Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John R. Maynard

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2014 WI 13 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2013AP2362-D  
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against  
John R. Maynard, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
John R. Maynard, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MAYNARD  
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 14, 2014 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
         
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
 
 
2014 WI 13
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2013AP2362-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against John R. Maynard, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
John R. Maynard, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 14, 2014 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney's 
license 
suspended. 
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review a stipulation filed pursuant 
to SCR 22.121 by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.12 provides: Stipulation. 
(1) The director may file with the complaint a 
stipulation of the director and the respondent to the 
facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and 
discipline to be imposed. The supreme court may 
consider the complaint and stipulation without the 
appointment of a referee. 
No. 
2013AP2362-D   
 
2 
 
Attorney John R. Maynard.  In the stipulation, Attorney Maynard 
agrees that by failing to give timely written notice of the 
suspension of his license to practice law, and consequent 
inability to continue as counsel, to each of his clients; by 
continuing to practice law after the date this court ordered his 
license suspended; by knowingly making a false statement to a 
court that his license had already been reinstated; by repeated 
use of firm letterhead while he was suspended and other false 
and misleading communications that he was an attorney permitted 
to practice law in Wisconsin during the term of his suspension; 
by failing to fully and fairly disclose all facts and 
circumstances pertaining to his alleged misconduct; and by 
filing a complaint that violated Wis. Stat. § 802.05(2), as 
subsequently determined by a court, a one-year suspension of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin is an appropriate level of 
discipline.  There is no request in this matter for a 
restitution award, nor is there a request for the imposition of 
costs against Attorney Maynard. 
                                                                                                                                                             
(2) If the supreme court approves a stipulation, 
it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of 
law and impose the stipulated discipline. 
(3) If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, 
a referee shall be appointed and the matter shall 
proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. 
(4) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court 
has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to 
the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the 
prosecution of the complaint. 
No. 
2013AP2362-D   
 
3 
 
¶2 
After careful review of the matter, we agree that a 
one-year suspension of Attorney Maynard's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin is a proper sanction.  Since the matter is 
being resolved without the appointment of a referee, we do not 
impose any costs on Attorney Maynard. 
¶3 
Attorney Maynard was admitted to the practice of law 
in Wisconsin in 1973.  He was admitted to practice law in 
California the same year.  On December 29, 2009, this court 
suspended Attorney Maynard's license to practice law for 90 
days, effective February 1, 2010, for failing to notify his 
former law firm of payments for legal services that he received 
and deposited in his personal account, and for making false and 
misleading communications when he failed to identify his "of 
counsel" status when he used law firm stationery and when he 
represented on a postal application that he was a principal of 
the law firm.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Maynard, 2009 WI 106, 322 Wis. 2d 53, 776 N.W.2d 583. 
¶4 
Attorney Maynard was reinstated from the disciplinary 
suspension on January 31, 2011.  However, his Wisconsin law 
license was not restored to good standing until May 2, 2011, due 
to existing administrative suspensions of his license caused by 
his 
noncompliance 
with 
continuing 
legal 
education 
(CLE) 
requirements and failure to pay State Bar of Wisconsin dues. 
¶5 
On September 1, 2011, this court temporarily suspended 
Attorney Maynard's license to practice law for his willful 
failure 
to 
respond 
or 
cooperate 
in 
an 
OLR 
grievance 
investigation involving the conduct that is the subject of this 
No. 
2013AP2362-D   
 
4 
 
opinion.  That temporary suspension remains in effect.  In 
addition to the temporary disciplinary suspension, Attorney 
Maynard's license to practice law is currently administratively 
suspended for failure to pay State Bar of Wisconsin dues, 
failure to file a trust account certification, and noncompliance 
with CLE requirements. 
¶6 
Attorney 
Maynard's 
license 
to 
practice 
law 
in 
California was suspended for 90 days in 2011, as reciprocal 
discipline to his 90-day suspension in Wisconsin.  In 2012 his 
California license was inactivated for failure to comply with 
his obligations while he was suspended.  On October 15, 2012, 
his California license was suspended for failure to take and 
pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination by 
August 21, 2012, which was a condition of reinstatement.  
Attorney Maynard was ultimately disbarred from California for 
his noncompliance, effective August 16, 2013. 
¶7 
Between the time the Wisconsin suspension order was 
issued on December 29, 2009, and its February 1, 2010 effective 
date, Attorney Maynard was in practice as a partner in Maynard, 
Schmitt & Associates, in Cedarburg, Wisconsin.  The only other 
attorney at the firm was Attorney Maynard's then-partner, 
Mark S. Schmitt. 
¶8 
As of February 1, 2010, Attorney Maynard was attorney 
of record in seven cases pending in the courts and he was also 
performing legal services for various other clients.  On 
January 29, 2010, Attorney Maynard wrote to one client advising 
that Attorney Maynard was being suspended from the practice of 
No. 
2013AP2362-D   
 
