Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Sara L. Johann
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1996AP003269-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 24, 1998

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
96-3269-D 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Sara Lee Johann, Attorney at  
Law. 
  
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JOHANN 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
February 24, 1998 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
No. 96-3269-D 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 96-3269-D 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against SARA LEE JOHANN, Attorney at Law. 
FILED 
 
FEB 24, 1998 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.  Attorney’s 
license 
suspended.  
¶1 
PER CURIAM   We review the recommendation of the 
referee that the license of Attorney Sara Lee Johann to practice 
law in Wisconsin be suspended for six months as discipline for 
professional misconduct. That misconduct consisted of making 
statements concerning two circuit court judges with reckless 
disregard of the truth or falsity of those statements, engaging 
in offensive conduct, failing to make diligent effort to comply 
with a discovery request in the course of litigation in which 
she was a party, knowingly disobeying an obligation under the 
rules of the court in the course of appellate litigation, acting 
in the appellate matter without the necessary legal knowledge, 
skill, 
and 
thoroughness 
of 
preparation, 
presenting, 
participating in presenting and threatening to present criminal 
charges solely to gain an advantage in a civil matter, and 
No. 96-3269-D 
 
2 
failing to cooperate with the Board of Attorneys Professional 
Responsibility (Board) in its investigation into her conduct.  
¶2 
We determine that a six-month license suspension is 
the appropriate discipline to impose in light of the nature and 
the 
extent 
of 
Attorney 
Johann’s 
professional 
misconduct 
established in this proceeding. Her unwarranted accusations 
against two judges and her attempt to use the criminal justice 
system to harm those to whom she was personally opposed are 
particularly serious. Before her license can be reinstated 
following the license suspension we impose, Attorney Johann will 
have to demonstrate that she understands the standards to which 
we hold the persons we license to represent others in our legal 
system and that she will conform her conduct to those standards.  
¶3 
Attorney Johann was licensed to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1982 and practices in Cedarburg. She has not been 
the subject of a prior disciplinary proceeding. The referee in 
this proceeding, John A. Fiorenza, reserve judge, found Attorney 
Johann in default for failure to answer the Board’s amended 
complaint and made findings of fact as alleged in that amended 
complaint.  
¶4 
In 1994, the man with whom Attorney Johann had a child 
petitioned the circuit court to be declared the father of that 
child and to establish a visitation schedule. Responding to the 
petitioner’s proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and 
judgment in that paternity action, Attorney Johann filed a 
letter with the court that was addressed to the family court 
commissioner, two circuit judges and the clerk of court 
No. 96-3269-D 
 
3 
asserting 
that 
the 
two 
judges 
had 
engaged 
in 
“biased, 
deliberate, 
illegal, 
malicious, 
knowing, 
and 
fraudulent 
interference” with her custody of her child and that they 
engaged in the “illegal and malicious destruction of [her] 
life.” She also accused the judges of having made “hate-based” 
decisions 
against 
her. 
The 
referee 
concluded 
that 
those 
statements were made with reckless disregard of their truth or 
falsity, in violation of SCR 20:8.2(a).1 
¶5 
In early November of 1995, Attorney Johann distributed 
in the Racine area a printed handout strongly critical of her 
child’s father and his wife. That handout included a picture of 
the father bearing a caption with his name and the term “Accused 
Serial-Rapist.” It urged a boycott of the law firm with which 
the wife of her child’s father practiced, accusing her of having 
cooperated with the father in depriving Attorney Johann of 
thousands of dollars of income each week by their benefiting 
from books she asserted she had written and by refusing to 
return to her research and a manuscript. During the Board’s 
investigation of this matter, Attorney Johann testified that one 
of the reasons she distributed that material was to reduce the 
wife’s 
income 
and 
thereby 
limit 
the 
financial 
resources 
                     
1 SCR 20:8.2 provides, in pertinent part: Judicial and legal 
officials 
(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer 
knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or 
falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, 
adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate 
for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.  
No. 96-3269-D 
 
4 
available to her child’s father to proceed with the paternity 
action. The referee concluded that this conduct constituted a 
violation of the Attorney’s Oath, SCR 40.15,2 by which an 
attorney swears to “abstain from all offensive personality,” and 
thus constituted a violation of SCR 20:8.4(g).3  
¶6 
The wife of the child’s father filed a defamation 
action against Attorney Johann, and at a hearing on her motion 
for a temporary injunction, Attorney Johann stated that she had 
not brought with her any documents establishing the truth of the 
allegations in the handout and denied under oath that she had 
been served with a subpoena requiring her to do so. The court 
found that Attorney Johann testified untruthfully in this 
matter, as a process server testified that Attorney Johann was 
served with a subpoena requiring her to bring certain material 
to court.  
                     
