Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Judicial Conduct Panel recommends reprimand of Ziegler

By: dmc-admin//January 7, 2008//

Judicial Conduct Panel recommends reprimand of Ziegler

By: dmc-admin//January 7, 2008//

Listen to this article

ImageThe Judicial Conduct Panel issued its recommendations in the disciplinary proceedings against Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler, agreeing with the parties that a reprimand is appropriate discipline.

In its findings of fact, the panel found that, while her husband was a director of the West Bend Savings Bank, then-Judge Ziegler presided over 11 cases in which the bank was a party without disclosing her husband’s relationship with the Bank, or obtaining a waiver of recusal in any of the cases.

However, the panel also found that Ziegler did not gain or attempt to gain a financial advantage by presiding over the 11 cases. In addition, the panel found, “In each case, she reached the correct legal result. Had Justice Ziegler recused herself from the [11] cases, any judge would have made the same decisions Justice Ziegler made.”

The panel further concluded that the actions of Ziegler were “willful,” reasoning, “Given her knowledge of her husband’s relationships with the Bank, red flags of danger were prominently flying. Justice Ziegler did not see them.”

Although the panel found that Ziegler’s presiding over the cases was misconduct, it recommended only the reprimand that the parties agreed to, concluding that reprimand is sufficient to prevent Justice Ziegler from repeating the conduct, and to alert other judges of their need to be vigilant and not make the same mistake.

Noting the extensive publicity the case generated during Ziegler’s campaign for election to the Supreme Court, the panel wrote, “[I]t is fair to conclude that all judges in Wisconsin are alert to their responsibilities under the Code and the dangers of possible conflicts of interest. This is true, and will be true, irrespective of the discipline imposed.”

Finally, the court looked to previous cases involving judicial discipline: the 15-day suspension issued to Judge Lee S. Dreyfus Jr. for filing false certificates attesting that he was up-to-date in deciding his cases; and the reprimand issued to Judge Frank Crivello for battering his wife while intoxicated.

Looking to those cases as guideposts, the panel wrote, “If a [15]-day suspension is appropriate for a judge who filed false official certificates directly affecting his judicial business, lied to his chief judge about it, and initially lied to the Commission investigator about it, can anyone adhering to neutral principles unaffected by clamor seriously contend that what Justice Ziegler did here warrants a sanction as harsh or harsher than that imposed in Dreyfus? We think not.

“[C]an anyone adhering to neutral principles unaffected by clamor contend that Justice Ziegler’s violation warrants more than the reprimand given to Judge Crivello? We think not.”

The panel, which recommended reprimand, included Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judges Ralph Adam Fine, Charles P. Dykman, and Ted E. Wedemeyer, Jr.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests