Ziegler decision

Listen to this article

A disappointment, an appropriate punishment, a strong signal, and a weak message — those characterizations represent the broad interpretations of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision to publicly reprimand Justice Annette K. Ziegler.

“We were vindicated in the sense that she was found guilty of misconduct, but it fell far short when it came to the level of punishment,” said Michael McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (WDC).

The WDC promoted a Wisconsin Judicial Commission investigation into allegations that Ziegler violated the judicial code of conduct by presiding over 11 cases involving West Bend Savings Bank, where her husband serves as a member of the board of directors.

McCabe said a suspension of Ziegler would have been a more appropriate punishment and shown that the Supreme Court takes judicial misconduct seriously.

But former Justice Jon P. Wilcox, who Ziegler replaced on the bench, said, given the circumstances, the punishment fit the crime.

“Some people are not happy about this, but I think it was the appropriate measure of discipline given what had taken place,” said Wilcox, who evaluated three judicial misconduct complaints during his 15 years on the Supreme Court.

Wilcox said Ziegler’s admission of guilt, combined with the determination that her actions were inadvertent warranted the public reprimand and nothing more.

“If someone else did the same sort of thing and there was a calculated attempt to hide it, they might be treated differently,” said Wilcox.

McCabe said that the court “spoke out of both sides of its mouth” in determining that Ziegler’s actions were willful in that she knew her husband was a member of the board, but inadvertent when it came to not recusing herself from the cases.

“They found clear-cut violations, but then were reluctant to go beyond the weakest form of discipline,” said McCabe. “That doesn’t send a very good message to the public; a mere slap on the wrist, and it does little to remove the cloud over the court.”

Wilcox conceded that the same level of misconduct in another profession might have warranted a different discipline, but in terms of the Supreme Court and judges around the state, the message is clear.

He expects judicial members are well aware of the potential consequences associated with misconduct, given the high-profile nature of the Ziegler saga.

“The court didn’t just rubber stamp this, and I cannot believe there isn’t a judge out there who wouldn’t take this seriously,” said Wilcox.