5 
 
law for 90 days and would be unable to act as the client's 
attorney during that period.  Rather than advising the client to 
seek legal advice of his choice elsewhere, as required by 
SCR 22.26(1)(b), Attorney Maynard said that the pending matters 
would be handled by Mark Schmitt.  The letter went on to say, 
"As an alternative, you can seek legal services elsewhere 
regarding these two matters."  This letter was the only letter 
notifying a client of his suspension that Attorney Maynard 
produced for the OLR, despite the OLR's request for information 
about, and copies of, all such letters. 
¶9 
On October 25, 2013, the OLR filed a complaint 
alleging nine counts of misconduct with respect to Attorney 
Maynard's 
failure 
to 
give 
timely 
written 
notice 
of 
the 
suspension of his license to practice law as required by 
SCR 22.26(1); his continuing to practice law during the term of 
his suspension; misrepresenting himself as an attorney while he 
was in fact suspended; filing a frivolous complaint; and failing 
to provide complete information to the OLR during the course of 
its investigation. 
¶10 The 
complaint 
alleged 
the 
following 
counts 
of 
misconduct: 
[COUNT I]  By failing to give timely written 
notice of the suspension of his license to practice 
law, and consequent inability to continue as counsel, 
to each of his clients, to each of the courts before 
which a client's legal action was pending, and to each 
other party's counsel in those actions, by failing to 
advise each of [his] clients, in writing, to seek 
legal counsel elsewhere, and by failing to provide an 
affidavit listing all clients in all pending matters 
No. 
2013AP2362-D   
 
6 
 
and listing all matters pending before any court or 
administrative agency, Maynard violated SCR 20:8.4(f)2 
and SCR 22.26(1).3 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 
court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 
lawyers; . . . ." 
3 SCR 22.26(1) states: Activities following suspension or 
revocation. 
(1) On or before the effective date of license 
suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 
suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 
(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 
represented in pending matters of the suspension or 
revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 
to act as an attorney following the effective date of 
the suspension or revocation. 
(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 
their choice elsewhere. 
(c) Promptly provide written notification to the 
court or administrative agency and the attorney for 
each party in a matter pending before a court or 
administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 
and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 
an attorney following the effective date of the 
suspension or revocation.  The notice shall identify 
the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 
there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 
the client's place of residence. 
(d) Within the first 15 days after the effective 
date 
of 
suspension 
or 
revocation, 
make 
all 
arrangements for the temporary or permanent closing or 
winding up of the attorney's practice.  The attorney 
may assist in having others take over clients' work in 
progress. 
(e) Within 25 days after the effective date of 
suspension or revocation, file with the director an 
affidavit showing all of the following: 
No. 
2013AP2362-D   
 
7 
 
[COUNT II]  By swearing in a SCR 22.26(1)(e) 
affidavit that his name had been removed from the law 
firm's [stationery] and that there were no pending 
court matters not identified in his affidavit, and by 
omitting the names of clients with pending legal 
matters, when he knew all of that information to be 
inaccurate 
and/or 
incomplete, 
Maynard 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c)4. 
[COUNT III]  By continuing to practice law in 
Wisconsin after February 1, 2010, when the Supreme 
Court of Wisconsin ordered his license suspended, 
Maynard violated SCR 20:8.4(f), SCR 22.26(2),5 and 
SCR 20:5.5(a)(1).6 
                                                                                                                                                             
(i) Full compliance with the provisions of the 
suspension or revocation order and with the rules and 
procedures regarding the closing of the attorney's 
practice. 
(ii) A 
list 
of 
all 
jurisdictions, 
including 
state, federal and administrative bodies, before which 
the attorney is admitted to practice. 
(iii) A list of clients in all pending matters 
and a list of all matters pending before any court or 
administrative agency, together with the case number 
of each matter. 
(f) Maintain records of the various steps taken 
under this rule in order that, in any subsequent 
proceeding instituted by or against the attorney, 
proof of compliance with the rule and with the 
suspension or revocation order is available. 
4 SCR 20:8.4(c) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit 
or misrepresentation; . . . ." 
5 SCR 22.26(2) provides as follows: 
 
