Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Bartley G. Mauch
Citation: 2010 WI 2
Docket Number: 2009AP000214-D
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: January 21, 2010

2010 WI 2 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP214-D 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Bartley G. Mauch, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Bartley G. Mauch, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MAUCH 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
January 21, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 2
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2009AP214-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Bartley G. Mauch, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Bartley G. Mauch, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JAN 21, 2010 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   
Attorney's 
license 
suspended.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review the report of Referee James G. 
Curtis recommending this court suspend Attorney Bartley G. 
Mauch's license to practice law for six months and impose the 
costs of this disciplinary proceeding on him.  No appeal has 
been filed so the court considers this matter pursuant to SCR 
22.17(2).1 
                                                 
1 SCR 22.17(2) provides: 
No. 
2009AP214-D 
 
2 
 
¶2 
We 
adopt 
the 
referee's 
findings 
of 
fact 
and 
conclusions of law.  We agree that Attorney Mauch's misconduct 
warrants the suspension of his license to practice law in 
Wisconsin for six months.  We also impose the costs of this 
disciplinary proceeding on Attorney Mauch.  
¶3 
Attorney Mauch was admitted to practice law in 
Wisconsin in 1972.  He practiced in Prairie du Sac and has a 
prior disciplinary history. 
¶4 
In March 1994 Attorney Mauch was publicly reprimanded 
for failing to provide competent representation to personal 
injury clients by failing to exercise the knowledge, skill, 
thoroughness, and preparation necessary for such representation; 
failing to abide by the clients' decisions concerning their 
claims and failing to consult with them as to the means by which 
their objectives were to be pursued; failing to act with 
reasonable 
diligence and promptness in representing them, 
failing to keep the clients reasonably informed of the status of 
their matters, and failing to comply with their reasonable 
requests for information; and failing to cooperate in a Board of 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Responsibility 
investigation 
of 
his 
                                                                                                                                                             
If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court 
shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or 
modify the referee's findings and conclusions or 
remand the matter to the referee for additional 
findings; 
and 
determine 
and 
impose 
appropriate 
discipline.  The court, on its own motion, may order 
the parties to file briefs in the matter. 
No. 
2009AP214-D 
 
3 
 
conduct in an unrelated matter.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Mauch, 182 Wis. 2d 82, 513 N.W.2d 133 (1994).  
¶5 
In March 2003 Attorney Mauch was publicly reprimanded 
for failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a 
client, failing to properly communicate with his client, and 
failing to cooperate in an Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
investigation of his conduct.  Public Reprimand of Bartley G. 
Mauch, No. 2003-03.  
¶6 
On July 24, 2007, Attorney Mauch's license was 
suspended for 90 days for failing to abide by a client's 
decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation and 
failing to consult with the client as to the means by which they 
were to be pursued; failing to inform the client of all offers 
of settlement and abide by the client's decision whether to 
accept an offer of settlement in the matter; failing to act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, 
failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of 
a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for 
information, and failing to explain a matter to a client in 
order to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding 
the representation; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; depositing in his trust 
account excess personal funds, failing to maintain a transaction 
register, and failing to enter into an overdraft reporting 
agreement with regard to his client trust account; and providing 
untimely and false information to the OLR.  In re Disciplinary 
No. 
2009AP214-D 
 
4 
 
Proceedings Against Mauch, 2007 WI 109, 304 Wis. 2d 541, 736 
N.W.2d 141.  
¶7 
Most recently, on January 23, 2008, this court 
temporarily suspended Attorney Mauch's license to practice law 
for failure to cooperate in OLR's investigation of the two 
matters which are the subject of this disciplinary proceeding.  
His license to practice law in Wisconsin remains suspended.  
¶8 
The OLR filed its complaint in this matter on 
January 28, 2009.  Attorney Mauch did not file an answer to the 
complaint. 
¶9 
On April 15, 2009, the OLR filed a motion for default 
judgment based on Attorney Mauch's failure to file an answer to 
the complaint.  The referee attempted to contact both parties to 
set a scheduling conference.  Multiple attempts to reach 
Attorney Mauch by telephone and by e-mail were unsuccessful.  
The referee sent notice of a scheduling conference set for 
May 14, 2009, requiring both parties to attend and participate 
or be subject to sanctions.  
¶10 Notice of the scheduling conference was served on 
Attorney Mauch by certified mail with return receipt requested.  
The return receipt was signed by "Geoff Mauch" on May 2, 2009.  
The referee had invited the parties to contact him to reschedule 
the conference if needed and urged Attorney Mauch to file an 
answer to OLR's complaint. The referee initiated the telephone 
conference as scheduled, but Attorney Mauch did not answer the 
calls the referee placed to several different telephone numbers.  
No. 
2009AP214-D 
 
