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 with 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