An attorney whose license to practice law is 
suspended or revoked or who is suspended from the 
practice of law may not engage in this state in the 
practice 
of 
law 
or 
in 
any 
law 
work 
activity 
customarily done by law students, law clerks, or other 
paralegal personnel, except that the attorney may 
engage in law related work in this state for a 
No. 
2013AP2362-D   
 
8 
 
[COUNT IV]  By knowingly making a false statement 
to the court in the Petrolon v. Badger Sheet Metal 
Works [(Brown County Case No. 2010CV34)] matter that 
his license had already been reinstated, and, in a 
subsequent letter to the same court, by omitting 
relevant facts and creating the false impression that 
OLR had consented to his resumption of the practice of 
law, 
Maynard 
violated 
SCR 
20:3.3(a)(1)7 
and 
SCR 20:8.4(c). 
[COUNT V]  By repeated use of firm letterhead 
while he was suspended and multiple other false or 
misleading communications that he was an attorney 
permitted to practice law in Wisconsin during his 
suspension, 
Maynard 
violated 
SCR 
20:7.1(a)8 
and 
SCR 20:7.5(a).9 
                                                                                                                                                             
commercial employer itself not engaged in the practice 
of law. 
6 SCR 20:5.5(a)(1) states that a lawyer shall not: 
[P]ractice law in a jurisdiction where doing so 
violates the regulation of the legal profession in 
that jurisdiction except that a lawyer admitted to 
practice in Wisconsin does not violate this rule by 
conduct in another jurisdiction that is permitted in 
Wisconsin under SCR 20:5.5 (c) and (d) for lawyers not 
admitted in Wisconsin; . . . . 
7 SCR 20:3.3(a)(1) states that a lawyer shall not knowingly 
"make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to 
correct a false statement of material fact or law previously 
made to the tribunal by the lawyer; . . . ." 
8 SCR 20:7.1(a) states: "A lawyer shall not make a false or 
misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's 
services.  A communication is false or misleading if it: (a) 
contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a 
fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not 
materially misleading; . . . ." 
9 SCR 20:7.5(a) provides as follows:  
A lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead or 
other 
professional 
designation 
that 
violates 
SCR 20:7.1.  A trade name may be used by a lawyer in a 
private practice if it does not imply a connection 
No. 
2013AP2362-D   
 
9 
 
[COUNT VI]  By misrepresenting himself to counsel 
for another party as an attorney while he was 
suspended, by making conflicting representations about 
whether he or his partner drafted the Articles of 
Amendment for Absolute Automations Systems, Inc., by 
dishonestly claiming lack of knowledge of SCR 22.28, 
by 
making 
selective 
and 
incomplete 
factual 
representations to create a false impression about 
OLR's position on his practice of law during May 2010, 
by deceitfully stating in a letter to OLR that while 
suspended he had not undertaken work for clients, or 
filed or attended hearings in any courtroom, by 
misrepresenting 
on 
his 
"Petition 
to 
Voluntarily 
Surrender a Wisconsin License," that there were no 
grievances 
pending 
against 
him, 
Maynard 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(c). 
[COUNT VII]  By serving as general counsel for a 
corporation 
in 
Georgia, 
meeting 
with 
corporate 
management personnel in Georgia to discuss legal 
issues, giving legal advice to management personnel of 
the corporation located in Georgia, providing legal 
documents he prepared to the Georgia corporation and 
by representing the corporation to others, all without 
being duly licensed as an attorney in Georgia, Maynard 
violated SCR 20:5.5(a)(1). 
[COUNT VIII]  By failing to fully and fairly 
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct, by failing to answer questions and 
produce documents and information requested by OLR by 
generally failing to provide relevant information, and 
by providing incomplete information and information 
containing 
misrepresentations, 
Maynard 
violated 
SCR 22.03(2) 
and 
SCR 
22.03(6),10 
enforced 
via 
SCR 20:8.4(h).11 
                                                                                                                                                             
with 
a 
government 
agency 
or 
with 
a 
public 
or 
charitable legal services organization and is not 
otherwise in violation of SCR 20:7.1. 
10 SCRs 22.03(2) and (6) provide as follows: 
 
