Title: Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. Honorable Frank M. Calvert
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2017AP001735-J
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 15, 2018

2018 WI 68 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2017AP1735-J 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against the Honorable Frank M. 
Calvert. 
 
Wisconsin Judicial Commission, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
The Honorable Frank M. Calvert, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST 
CALVERT 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 15, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the complainant, there was a brief filed by Jeremiah 
Claude-Benedict Van Hecke and the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, 
Madison. 
For the respondent, there was a brief filed by The 
Honorable Frank M. Calvert. 
 
 
 
2018 WI 68
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2017AP1735-J 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against the Honorable  
Frank M. Calvert: 
 
Wisconsin Judicial Commission, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
The Honorable Frank M. Calvert, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 15, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
JUDICIAL disciplinary proceeding.  Commissioner suspended 
from office.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review, pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 757.91 (2015-16),1 a Judicial Conduct Panel's findings of fact, 
                                                 
1 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2015-16 version unless otherwise indicated.  Wisconsin Stat. 
§ 757.91 provides:  
The supreme court shall review the findings of 
fact, conclusions of law and recommendations under s. 
757.89 and determine appropriate discipline in cases 
of misconduct and appropriate action in cases of 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP1735-J   
 
2 
 
conclusions of law, and recommendation for discipline for the 
Honorable Frank M. Calvert, a court commissioner for the Oconto 
County Circuit Court.  We conclude that a 15-day suspension is 
the appropriate discipline for Commissioner Calvert's judicial 
misconduct. 
¶2 
Commissioner 
Calvert 
has 
been 
a 
circuit 
court 
commissioner for Oconto County for 19 years.  He has not been 
the subject of any prior disciplinary action by the Wisconsin 
Judicial Commission.  
¶3 
The Judicial Commission filed a complaint against 
Commissioner Calvert on September 8, 2017, alleging that he had 
engaged in judicial misconduct by his actions, described below, 
in presiding over an action seeking a harassment injunction. 
¶4 
Commissioner Calvert did not file an answer to the 
complaint, which led the Judicial Commission to file a motion 
for default judgment.  On January 2, 2018, Commissioner Calvert 
filed a letter with this court stating that he did not contest 
the facts alleged in the complaint.   
¶5 
Consistent with an order issued by the Judicial 
Conduct Panel, the parties filed briefs on the issue of the 
appropriate discipline to be imposed.  After receiving these 
briefs, the Judicial Conduct Panel made findings of fact based 
on the uncontested allegations of the complaint.  On the basis 
                                                                                                                                                             
permanent disability.  The rules of the supreme court 
applicable to civil cases in the supreme court govern 
the review proceedings under this section. 
No. 
2017AP1735-J   
 
3 
 
of those facts, the Judicial Conduct Panel made conclusions of 
law and recommended that this court suspend Commissioner Calvert 
for no fewer than five and no more than 15 days.  This 
recommendation 
exceeded 
the 
disciplinary 
sanction 
that 
Commissioner Calvert suggested in his brief to the panel and in 
his January 2, 2018 letter to the court:  a reprimand.  The 
panel's recommendation more closely followed the sanction 
proposed by the Judicial Commission, which suggested discipline 
ranging from a reprimand to a short suspension. 
¶6 
The facts giving rise to the complaint are as follows.  
In September 2015, Commissioner Calvert received and reviewed a 
petition for a harassment injunction and a request for a 
temporary restraining order filed by the attorney for the 
petitioners against the respondents, who were the petitioners' 
next-door neighbors.  This legal action was part of an ongoing 
dispute between the petitioners and the respondents. The 
petitioners alleged that the respondents had engaged in repeated 
harassment of the petitioners, including pointing surveillance 
cameras at the petitioners' house to record the petitioners' 
conduct. 
¶7 
Before holding any hearing or deciding whether to 
grant the petitioners' request for a temporary restraining 
order, Commissioner Calvert, on his own initiative, went to the 
City of Oconto Police Station and spoke with the City of Oconto 
Police Chief concerning the allegations in the petition.  
Commissioner Calvert asked for and obtained from the police 
chief a summary regarding the history of complaints and 
No. 
2017AP1735-J   
 