2 SCR 40.15 provides, in pertinent part: Attorney’s oath.  
The oath or affirmation to be taken to qualify for 
admission to the practice of law shall be in substantially the 
following form:  
 . . .  
I will abstain from all offensive personality and advance 
no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or 
witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which 
I am charged;  
3 SCR 20:8.4 provides, in pertinent part: Misconduct 
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:  
 . . .  
(g) violate the attorney’s oath.   
No. 96-3269-D 
 
5 
¶7 
Thereafter, Attorney Johann failed to appear at a 
deposition, appeared only briefly at a rescheduled deposition 
before walking out, and did not appear for a third scheduled 
deposition. The attorney appointed by the court to serve as 
referee to oversee discovery disputes in this proceeding 
obtained three dates on which a deposition of Attorney Johann 
could be conducted, but Attorney Johann did not respond to his 
request to select one of them. The court determined that 
Attorney 
Johann’s 
failure 
to 
make 
herself 
available 
for 
deposition constituted disobedience, resistance and obstruction 
of the court’s authority, held her in contempt, and awarded 
default judgment to the plaintiff in the action. The court also 
found the statements made about the woman in the handout were 
false and issued a permanent injunction against Attorney Johann.  
¶8 
The referee concluded that Attorney Johann’s failure 
to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a proper 
discovery request violated SCR 20:3.4(d).4 Her failure to comply 
with three notices to appear for deposition and produce 
previously subpoenaed documents and failure to cooperate with 
the court-appointed referee in discovery constituted knowing 
                     
4 SCR 20:3.4 provides, in pertinent part: Fairness to 
opposing party and counsel 
A lawyer shall not:  
 . . .  
(d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery 
request or fail to make reasonably diligent effort to comply 
with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party.  
No. 96-3269-D 
 
6 
disobedience of an obligation under the court’s rules, in 
violation of SCR 20:3.4(c) 5 
¶9 
In April, 1996, Attorney Johann made a settlement 
offer to opposing counsel in the matter in which she agreed to 
stop circulating documents against the wife, but not against the 
father, and to refrain from including the wife as a named 
defendant in what she said was a forthcoming class action 
lawsuit against the child’s father and others, in return for all 
of which she sought dismissal with prejudice of the defamation 
action. When opposing counsel did not respond to the offer, 
Attorney Johann sent a letter to the district attorney asserting 
that the filing of the defamation action against her constituted 
criminal fraud and that the plaintiff’s affidavit in support of 
it constituted criminal perjury. In that letter, she asked the 
district attorney to communicate those allegations to the police 
and sheriff’s departments.  
¶10 The district attorney concluded that the letter made 
frivolous allegations against the plaintiff as part of a series 
of acts whose sole purpose was to harass the plaintiff and her 
husband. When the district attorney refused to investigate 
                     
5 SCR 30:3.4 provides, in pertinent part: Fairness to 
opposing party and counsel  
A lawyer shall not:  
 . . .  
(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a 
tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that 
no valid obligation exists.  
No. 96-3269-D 
 
7 
possible criminal charges against the plaintiff, Attorney Johann 
attempted to intimidate him into filing charges and use his 
office as a means to harass the plaintiff. Attorney Johann 
subpoenaed the district attorney to testify in the defamation 
proceeding and questioned him about his decision not to issue 
criminal charges against the plaintiff. Thereafter, she named 
the district attorney as a co-defendant in a federal action she 
filed against numerous persons who she alleged had conspired 
against her. The referee concluded that by this conduct, 
Attorney Johann presented, participated in presenting, and 
threatened to present criminal charges solely to gain advantage 
in a civil matter, in violation of SCR 20:3.10.6  
¶11 When the Board notified her of the grievance alleging 
her professional misconduct in threatening criminal charges, 
Attorney Johann did not respond timely, proffer any reason for 
her failure to respond, or request additional time to do so. She 
also failed to respond timely to a second letter from the Board 
requesting information concerning the grievance. The referee 
concluded that Attorney Johann’s failure to respond to the 
Board’s letters violated SCR 21.03(4)7 and 22.07(2).8  
                     
6 SCR 20:3.10 provides: Threatening criminal prosecution 
A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting or 
threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an 
advantage in a civil matter  
7 SCR 21.03 provides, in pertinent part: General principles. 
 . . .  
No. 96-3269-D 
 
8 
¶12 In an unrelated matter, in June, 1995, Attorney Johann 
volunteered to represent on appeal a person who had been 
committed involuntarily after being found not competent to stand 
trial on several misdemeanor offenses. The circuit court had 
ordered the man to be medicated involuntarily, but the man filed 
a notice of appeal only from the order of commitment. Attorney 
Johann offered to represent him in the appeal on a pro bono 
basis, with costs to be paid by a civil rights organization.  
¶13 In early June, Attorney Johann wrote the Court of 
Appeals that she was working to complete the appellant’s brief 
and submitted a number of requests, including one for class 
action status. The Court of Appeals took no action on that 
submission because Attorney Johann was not a party to the 
appeal, nor did she claim to represent the appellant. Attorney 
                                                                  