5 
 
¶11 The next day the referee issued an order granting 
default judgment against Attorney Mauch.  The referee found 
Attorney Mauch was properly served with the complaint and that 
Attorney Mauch was in default for failing to answer the 
complaint.  The referee also found that by failing to appear and 
participate 
in 
the 
scheduling 
conference, 
Attorney 
Mauch 
violated the referee's order for appearance, thereby subjecting 
him to sanctions as set forth in the order.  The referee 
concluded the appropriate sanction was to enter default judgment 
against Attorney Mauch.   
¶12 The referee issued his report on July 9, 2009, in 
which he adopted the factual allegations of the OLR's complaint.   
¶13 The OLR alleged and the referee found that in April 
2006 Attorney Mauch was appointed by the Office of the State 
Public Defender (SPD) to represent S.Z. in two criminal matters.  
S.Z. was sentenced on August 17, 2006, and S.Z. and Attorney 
Mauch signed a notice of intent to seek post-conviction relief 
that same day.  Attorney Mauch filed the notice of intent to 
seek post-conviction relief on September 19, 2006, 14 days after 
the September 5, 2006, deadline.  He did not request an 
extension of time to file the notice of intent at that time.  
Attorney Mauch also did not provide S.Z. with a copy of the 
notice of intent.  In fact, Attorney Mauch did not communicate 
with S.Z. between August 17, 2006, and February 22, 2007. 
¶14 On February 15, 2007, the SPD's appellate intake 
coordinator wrote to S.Z. informing him the SPD had not received 
an order from the court of appeals extending the time to file 
No. 
2009AP214-D 
 
6 
 
the notice of intent to pursue post-conviction relief, and 
apparently Attorney Mauch informed the SPD he thought it had 
already been filed.  The intake coordinator said Attorney Mauch 
stated he would prepare and file the motion as soon as possible.  
The intake coordinator further told S.Z. the SPD would appoint 
appellate counsel when the court of appeals granted the 
extension.  
¶15 On February 28, 2007, Attorney Mauch filed a motion 
for extension of time to file S.Z.'s notice of intent to seek 
post-conviction relief with the court of appeals.   
¶16 On October 11 and November 8, 2007, the OLR requested 
Attorney Mauch provide information relevant to its investigation 
in the S.Z. matter.  Attorney Mauch failed to respond to both 
requests.   
¶17 The referee further found that on April 4, 2007, the 
Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) advised Attorney Mauch his license 
to practice law in Wisconsin would be automatically suspended on 
May 29, 2007, at 4:30 p.m., because he had failed to comply with 
mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) requirements.  On 
May 29, 2007, Attorney Mauch's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin was suspended.   
¶18 On May 30, 2007, Attorney Mauch appeared on behalf of 
clients in Sauk County circuit court and Columbia County circuit 
court.  He also filed a discovery demand and a motion.  The next 
day Attorney Mauch was scheduled to appear in Juneau County 
circuit court.  Before the scheduled appearance, the judge 
called Attorney Mauch into chambers and presented a memorandum 
No. 
2009AP214-D 
 
7 
 
from the BBE stating Attorney Mauch's license to practice law 
had been suspended effective 4:30 p.m. on May 29, 2007.  
¶19 Between May 30 and June 7, 2007, Attorney Mauch 
attempted to personally file documents with the Sauk County 
district attorney's office and attempted to reschedule cases.  
The district attorney's office refused to accept documents from 
Attorney Mauch or allow him to reschedule cases through their 
office.  
¶20 Attorney Mauch filed a petition for reinstatement 
dated June 4, 2007, with the BBE.  In his petition Attorney 
Mauch stated, "I have not practiced law since this period of 
ineligibility, Close of business, May 29, 2007."  The BBE 
approved Attorney Mauch's petition for reinstatement on June 7, 
2007.   
¶21 On June 12, 2007, Attorney Mauch told the OLR he first 
learned his license had been suspended when a judge so informed 
him on May 31, 2007.  He stated he never received any prior 
notification of the suspension.  
¶22 In a letter to the OLR dated July 12, 2007, Attorney 
Mauch wrote: 
On June 8, 2007, I again reviewed my calendar for the 
week of May 21, 2007.  Notwithstanding my Petition for 
Reinstatement, I determined that on Wednesday, May 30, 
2007, 
I 
had 
indeed 
represented 
a 
[client] . . . in . . . [Sauk 
County 
circuit 
court] . . .  Also I determined that on Wednesday, 
May 30, 
2007, 
I 
represented 
[a 
client] . . . in . . . a sentencing after revocation, 
in [Columbia County circuit court].  
No. 
2009AP214-D 
 