4 
 
conflicts between these neighbors and their contacts with the 
Oconto Police Department over the years.  The police chief told 
Commissioner Calvert that he had visited the respondents' 
residence and that there were no cameras pointed at the 
petitioners' property. 
¶8 
Commissioner Calvert also reviewed the neighbors' 
"contact file" kept by the Oconto Police Department, which 
included statements of police relating to the conflict, and 
asked the police chief if there was any basis for a citation to 
be issued.  None of the parties to the case or the petitioners' 
attorney was present for Commissioner Calvert's conversation 
with the police chief or given advance notice of it. 
¶9 
Commissioner Calvert denied the petitioners' request 
for a temporary restraining order.  In doing so, he considered 
the information provided by the police chief and contained in 
the police "contact file" regarding the neighbors. 
¶10 At an injunction hearing held on October 1, 2015, 
Commissioner Calvert heard the testimony of several witnesses 
and arguments from both sides.  Commissioner Calvert denied the 
injunction request.  Before announcing his ruling, Commissioner 
Calvert did not disclose to the parties or the petitioners' 
attorney his contact with the police chief or that he had 
reviewed the police "contact file." 
¶11 After denying the injunction request, Commissioner 
Calvert made the following statements: 
What is going to happen, though, is that anything 
between these two neighbors is going to stop as of 
No. 
2017AP1735-J   
 
5 
 
today.  Period.  End of story.  And how it's going to 
stop is this:  I've already talked to [the police] 
chief [ . . . ] as of yesterday.  What's going to 
happen is, if you call the Oconto Police Department, 
or the Sheriffs Department, or, you call them, they 
are going to come out, they are not going to have to 
listen as to what took place because if they get 
called out to either of your places, complaining about 
each other, what's going to happen—they're going to 
issue mutual disorderly conduct tickets.  So, I don't 
care who calls. You call, either of you call, they are 
going to come out, they are going to issue a 
disorderly conduct to you and they are going to issue 
a disorderly conduct to you. Alright? 
Now, if you wish to take that ticket into 
municipal court, and argue about whether you were 
disorderly or not, go ahead because I've already 
talked to [the municipal judge] in Oconto [ . . . ] 
and I've told him the problem with this situation, 
enough 
is 
enough, 
it's 
been 
going 
on 
for 
twelve/thirteen years, I'm putting an end to it, and I 
told him, "I don't care what either one of you say."  
He's going to find you guilty and issue you a fine.  
He knows that, he's with it, he's tired of it, the 
Police Department's tired of it, alright?  If you want 
to de novo his decision, which you have a right to 
do[,] under the statute[,] upon finding you guilty, 
that's fine because it'll get de novo'd and it'll get 
de novo'd up here to me and guess what's going to 
happen?  I'm going to uphold it and you're both going 
to pay a fine. 
Now, with regard to a court commissioner, you 
have a right to de novo that, too.  Go ahead because 
I'm gonna tell either one of these circuit court 
judges, "Enough is enough.  This is how we're going to 
handle it."  I want nothing further going on. 
¶12 In fact, Commissioner Calvert had not, as he told the 
parties, directed the police chief to issue mutual disorderly 
conduct citations to the neighbors regardless of fault, and he 
had not, as he told the parties, directed the local municipal 
No. 
2017AP1735-J   
 
6 
 
judge (who would handle any citations) to find the neighbors 
guilty regardless of fault. 
¶13 After pronouncing his ruling, but before the hearing 
concluded, Commissioner Calvert admitted to the parties that the 
police chief had previously told Commissioner Calvert that he 
had visited the respondents' residence and looked for cameras, 
and believed that there had been no cameras pointed at the 
petitioners' property. 
¶14 No party sought de novo review of Commissioner 
Calvert's decision denying the injunction. 
¶15 Subsequent 
to 
the 
October 
1, 
2015 
hearing, 
Commissioner Calvert advised the person he regarded as his 
senior circuit court judge of his post-ruling comments to the 
parties, acknowledged to this judge that his comments had gone 
"beyond the normal course of action," and indicated that he 
intended all of his conduct in the case only to end a long 
standing neighbor conflict. 
¶16 After his handling of the injunction case in October 
2015, Commissioner Calvert has three times (annually) been 
reappointed as a court commissioner. 
¶17 The complaint alleged, and the Judicial Conduct Panel 
concluded, that by initiating contact and then speaking in 
detail with the City of Oconto Police Chief, obtaining the 
police chief's summary of the complaints and conflicts between 
the parties to the injunction action, reviewing the police 
"contact file," and being informed by the chief that no cameras 
had been pointed at the petitioners' property, Commissioner 
No. 
2017AP1735-J   
 
7 
 
Calvert violated SCR 60.04(1)(g),2 which prohibits judicial 
officials 
from 
initiating, 
permitting, 
engaging 
in, 
or 
considering ex parte communications concerning pending actions 
or proceedings. 
¶18 The complaint alleged further, and the Judicial 
Conduct Panel concluded, that by initiating contact and then 
speaking in detail with the City of Oconto Police Chief, 
obtaining the police chief's summary of the complaints and 
conflicts 
between 
the 
parties 
to 
the 
injunction 
action, 
reviewing the police "contact file," and being informed by the 
chief that no cameras had been pointed at the petitioners' 
property, Commissioner Calvert violated SCR 60.04(1)(g), which 
                                                 