(4) Every attorney shall cooperate with the board and the 
administrator in the investigation, prosecution and disposition 
of grievances and complaints filed with or by the board or 
administrator.  
8 SCR 22.07 provides, in pertinent part: Investigation. 
 . . .  
(2) 
During 
the 
course 
of 
an 
investigation, 
the 
administrator or a committee may notify the respondent of the 
subject being investigated. The respondent shall fully and 
fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the 
alleged misconduct or medical incapacity within 20 days of being 
served by ordinary mail a request for response to a grievance. 
The administrator in his or her discretion may allow additional 
time 
to 
respond. 
Failure 
to 
provide 
information 
or 
misrepresentation 
in 
a 
disclosure 
is 
misconduct. 
The 
administrator or committee may make a further investigation 
before making a recommendation to the board.  
No. 96-3269-D 
 
9 
Johann then gave the court an employment contract she had had 
the client sign and asked for a short extension of the briefing 
time. The court granted the request but said it would look with 
disfavor upon any additional requests for extension. At the same 
time, it denied Attorney Johann’s request for an extension of 
the page limitation on the brief and denied the class action 
certification request on the ground that the court had neither 
the authority nor the fact-finding ability to determine whether 
class action status would be appropriate.  
¶14 After the time for filing the brief expired and she 
had not filed the brief or requested an extension, Attorney 
Johann asked for permission to withdraw from representing the 
appellant but gave no reason for that request. The court denied 
the request and again extended the time for the filing of the 
appellant’s brief.  
¶15 Five days after the new deadline, Attorney Johann 
filed a 79-page brief with a 30-page appendix that consisted of 
three additional arguments rather than documentary material. In 
her cover letter accompanying that brief, Attorney Johann again 
stated her intention to seek class action certification, 
notwithstanding the court’s earlier order declaring that it was 
without authority to grant such status. In one part of the 
brief’s appendix, Attorney Johann included excerpts from an 
amicus brief she had filed in a death penalty appeal in another 
 jurisdiction, asserting that they would assist the court in 
deciding what she termed the “judicial bias” of the circuit 
court judge who had presided in her client’s case. The Court of 
No. 96-3269-D 
 
10
Appeals subsequently noted that the trial court record contained 
no indication that the issue of judicial bias ever had been 
raised.  
¶16 By order of March 12, 1996, the Court of Appeals 
dismissed the appeal, in part because the involuntary commitment 
issue had become moot and in part because of what it termed 
Attorney Johann’s “egregious” violations of the appellate rules. 
The court’s order also pointed out that 14 of the 21 issues 
raised in the brief filed by Attorney Johann addressed in whole 
or in part the appellant’s involuntary medication, an issue that 
was not before the appellate court, as the order for involuntary 
medication 
issued 
after 
the 
appeal 
from 
the 
involuntary 
commitment order was filed, and neither the appellant nor 
Attorney Johann filed a notice of appeal from the medication 
order.  
¶17 The referee concluded that Attorney Johann’s conduct 
in the appeal demonstrated a lack of legal knowledge, skill, and 
thoroughness 
in 
preparation 
reasonably 
necessary 
for 
the 
representation of the client, in violation of SCR 20:1.1.9 By 
filing a brief exceeding the page limits after unsuccessfully 
requesting an extension of those limits, Attorney Johann 
knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of the 
appellate court, in violation of SCR 20:3.4(c).  
                     
9 SCR 20:1.1 provides: Competence 
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a 
client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, 
skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the 
representation.   
No. 96-3269-D 
 
11
¶18 As discipline for 
the foregoing 
misconduct, the 
referee recommended that Attorney Johann’s license to practice 
law be suspended for six months and, in the event she applies 
for reinstatement, that she be required to demonstrate she has 
full knowledge and understanding of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct for Attorneys and that her actions will be in conformity 
with those rules. The condition on reinstatement recommended by 
the referee is specified in the reinstatement rule, SCR 
22.28(4)(f).10 
¶19 We 
adopt 
the 
referee’s 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law and determine that the recommended six-month 
license suspension is the appropriate discipline to impose for 
Attorney Johann’s professional misconduct established in this 
proceeding. In addition, we require her to pay the costs of the 
proceeding.  
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Sara Lee Johann to 
practice 
law 
in 
Wisconsin 
is 
suspended 
for 
six 
months, 
commencing April 7, 1998.  
¶21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Sara Lee Johann pay to the Board of Attorneys 
Professional Responsibility 
the costs 
of this 
proceeding, 
                     
10 SCR 22.28 provides, in pertinent part: Reinstatement. 
 . . .  
 (4) The petition for reinstatement shall show that:  
 (f) The petitioner has a proper understanding of and 
attitude toward the standards that are imposed upon members of 
the bar and will act in conformity with the standards.  
No. 96-3269-D 
 
12
provided that if the costs are not paid within the time 
specified and absent a showing to this court of her inability to 
pay the costs within that time, the license of Sara Lee Johann 
to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until 
further order of the court.  
¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Sara Lee Johann comply with 
the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person 
whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended.  
 
 
 
1