Professional Responsibility — prosecutors’ ethical duties

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Professional Responsibility — prosecutors’ ethical duties

A prosecutor’s ethical duty of disclosure under SCR 20:3.8(f)(1) is no broader than the constitutional requirements identified in Brady.

“We reject the OLR’s proffered interpretation of SCR 20:3.8(f)(1).  This court adopted the current version of SCR 20:3.8(f) in 2006 as part of a comprehensive review of the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys.  See Sup. Ct. Order No. 04-07, 2007 WI 4 (issued Jan. 5, 2007, eff. July 1, 2007).  We discussed proposed changes to SCR 20:3.8 at several public hearings and open conferences prior to our 2006 rules revision.  The ABA adopted numerous changes to the Model Rules as a result of Ethics 2000; however, it made no substantive changes to the text of the Model Rule implicated here, Model Rule 3.8(d), that correlates with our SCR 20:3.8(f).  Indeed, during Ethics 2000 the ABA expressly ‘decided against attempting to explicate the relationship between [Model Rule 3.8(d)] . . . and the prosecutor’s constitutional obligations under Brady and its progeny.’  See Kirsten M. Schimpff, Rule 3.8, The Jencks Act, and How the ABA Created a Conflict Between Ethics and The Law on Prosecutorial Disclosure, 61 Am. U. L. Rev. 1729, 1756 (August, 2012) (citing Margaret Colgate Love, The Revised ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Summary of the Work of Ethics 2000, 15 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 441, 469 (2002)).”

Dismissed.

2011AP1049-D OLR v. Sharon A. Riek

Per Curiam.

Attorney: For Complainant: Hendrix, Jonathan E., Madison; For Respondent: Kohler, Martin E., Milwaukee; Riek, Sharon, Racine; Powell, Craig S., Milwaukee; Misfeldt, Geoffrey R., Milwaukee