Roggensack joins the Supreme Court

Listen to this article

Hon. Patience D. Roggensack

The latest addition to the state’s highest court is very enthusiastic about her new judicial role. Acknowledging that it still doesn’t seem real, Justice Patience D. Roggensack said her first few weeks have been enjoyable.

Until now, Roggensack has been settling into her new digs, reviewing the cases coming up for oral argument and contemplating petitions for review. This week, the state Supreme Court gets back into full swing with all the justices in Madison for the first round of oral arguments, which were scheduled to begin yesterday.

During an interview in her chambers last week, Roggensack, 63, noted that the start of regular sessions would make it all seem real.

“I won’t believe it until … we sit down to oral arguments,” she said.

Although Roggensack’s formal investiture is scheduled for Friday afternoon, she was actually sworn in back in July by her daughter, Ellen Brostrom of the Milwaukee firm Earle & Brostrom LLP. The 1:30 p.m. ceremony in the state capitol will follow a morning conference on petitions for review.

Throughout August, Roggensack was busy setting up her office, reviewing briefs for September cases and exchanging e-mails on petitions for review with some of her colleagues who were travelling.

Roggensack is the first court of appeals judge to sit on the Supreme Court. She defeated Barron County Circuit Court Judge Edward Brunner in the April election for an open seat on the high court. She filled the vacancy created by Justice William Bablitch’s July 31 retirement.

Coming from the appellate bench means there are a number of petitions for review and accepted cases where Roggensack sat on the panel of judges deciding them. She has not been involved in discussions regarding those petitions and will not be hearing those cases coming before the Supreme Court.

Prior to joining the District IV Court of Appeals seven years ago, Roggensack practiced law for 16 years and was a principal in the Madison law firm DeWitt Ross & Stevens. She graduated with honors from the University of Wisconsin Law School.

She anticipates that both the court of appeals and litigation experiences will serve her well in the new role. That’s particularly true of her appellate role, which was similar to the work she will be doing.

“It’s a good training ground for this job,” Roggensack said. “It’s essentially the same thing. You have to be able to read a lot of material and focus on what’s really important. That’s how you are going to decide the appeal.”

Roggensack is really looking forward to one of the significant differences between the two courts. Unlike the court of appeals, the majority of cases at the Supreme Court involve oral arguments. Although she estimated that oral arguments were held in only about 5 percent of the cases, Roggensack said that was her favorite part of the job.

“We always gave it if both sides asked for it,” Roggensack said of the opportunity to present oral arguments. “I was amazed when I went on the court of appeals that so few people asked for it.”

Roggensack said she was not sure why more practitioners did not ask for oral arguments, noting that as a trial lawyer she always asked for oral arguments on appeals. As a former court of appeals judge, she observed that making the effort to present oral arguments could have an impact on the outcome.

Although it was not always the case, she said, “There were times when I changed my mind following oral arguments.”

	Links Wisconsin Supreme Court

Roggensack explained that one of the most important functions of the Supreme Court is to provide guidance through decisions that are clear and concise.

“I see our most lasting function as deciding in a way that’s useful for the folks who look at them every day,” she said. To that end, cases “should be clearly written, they shouldn’t be so long that people are intimidated by them.”

She hopes to apply her approach to writing court of appeals decisions when writing decisions for the Supreme Court. Most of her decisions have averaged about 15 pages, typed.

Roggensack recognized that cases where the Supreme Court has to address multiple issues might require longer decisions, but she still hopes to keep them as brief and to the point as possible.

“I believe in writing real short. … I think that’s a big public service, to take the time to write a shorter decision, so they can use it easier.”

Tony Anderson can be reached by email.