Complaint filed against Madison attorney involved in redistricting

Listen to this article

A Madison attorney hired to provide legal guidance on legislative redistricting in Wisconsin is the subject of an ethics complaint filed with the Office of Lawyer Regulation.

Eric McLeod, of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, had a complaint filed against him Feb. 16 by Appleton resident Mathew Van Grinsven, who alleged the litigator engaged in a conflict of interests by working for both Republicans and Democrats in the state Senate on the redistricting effort.

According to the complaint, McLeod should have recognized that each political party would have opposite interests and that it is “impossible” for one attorney to represent the entire Senate in an issue as contentious as redistricting.

“It is similar to having one attorney represent both sides in a lawsuit,” Van Grinsven wrote in the signed complaint. “It is a conflict of interest in the greatest order.”

McLeod declined to comment.

He is one of several attorneys from Michael Best hired to work on the legislative redistricting effort.

According to the complaint, McLeod received a portion of $400,000 the state paid the firm to represent the Senate.

According to the complaint, McLeod violated Chapter 20 of the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules governing attorney conduct and specifically Rule 20:1.8(3)(b) that says “a lawyer shall not use information relating to representation of a client to the disadvantage of the client unless the client given informed consent, except as permitted or required by the rules.”

In a series of letters, attached to the complaint, Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, wrote to McLeod to question the scope of the attorney’s representation. One of the letters mentions 84 alleged emails between Republican senators and Michael Best, which Erpenbach claims he nor other Democrats saw.

“I’m a client and have yet to see one single thing from you or your firm, let alone any of the documents you are seeking to suppress,” Erpenbach said in undated letter sent after Feb. 13. “As a client, I want to know why you are claiming attorney-client privilege when 16 of your clients have no idea what’s in those emails.”

The OLR will review the complaint and decide whether to pursue an investigation.