failed to respond to requests from himself and the SPD to send copies of his case file to J.S.
¶ 31. Attorney Carranza then failed to respond to several letters from the OLR, ultimately resulting in this court issuing an order directing Attorney Carranza to respond within 20 days of the order or face temporary license suspension. Attorney Carranza then emailed a response to the OLR indicating that he had forwarded the requested documents to J.S.
¶ 32. In a subsequent investigative interview, Attorney Carranza agreed to provide the OLR with copies of relevant documents, but failed to do so despite numerous written reminders from the OLR. Attorney Carranza did not submit the requested documents nor did he contact the OLR to explain his failure to submit the documents.
¶ 33. The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney Carranza for alleged violations of SCR 20:1.16(d), SCR 22.03(2), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h), and SCR 22.03(6), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). Restitution is not sought in this matter.
Matter of VG.
¶ 34. In April 2009, Attorney Carranza was appointed by the SPD to represent VG. on several charges, including felony armed robbery. On March 9, 2010, VG. was found guilty on all counts. On July 25, 2012, VG. filed an appeal, and shortly thereafter he asked Attorney Carranza to send him a copy of his case file. After not receiving a response, on August 12, 2012, VG. sent Attorney Carranza another letter requesting his case file.
[536]*536¶ 35. On September 11, 2012, YG. filed a grievance with the OLR because Attorney Carranza had failed to respond to his letters or send him a copy of his file.
¶ 36. Meanwhile, in YG.'s pending criminal appeal, the court of appeals ordered Attorney Carranza to advise the court of the status of YG.'s request for his court file. Attorney Carranza failed to respond. The court of appeals again ordered Attorney Carranza to advise the court of the status of YG.'s request for his case file, and Attorney Carranza again failed to respond.
¶ 37. Attorney Carranza finally emailed a response to the OLR, including an electronic copy of YG.'s file. The court of appeals again directed Attorney Carranza to advise the court of the status of the file request. Attorney Carranza later sent a letter to the clerk of the court of appeals indicating that he had sent YG. the file as part of his correspondence to the OLR.
¶ 38. The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney Carranza for alleged violations of SCR 20:1.16(d) and SCR 20:3.4(c).12 Restitution is not an issue in this matter.
Matter of Attorney Carranza
¶ 39. In April 2013, Attorney Carranza was convicted, following entry of a no contest plea, to misdemeanor Operating While Under Influence-Second. Attorney Carranza did not report his conviction to the OLR or to the clerk of the supreme court and, when the OLR learned of the conviction, failed to respond to [537]*537several notices from the OLR directing him to respond. The PRC found cause to proceed against Attorney Carranza for alleged violations of SCR 20:8.4(b),13 SCR 21.15(5),14 enforced via SCR 20:8.4(f),15 and SCR 22.03(2), enforced via SCR 20:8.4(h). Restitution is not an issue in this matter.
¶ 40. There are also two matters in which the OLR's investigation is still pending; one may warrant restitution.
Matter of M.F.
¶ 41. In July 2012, M.F. retained Attorney Carranza to represent her husband, G.F., regarding his immigration status after he was convicted of misappropriating identification information.
¶ 42. M.F. paid Attorney Carranza a $2,500 advanced fee, and Attorney Carranza prepared a notice of retainer for both the state criminal case and the immigration matter. Attorney Carranza did not appear at G.F.'s initial immigration hearing on August 23, 2012. [538]*538After Attorney Carranza failed to appear at the immigration hearing, M.F. attempted to contact him to ask for a refund of at least part of the advanced fee. Attorney Carranza failed to respond.
¶ 43. On October 10, 2013, M.F. filed a grievance with the OLR complaining that Attorney Carranza failed to take any action on her husband's immigration matter, failed to respond to requests for information, and failed to respond to her requests for a return of unearned fees. Attorney Carranza then failed to respond to the OLR's requests for information.
¶ 44. The OLR is investigating allegations that Attorney Carranza's conduct may have violated SCR 20:1.3, SCR 20:1.4(a), SCR 20:1.16(d), and SCR 22.03(2). To date, because Attorney Carranza has not submitted an accounting, the amount of a refund, if any, owed to M.F. is unknown.