8 
 
Attorney Mauch did not notify the OLR or the BBE that he had 
made a misrepresentation in his petition for reinstatement. 
¶23 Between August 8, 2007, and September 27, 2007, the 
OLR sent three letters to Attorney Mauch requesting he provide a 
written response to the OLR's investigations into this matter.  
Attorney Mauch failed to respond to all three letters.  
¶24 On November 28, 2007, this court ordered Attorney 
Mauch to show cause, in writing, why his license to practice law 
in Wisconsin should not be temporarily suspended for failure to 
cooperate 
with 
the 
OLR's 
investigation 
in 
both 
matters.  
Attorney Mauch failed to respond.  The court temporarily 
suspended Attorney Mauch's license on January 23, 2008.  As 
noted earlier, his license remains under suspension. 
¶25 Based on these findings, the referee concluded as 
follows: 
• By failing to timely file the notice of intent to pursue 
post-conviction relief and a motion to extend the time to 
file the notice of intent to pursue post-conviction 
relief in the S.Z. matter, Attorney Mauch violated SCR 
20:1.3.2  
• By failing to provide S.Z. with a copy of the notice of 
intent to pursue post-conviction relief, or otherwise 
inform S.Z. of the timing of the filing and failing to 
                                                 
2 SCR 20:1.3 provides that, "A lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."  
No. 
2009AP214-D 
 
9 
 
keep S.Z. informed regarding the status of the case, 
Attorney Mauch violated former SCR 20:1.4(a).3  
• By engaging in the practice of law in Wisconsin while his 
state bar membership was suspended, Attorney Mauch 
violated SCR 31.10(1)4 via SCR 20:8.4(f).5 
• By misrepresenting to the BBE in his petition for 
reinstatement that he had not practiced law between 4:30 
p.m. on May 29, 2007, and June 4, 2007, and by 
misrepresenting to the OLR that he had not received 
notice of his suspension prior to May 31, 2007, when he 
                                                 
3 Former SCR 20:1.4(a) (effective through June 30, 2007) 
provided in pertinent part that, "A lawyer shall keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter; . . . ." 
4 SCR 31.10(1) provides as follows:  
If a lawyer fails to comply with the attendance 
requirement of SCR 31.02, fails to comply with the 
reporting requirement of SCR 31.03(1), or fails to pay 
the late fee under SCR 31.03(2), the board shall serve 
a notice of noncompliance on the lawyer. This notice 
shall advise the lawyer that the state bar membership 
of the lawyer shall be automatically suspended for 
failing to file evidence of compliance or to pay the 
late fee within 60 days after service of the notice. 
The board shall certify the names of all lawyers so 
suspended under this rule to the clerk of the supreme 
court and to each judge of a court of record in this 
state. A lawyer shall not engage in the practice of 
law in Wisconsin while his or her state bar membership 
is suspended under this rule. 
5 SCR 20:8.4(f) states 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; . . . ."   
No. 
2009AP214-D 
 
10 
 
had received written notice of the suspension on April 4, 
2007, Attorney Mauch violated SCR 20:8.4(c).6  
• By failing to timely provide OLR with written responses 
containing all of the records and information requested 
in 
OLR's 
investigative 
letters 
to 
Attorney 
Mauch, 
Attorney Mauch violated SCRs 22.03(2) and (6)7 via SCR 
20:8.4(h).8 
                                                 
6 SCR 20:8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct 
for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit or misrepresentation; . . . ."  
7 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 
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. 
8 SCR 20:8.4(h) (effective July 1, 2007) 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); . . . ."  
No. 
2009AP214-D 
 
11 
 
¶26 The referee thoughtfully and thoroughly evaluated this 
matter.  He emphasized the need for progressive discipline, 
citing In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Converse, 2006 WI 
4, ¶37, 287 Wis. 2d 72, 707 N.W.2d 530.  The referee observed 
that Attorney Mauch's disciplinary history suggests "a pattern 
of failing to act with reasonable diligence, failing to 
adequately communicate with clients, failing to keep clients 
informed," and, on occasion, a pattern of "deceitful conduct 
where Mr. Mauch has not been truthful or forthcoming."  In 
addition, the referee observed Attorney Mauch has demonstrated a 
serious pattern of "failing to cooperate with the investigative 
process, particularly in recent years."  
¶27 The referee considered other cases in which an 
attorney has practiced law while administratively suspended for 
a CLE violation.  See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Paget, 2003 WI 130, 266 Wis. 2d 1, 669 N.W.2d 731 (60-
day suspension for practicing law while license administratively 
suspended); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Engelbrecht, 
2000 WI 120, 239 Wis. 2d 236, 618 N.W.2d 743 (60-day suspension 
for practicing law while license administratively suspended for 
failing to comply with CLE requirements and making false and 
misleading statements in the reinstatement process).   
¶28 The referee also considered cases involving more 
serious 
allegations 
of 
misconduct. 
 