(2) Upon 
commencing 
an 
investigation, 
the 
director shall notify the respondent of the matter 
being investigated unless in the opinion of the 
director the investigation of the matter requires 
otherwise.  The respondent shall fully and fairly 
No. 
2013AP2362-D   
 
10 
 
[COUNT IX]  By filing a complaint in Petrolon v. 
Badger Sheet Metal Works that violated Wis. Stat. 
§ 802.05(2), as subsequently determined by a court, 
Maynard violated SCR 20:3.1(a).12 
                                                                                                                                                             
disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct within 20 days after being served 
by ordinary mail a request for a written response.  
The director may allow additional time to respond.  
Following receipt of the response, the director may 
conduct further investigation and may compel the 
respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and 
present 
any 
information 
deemed 
relevant 
to 
the 
investigation. 
 
. . . . 
 
(6) In the course of the investigation, the 
respondent's 
wilful 
failure 
to 
provide 
relevant 
information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 
documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a 
disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of 
the matters asserted in the grievance. 
11 SCR 20:8.4(h) states it is professional misconduct for a 
lawyer to "fail to cooperate in the investigation of a grievance 
filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required by 
SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), or 
SCR 22.04(1); . . . ." 
12 SCR 20:3.1(a) states: 
(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not: 
(1) knowingly advance a claim or defense that is 
unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer 
may advance such claim or defense if it can be 
supported by good faith argument for an extension, 
modification or reversal of existing law; 
(2) knowingly advance a factual position unless 
there is a basis for doing so that it not frivolous; 
or 
(3) file a suit, assert a position, conduct a 
defense, delay a trial or take other action on behalf 
of the client when the lawyer knows or when it is 
No. 
2013AP2362-D   
 
11 
 
¶11 On November 15, 2013, the OLR and Attorney Maynard 
entered into a stipulation whereby Attorney Maynard agreed that 
his conduct violated all of the supreme court rules referenced 
in the OLR's complaint.  He further agreed that it would be 
appropriate for this court to impose the level of discipline 
sought by the OLR director, namely a one-year suspension of his 
license to practice law in Wisconsin. 
¶12 Attorney Maynard states that he fully understands the 
misconduct allegations and the ramifications should this court 
impose a one-year license suspension.  He also states that he 
fully understands his right to contest this matter and his right 
to consult with counsel.  He represents that his entry into the 
stipulation is made knowingly and voluntarily. 
¶13 Having carefully considered this matter, we approve 
the stipulation and adopt the stipulated facts and legal 
conclusions of professional misconduct.  We also agree that a 
one-year suspension of Attorney Maynard's license to practice 
law in Wisconsin is appropriate.  We note that in In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hahnfeld, 2012 WI 17, 338 
Wis. 2d 740, 809 N.W.2d 382, an attorney's license was suspended 
for one year for six counts of misconduct relating to his 
continued representation of a client while suspended, his 
failure to disclose his suspension to the client or the OLR, and 
his failure to cooperate with the OLR; and three counts related 
                                                                                                                                                             
obvious that such an action would serve merely to 
harass or maliciously injure another. 
No. 
2013AP2362-D   
 
12 
 
to the attorney's failure to hold in trust that client's fees 
and refusal to refund fees when he was terminated by the client.  
Attorney Hahnfeld had two prior public reprimands and a 60-day 
license suspension, a more extensive disciplinary history than 
does Attorney Maynard.  In addition, a component of Attorney 
Hahnfeld's misconduct involved client fees, whereas Attorney 
Maynard's misconduct did not involve any fee issues.  On the 
other hand, Attorney Hahnfeld's conduct did not include making 
false representations to a court or filing a frivolous lawsuit, 
and Attorney Hahnfeld's case related to only one client whereas 
Attorney Maynard represented multiple clients while his license 
was suspended.  On balance, however, the misconduct at issue in 
Hahnfeld and the misconduct at issue in this matter are somewhat 
similar, leading to the conclusion that a one-year suspension of 
Attorney Maynard's license is an appropriate sanction. 
¶14 IT IS ORDERED that the license of John R. Maynard to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for one year, effective 
the date of this order. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the temporary license 
suspension of September 1, 2011, which arose out of Attorney 
Maynard's willful failure to respond or cooperate into the OLR's 
grievance investigation in this matter, is lifted. 
¶16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED John R. Maynard shall continue 
compliance with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the 
duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin 
has been suspended. 
 
No. 
2013AP2362-D   
 
13 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 
2013AP2362-D   
 
 
 
1