Matter of L.W.
¶ 45. In July 2012, Attorney Carranza retained L.W to provide expert witness testimony. LW initially requested a $1,000 retainer. Attorney Carranza told L.W that because his client was a Mexican citizen, the Mexican Consulate would pay the fee. LW agreed to handle the case with the expectation that his fees would be paid by the Mexican authorities. Beginning in February 2013, LW submitted bills to Attorney Carranza via email. When L.W did not receive payment, he inquired if Attorney Carranza had received any payments from the Mexican Consulate. Attorney Carranza did not respond nor has L.W ever received any payment for his work.
¶ 46. On October 3, 2013, L.W filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney Carranza. Attorney Carranza then failed to respond to the OLR's requests [539]*539for information. The OLR is investigating allegations that Attorney Carranza's conduct may have violated SCR 20:1.15(b), SCR 20:8.4(c), and SCR 22.03(2).
¶ 47. To date, Attorney Carranza has failed to pay L.W's $1,000 fee. However, the OLR explains that "[b]ecause the fee was never under Carranza's control, OLR is not seeking restitution."
¶ 48. Attorney Carranza's petition for consensual revocation states that he cannot successfully defend against the allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the OLR's summary of the matters being investigated. His petition asserts that he is seeking consensual revocation freely, voluntarily, and knowingly. He states that he understands he is giving up his right to contest the OLR's allegations. He states that he knows he has the right to counsel in this matter but has opted to proceed pro se. The OLR supports Attorney Carranza's petition for consensual license revocation. See SCR 22.19(3). The OLR asks this court to order restitution in the matter of A.E. and C.S.S.
¶ 49. Having reviewed Attorney Carranza's petition, the OLR's summary of the matters it is investigating, and the OLR's recommendation, we accept Attorney Carranza's petition for the revocation of his license to practice law in Wisconsin. See SCR 22.19(1), (2), and (5). The seriousness of Attorney Carranza's misconduct demonstrates the need to revoke his law license to protect the public, the courts, and the legal system from the repetition of misconduct; to impress upon Attorney Carranza 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. Because Attorney Carranza petitioned for the consensual revocation of his Wisconsin law license before the appointment of a referee, and because the OLR has not [540]*540requested the imposition of costs, we do not assess the costs of this disciplinary proceeding against Attorney Carranza.
¶ 50. Concerning restitution, we determine that Attorney Carranza should be required to pay $300 to the Fund in connection with the losses caused by his actions as counsel for C.S.S. We further determine that Attorney Carranza should be required to pay restitution to A.E. in the amount of $500.
¶ 51. Finally, we note that there are several matters in which the OLR has advised the court that because Attorney Carranza failed to provide a final accounting, the appropriate amount of restitution owed, if any, cannot be determined. We will proceed with this revocation. Should Attorney Carranza ever seek reinstatement, we order that, as a condition of reinstatement of Attorney Carranza's license, Attorney Carranza shall furnish a complete accounting and prove that he has settled all claims related to funds potentially owed to his former clients, specifically including M.M., C.S., R.A., A.A., G.S., K.M., and M.F. See SCR 22.29(4m) (a lawyer petitioning for reinstatement must prove that he or she has made restitution to or settled all claims of persons harmed by the lawyer's misconduct, or must explain the failure or inability to do so); see also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Mularski, 2010 WI 113, ¶¶ 35, 37, 329 Wis. 2d 273, 787 N.W.2d 834 (revoking attorney's license and requiring attorney to show he made full restitution to his clients at such time as he would seek reinstatement).
¶ 52. IT IS ORDERED that Attorney Pablo Carranza's petition for consensual license revocation is granted.
¶ 53. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Pablo Carranza to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this order.
[541]*541¶ 54. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Pablo Carranza shall pay restitution in the amount of $300 to the Wisconsin Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection and in the amount of $500 to A.E.
¶ 55. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of reinstatement of Pablo Carranza's license, Pablo Carranza shall furnish a complete accounting and prove that he has settled all claims related to funds potentially owed to his former clients, specifically including M.M., C.S., R.A., A.A., G.S., K.M., and M.F.
¶ 56. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not already done so, Pablo Carranza 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.