See, 
e.g., 
In 
re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tully, 2005 WI 100, 283 
Wis. 2d 124, 699 N.W.2d 882 (two-year suspension for 29 counts 
of misconduct in six client matters, including practicing law 
No. 
2009AP214-D 
 
12 
 
while license administratively suspended); In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Graf, 2003 WI 122, 265 Wis. 2d 376, 667 
N.W.2d 340 
(two-year 
suspension 
for 
extensive 
unauthorized 
practice of law while suspended, misrepresentations on a 
reinstatement petition, and other misconduct with respect to 
several client matters); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Harris, 2003 WI 22, 260 Wis. 2d 46, 658 N.W.2d 451 (two-year 
suspension for practicing law in at least 60 cases during a 
suspension period of almost four years). 
¶29 The referee stated it was "significant to note that 
Mr. Mauch's CLE suspension was of very short duration, and only 
a limited number of client matters were involved."  However, he 
concluded Attorney Mauch knew or should have known he was under 
suspension.  The referee stated:   
The more egregious conduct in this case was 
Mr. Mauch's June 4, 2007 Petition for Reinstatement in 
which he misrepresented to the BBE that he had not 
practiced law since Tuesday, May 29th.  June 4, 2007 
was a Monday, and in completing the Petition for 
Reinstatement, Mr. Mauch must have recalled the court 
appearances and legal work during the prior week.  The 
misrepresentation 
on 
the 
Reinstatement 
Petition 
represents a serious violation of the rules.  
¶30 With respect to Attorney Mauch's representation of 
S.Z., the referee noted the "delays caused by [Attorney] Mauch's 
failure to file the Motion [for post-conviction relief] resulted 
in no appointment of appellate counsel for [S.Z.], no pursuit of 
the appeal, and no order of transcripts until after the Court of 
Appeals 
had 
ruled 
on 
the 
late-filed 
Notice 
of 
Intent."  
Moreover, Attorney Mauch "has offered no explanation for this 
No. 
2009AP214-D 
 
13 
 
course of conduct.  It represents a serious failure on his part 
to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, and to keep the 
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
¶31 The referee also commented on Attorney Mauch's lack of 
cooperation in responding to investigative authorities.  He 
noted that no mitigating circumstances had been offered and 
"[Attorney] Mauch's activities over the last 18 months are 
simply unknown.  His repeated failures to cooperate with OLR 
investigations show an apparent indifference to the outcome and 
seriousness of these proceedings." 
¶32 The referee recommended Attorney Mauch's license be 
suspended for six months: 
In light of Mr. Mauch's apparent indifference to the 
seriousness of these proceedings, and in the absence 
of any evidence of Mr. Mauch's activities during the 
last 18 months, the Referee is persuaded by OLR's 
position.  A six month suspension would require 
Mr. Mauch 
to 
petition 
the 
Supreme 
Court 
for 
reinstatement under the procedures set forth in SCR 
22.29 to 22.33.  The reinstatement procedure will 
provide assurance that Mr. Mauch can be safely 
recommended to the profession, the courts and the 
public as a person who is fit and capable to practice 
law in this State.   
In recommending to the court that a particular 
level of discipline be imposed, I take into account 
the seriousness, nature and extent of misconduct, the 
level of discipline needed to protect the public, the 
courts, and the legal system from repetition of the 
misconduct, the need to impress upon the attorney the 
seriousness of the misconduct, and the need to deter 
other attorneys from committing similar acts. See In 
re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan, 2006 WI 
38, [290 Wis. 2d 30, 712 N.W.2d 877.] I must also 
consider the attorney's prior disciplinary history and 
No. 
2009AP214-D 
 
14 
 
the court's recognition of the concept of progressive 
discipline.  
¶33 We have independently reviewed the referee's report 
and recommendation.  We accept the referee's findings of fact 
and conclusions of law, and we suspend Attorney Mauch's license 
for six months, effective the date of this order.  In addition, 
we agree it is appropriate to impose the costs of this 
proceeding on Attorney Mauch.9   
¶34 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Bartley G. Mauch to 
practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of six 
months, effective the date of this order. 
¶35 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 
of this order, Bartley G. Mauch shall pay to the Office of 
Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding.  If the costs 
are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to 
this court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, 
the license of Bartley G. Mauch to practice law in Wisconsin 
shall remain suspended until further order of the court. 
¶36 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bartley G. Mauch shall 
comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to 
activities following suspension if he has not already done so. 
 
                                                 
9 As of July 27, 2009, the costs total $1,602.56. 
No. 
2009AP214-D 
 
 
 
1