Ziegler receives public reprimand from colleagues

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court imposed a public reprimand on colleague Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler on Wednesday, for failing to recuse herself in 11 cases when she served as a Washington County Circuit Court Judge.

This marks the first time that a seated member of the state Supreme Court has been publicly disciplined.

The reprimand had been stipulated to by Justice Ziegler and the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which filed the complaint.

A Judicial Conduct Panel composed of three Wisconsin Court of Appeals judges had also recommended the reprimand.

The Supreme Court’s per curiam decision stated, “The instant case presents a troublesome question about the level of discipline. … We conclude, however, that neither suspension nor removal is an appropriate sanction and that the appropriate discipline to be imposed here is a public reprimand.”

Moving Forward

In a released statement Ziegler said she was pleased that each of the three groups reviewing the case had determined her actions were “inadvertent” and that neither she nor her family benefited financially from the cases.

“I appreciate that this matter is now concluded,” she stated. “I look forward to continuing to serve the people of Wisconsin.”

The 11 cases all involved West Bend Savings Bank as the plaintiff; Ziegler’s husband serves on the bank’s board of directors.

In each of the cases, the court found that Ziegler inadvertently failed to recuse herself, as required by SCR 60.04(4)(1)(e).

That provision requires a judge to recuse herself when, “The judge or the judge’s spouse, … meets one of the following criteria: 1. Is a party to the proceeding or an officer, director or trustee of a party.”

Although inadvertent, the failure to recuse is considered willful, as a matter of law, and violates the rule.

Public Reprimand

Turning to the appropriate discipline, the court selected a public reprimand.

A number of mitigating factors militated in favor of reprimand. The court found, “Judge Ziegler was a fine circuit court judge and an active member of the judiciary contributing the administration of the judicial system.”

The court also noted that she did not gain advantage by presiding over the cases, none of the parties complained or sought to reopen the cases (despite the extensive publicity over the matter), and “any other judge hearing the cases would have made the same decisions that Judge Ziegler made.”

In each of the cases, the opposing party either failed to appear, admitted liability to the bank, or reached a settlement with the bank.

In addition, Ziegler made no attempt to hide her husband’s status as a director of the bank, cooperated with the Judicial Commission’s investigation, and took corrective action so that cases involving the bank would no longer be assigned to her.

Considerations

In light of the mitigating factors, and precedent involving more serious misconduct that also resulted in only a reprimand, the Supreme Court concluded it should not impose any more serious discipline.

The decision stated, “Some may believe that the sanction imposed today is too severe.

Judge Ziegler herself, together with the Judicial Conduct Panel and the Judicial Commission, recommended a public reprimand. Others may believe the sanction imposed today is too lenient. The misconduct is, however, both serious and significant.

And a sanction of a public reprimand is both serious and significant. Never before in the history of the Wisconsin Supreme Court has a sitting justice received a public disciplinary sanction from the members of the [c]ourt.”

One issue troubled the court -– the absence of a factual record whether Ziegler publicly admitted violating the rule before her election to the Supreme Court.

The court complained that the Judicial Conduct Panel failed to clarify, by the taking of testimony, when Ziegler publicly admitted violation of the rule.

Nevertheless, the court declined to remand the case to the panel for an evidentiary hearing on this issue.

The court wrote, “Although the question about the timing of the open and public admission is important, we nevertheless have decided not to remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing… Judge Ziegler’s election was more than one year ago. It is time to conclude this matter for the sake of Judge Ziegler and the Judicial Commission, this court, and the people of the [s]tate.”

Partial Dissent

Justice Louis B. Butler Jr. dissented from this part of the opinion.

Butler wrote, “I respectfully cannot sign on to a decision lacking the type of evidentiary basis that we would consider a foundational requisite in any other case before us.”

In an interview with Wisconsin Law Journal, Attorney James Alexander, Executive Director of the Judicial Commission, stated, “The Supreme Court did what it is supposed to do under the Constitution and that should be the end of it.”