THE ETHICS REPORTER

August 16, 2025

From Public Reprimand to Multi-Jurisdictional Suspension

From Public Reprimand to Multi-Jurisdictional Suspension

The disciplinary case of Jeffrey Allen McIntyre highlights how criminal conduct and ethical lapses can ripple across multiple jurisdictions. What began as a public reprimand in Wisconsin eventually led to a lengthy suspension in Illinois and action by the U.S. Supreme Court, showing how attorney discipline often extends far beyond the state where it starts.

 

Public Reprimand of Jeffrey A. McIntyre (June 26, 2019), Wisconsin OLR/Wisconsin Supreme Court compendium (SCR 22.09(3); SCR 20:8.4(b)).

Illinois Supreme Court Announcements (Sept. 21, 2022) noting 18-month suspension and until further order; ISBA summary (effective Oct. 12, 2022); ARDC press summary (M.R. 031237; 2021PR00018).

Order List (12/12/2022), D-3100, In the Matter of Discipline of Jeffrey Allen McIntyre

Public reprimand in Wisconsin (2019) for criminal conduct; Illinois imposed an 18-month suspension and “until further order” (effective Oct. 12, 2022); the U.S. Supreme Court separately suspended him and issued a show-cause order re: disbarment from that Court (Dec. 12, 2022).

In 2019, the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation obtained a public reprimand against McIntyre based on criminal conduct, including a 2017 misdemeanor battery incident and a 2018 operating while intoxicated (third offense) conviction. The reprimand cites SCR 20:8.4(b) (criminal conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice).

Media reporting at the time noted he left his law firm following the reprimand. (Media is not authoritative for sanctions but provides context.)

On September 21, 2022, the Illinois Supreme Court ordered an 18-month suspension and until further order of the Court, effective October 12, 2022, based on the same underlying conduct (reciprocal discipline). In March 2023, the court also entered a small Rule 773 costs judgment related to the disciplinary proceeding.

On December 12, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court suspended McIntyre from practice before that Court and ordered him to show cause within 40 days why he should not be disbarred from the Supreme Court’s bar. (this is separate from any state-court status).

Why this case matters:
1. Reciprocal discipline travels. Misconduct in one jurisdiction can lead to matching sanctions elsewhere (Illinois mirrored the Wisconsin matter with its own suspension).Multistate practitioners must anticipate collateral consequences.
2. Different forums, different bars. Admission and discipline before the U.S. Supreme Court are distinct from state licensure. A SCOTUS suspension/show-cause order can coexist with state sanctions and may prompt further action.
3. Reputation & employment impact. Even a reprimand can have immediate career repercussions, as contemporary reporting showed. Lawyers and firms should have clear protocols for reporting criminal matters and assessing fitness to practice.

 

Want more legal ethics breakdown like this?

Subscribe to our blog or follow us for weekly case summaries, rules analyses, and disciplinary updates.

Independent Journalism Needs You

You just read something most publications won't touch. We investigate judges who shouldn't be on the bench, attorneys who prey on clients, and a legal system that too often protects itself instead of the public. We do it openly, aggressively, and without apology.

We don't have a paywall. We don't take money from law firms, bar associations, or corporate advertisers who might prefer we stay quiet. Every piece of reporting on this site — every judge exposed, every disbarment documented, every reversal analyzed — was made possible entirely by readers like you.

If you read us regularly — if this work has ever made you angry, informed you, or helped you — we humbly ask you to support us today. It takes less than a minute. Even $1 goes directly toward keeping this reporting alive. Without it, we cannot continue.

Reader Supported

This journalism is free because readers like you make it possible.

We don't have corporate advertisers. We don't take money from law firms. Every investigation you read here is funded entirely by readers. Even $1 keeps us going.

Join 47 readers who donated this month

47% toward our monthly goal of 100 supporters

Secure checkout via Stripe. Cancel your monthly gift anytime.

The Ethics Reporter is independent and reader-funded. We have no corporate backers. Your support is everything.

← Back to all articles