2 SCR 60.04(1)(g) provides:  
A judge may not initiate, permit, engage in or 
consider ex parte communications concerning a pending 
or impending action or proceeding except that: 
1. A judge may initiate, permit, engage in or 
consider 
ex 
parte 
communications 
for 
scheduling, 
administrative purposes or emergencies that do not 
deal with substantive matters or issues on the merits 
if all of the following conditions are met: 
a. The judge reasonably believes that no party 
will gain a procedural or tactical advantage as a 
result of the ex parte communication. 
b. When the ex parte communication may affect the 
substance of the action or proceeding, the judge 
promptly notifies all of the other parties of the 
substance of the ex parte communication and allows 
each party an opportunity to respond. 
No. 
2017AP1735-J   
 
8 
 
prohibits judicial officials from independently investigating 
facts in a case. 
¶19 The complaint alleged further, and the Judicial 
Conduct Panel concluded, that by telling the parties, falsely, 
that he had convinced local law enforcement and the municipal 
court judge to agree that any further police calls to the 
neighbors would result in disorderly conduct tickets to all 
involved, which would be sustained throughout the judicial 
system regardless of the circumstances; telling the parties that 
he himself in his official capacity would sustain such tickets, 
regardless of the circumstances; and telling the parties that he 
planned to convince the county circuit court judges to sustain 
such tickets, regardless of the circumstances, Commissioner 
Calvert violated his obligation, pursuant to SCR 60.03(1),3 to 
act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in 
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and further 
violated his obligation, pursuant to SCR 60.02,4 to participate 
                                                 
3 SCR 60.03(1) provides:  "A judge shall respect and comply 
with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that 
promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of 
the judiciary." 
4 SCR 60.02 provides:  
An 
independent 
and 
honorable 
judiciary 
is 
indispensable to justice in our society. A judge 
should participate in establishing, maintaining and 
enforcing 
high 
standards 
of 
conduct 
and 
shall 
personally 
observe 
those 
standards 
so 
that 
the 
integrity and independence of the judiciary will be 
preserved. This chapter applies to every aspect of 
judicial behavior except purely legal decisions. Legal 
(continued) 
No. 
2017AP1735-J   
 
9 
 
in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of 
conduct and to personally observe those standards. 
¶20 The Judicial Conduct Panel concluded that each of 
these violations was willful and thus constituted judicial 
misconduct under Wis. Stat. § 757.81(4)(a).5   
¶21 We 
adopt 
the 
panel's 
undisputed 
findings 
and 
conclusions of law.  We therefore turn to the question of the 
appropriate discipline for the misconduct. 
¶22 In 
imposing 
discipline——which 
may 
be 
reprimand, 
censure, suspension, or removal——we must bear in mind that the 
goal of judicial discipline is not to punish the erring judge, 
but to protect the public from unacceptable judicial behavior, 
considering both the seriousness of the judge's misconduct and 
the likelihood that it would recur.  See In re Judicial 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crawford, 2001 WI 96, ¶38, 245 
Wis. 2d 373, 629 N.W.2d 1.  The sanction that we impose must 
also "convey to the public the gravity with which this court 
views judicial misconduct."  Id. at ¶39.   We impose discipline 
on a de novo basis, benefitting from but not bound by the 
panel's recommendation.  See id. at ¶38. 
¶23 In recommending a suspension between five and 15 days, 
the Judicial Conduct Panel found both mitigating and aggravating 
                                                                                                                                                             
decisions made in the course of judicial duty on the 
record are subject solely to judicial review. 
5 Wisconsin Stat. § 757.81(4)(a) states that misconduct 
includes "[w]illful violation of a rule of the code of judicial 
ethics." 
No. 
2017AP1735-J   
 
10 
 
factors.  On the mitigating side, these were isolated instances 
of misconduct.  Commissioner Calvert has not been the subject of 
any 
prior 
disciplinary 
action 
by 
the 
Wisconsin 
Judicial 
Commission over his 19-year career as a court commissioner.  He 
has been reappointed as a court commissioner three times since 
the misconduct.  He recognized his comments at the hearing were 
unusual and acknowledged as much by reporting the matter to a 
circuit court judge.  The end goal of his misconduct was not to 
satisfy personal desires or receive any personal benefit.   
¶24 On the aggravating side, the Judicial Conduct Panel 
noted that Commissioner Calvert's misconduct occurred in his 
capacity as a representative of the judicial system, both inside 
and outside of the courtroom.   The panel further noted that, in 
Commissioner Calvert's brief on sanctions filed with the panel, 
he repeatedly asserted that the goal of his conduct was to end a 
long-standing dispute between neighbors, which suggests that he 
lacks insight regarding the need to change or modify his 
conduct.  His misconduct also has a substantial negative impact 
on the integrity of and the public's perceptions of the 
independence of the judiciary. 
¶25 The Judicial Conduct Panel cited a case that it 
thought was particularly analogous to this matter:  In re 
Judicial 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Carver, 
192 
Wis. 2d 136, 531 N.W.2d 62 (1995).  In Carver, we imposed a 15-
day suspension as a result of on-the-record comments that a 
judge made in the course of disqualifying himself at the initial 
appearance of a defendant——a friend of the judge——who had been 
No. 
2017AP1735-J   
 
11 
 
charged with illegal sports gambling.  In those comments, the 
judge 
minimized 
the 
seriousness 
of 
the 
offense 
charged; 
questioned the legitimacy of the investigation and prosecution 
in the case before him and in other cases of sports gambling 
pending in other circuit court branches; and suggested to the 
public and to his fellow judges that minimum sentences should be 
imposed for such crimes.  The judge also lied when he stated on 
the record that he had not been contacted by the defendant; the 
judge in fact had received two letters from the defendant 
pertaining to the pending case.  We wrote that "[i]t is 
essential to the proper functioning of our judicial system that 
its participants and the public be assured of the objectivity 
and impartiality of its judges."  Id. at 138.  We concluded that 
Judge 
Carver's 
"aggravated 
failure 
to 
conduct 
himself . . . impartially, 
objectively[,] 
and 
truthfully" 
warranted a 15-day suspension from judicial office.  Id. at 155.  
Analogizing Carver to the facts of the instant case, the panel 
reasoned that like Judge Carver, Commissioner Calvert made on-
the-record statements that were false and that exhibited 
partiality.  The panel recommended that a suspension similar to 
that imposed in Carver should be imposed here, with the length 
ranging from five to 15 days.   
¶26 We agree with the Judicial Conduct Panel that a 
suspension is in order, and we conclude that a length of 15 days 
is appropriate.  The misconduct in this case is undeniably 
serious.  As we stated in Carver, a judge's objectivity and 
impartiality are critical to the proper functioning of the 
No. 
2017AP1735-J   
 
12 
 
judicial system.  Commissioner Calvert's behavior was far from 
objective and impartial.  He independently investigated the 
facts of a case pending before him——an effort that included 
engaging in an ex parte communication with the police chief.  He 
then lied to the parties in a particularly manipulative manner, 
falsely claiming that he had communicated with individuals in 
the judicial and law enforcement systems in such a way that the 
parties were doomed to failure and future legal troubles should 
they ever seek additional recourse.  We cannot abide such 
assurances by a judge to rig the judicial and criminal justice 
systems against its participants.   
¶27 We are also troubled, as was the Judicial Conduct 
Panel, by Commissioner Calvert's argument to the panel that "it 
is difficult to understand how either party to this matter may 
have questioned fair treatment in this case when a rehearing of 
the 
matter 
was 
an 
available 
alternative 
and 
was 
never 
requested."  This argument strongly suggests that Commissioner 
Calvert lacks insight into his own misconduct; it is no surprise 
the parties did not seek a de novo hearing of his decision given 
his assurance that he would see to it that any such effort would 
fail.  In other words, Commissioner Calvert's argument seeks a 
reward for his asserted willingness to tilt the playing field 
against the parties.  No reward will be forthcoming here.   
¶28 Ultimately, we conclude that the appropriate sanction 
is a suspension from judicial office for a period of 15 days.  
This period is an adequate reflection of the seriousness of 
Commissioner Calvert's actions, and is necessary to promote 
No. 
2017AP1735-J   
 
13 
 
public confidence in the soundness of the judicial system.  It 
is also consistent with our past precedent.  We are confident 
that a 15-day suspension will impress upon Commissioner Calvert 
the fundamental requirements of judicial office and will 
demonstrate to the public our dedication to preserving judicial 
integrity. 
¶29 IT IS ORDERED that the Honorable Frank M. Calvert is 
suspended from the office of circuit court commissioner without 
compensation and prohibited from exercising any of the powers or 
duties of a circuit court commissioner in Wisconsin for a period 
of 15 days, commencing July 16, 2018. 
 
No. 
2017AP1735-J   
 
 
 
1