 Alexandria Staubach By Alexandria Staubach WJI received a report in late June from controversial nonprofit Enough is Enough about reckless driving cases in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, highlighting significant differences in judges’ sentencing patterns. The court watch group, which was the subject of an open letter to the Milwaukee County judiciary last year, advocates against reckless driving and for “stronger measures to protect our communities,” according to its website. “ENE” was founded after the death of Erin Morgensen, who was killed as a bystander to a crash involving the police and a fleeing suspect. While ENE’s court watch program and the reports it produces are objectively laudable citizen efforts to provide oversight and affect a chronic public safety issue in Milwaukee, the group has an agenda, and they have a perspective that is evolving with experience. ENE wrote in an earlier report that it wanted to see a reduction in the number of cases with sentences less than the state’s recommendation. “No probation for repeat felons” or defendants who commit new crimes while awaiting adjudication, it says in the latest report. Metrics tracked by the group include the tendency of judges to offer more lenient sentences than those recommended by the prosecutor and the number of relevant cases the group observed in each courtroom. The report then rates the judges on their tendency to impose less or more lenient sentences than what an assistant district attorney recommends in a given courtroom. ADAs, like judciary, are not monoliths. They have past experiences, sometimes with defendants or judges, which inform their recommendations. They have varying degrees of personal experience with certain types of crimes. And they have a lot of discretion. I know this, having lived this, practicing as an ADA in Colorado before coming to Wisconsin. Measuring judges against compliance with ADA recommendations isn’t exactly an independent variable. It’s always possible the ADA recommendation isn’t the right thing. That said, an imperfect measure isn’t a meaningless measure, and some things in the report are worth considering, especially because we can’t escape the fact that the criminal justice system’s backbone is individual discretion. ADA discretion in charging and prosecuting crimes, offering pleas, and recommending sentences butts up against a defense attorney’s obligation to obtain the best possible outcome for their client, irrespective of guilt. But all of that is pinned against the judiciary’s ultimate discretion in sentencing. In Wisconsin, a trial judge is free to impose any legal sentence, whether the parties have come to terms in a plea deal or the defendant is convicted at trial. While that power is common, it’s not universal across states. Every defendant’s and victim’s experience is shaped by these forces and everyone practicing in the criminal justice space knows them to be true, but rarely do we take the time to quantify judges’ sentencing discretion, to measure it in action, or think about what it means for the people affected. I think ENE accidentally did. In ENE’s most recent reporting period from November 2025 through April 2026, the group observed 10 judges handling cases involving reckless driving. Judges Jorge Fragoso and Jack Dávila had the highest volume of observed cases. While a small majority (six of 10) of the observed judges imposed more lenient sentences than recommended by the ADA, Fragoso, who handled 55 cases, did so 56% of the time and Dávila, who handled 49 cases, did so 76% of the time. In ENE’s recent report it seems like the group’s takeaway is that Dávila was the second most lenient sentencer, after Judge Katie Kegel, who saw just eight relevant cases but imposed a more lenient sentence than the ADA’s recommendation 88% of the time. Kegel, it should be noted, also runs the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area and Gun Court. According to a defense attorney WJI contacted, she is less likely to see ENE-tracked charges without another charge present in the case, while Dávila deals with general crimes. In the same reporting period, Judges William Sosnay (10 cases) and Rebecca Keifer (17 cases) operated at the opposite end of the spectrum, never imposing a sentence more lenient than what was requested by the ADA, according to ENE. The value, morality, or correctness of the more or less lenient sentencing practices isn’t really the issue to me. It’s the effect the disparity in sentencing has on a case—the sense that everyone around the judge is playing the odds, in part predicated on what type of sentence they think the defendant may get. I’ve seen, and WJI has reported on, other ENE reports. It’s easy to gloss over what seems like a significant disparity and even easier to label the judges as merely more lenient or harsh, especially if you’re not convinced incarceration affects crime or is the ultimate deterrent. But it caught my attention this time, because I experienced these inconsistencies during the same reporting period. What always seemed like a simple fact of practice—that some judges are more lenient, that some ADA’s are harsher, that some defense attorneys are less reasonable—feels different when it is happening to you. In June of 2025, my husband was biking to work when he was hit by a vehicle driver who ran a red light and then fled the scene. The perpetrator’s reckless driving caused great bodily harm and by all accounts should have taken my husband’s life, though he miraculously survived. In May, the case against the perpetrator was dismissed without prejudice after the Milwaukee Police Department failed to locate and the district attorney’s office failed to personally serve a subpoena on a witness deemed essential for trial. Another witness seemed to suddenly lose their memory the weekend before they were set to take the stand. But before we knew these witnesses wouldn’t appear for trial, and before we knew the ADA would make the choice to dismiss the case without them, we were asked as victims to consider plea offers that were probationary in nature—some more harsh from the ADA, some more lenient from the defense attorney. This wasn’t because anyone thought mowing down someone on a bike and fleeing the scene merited such a plea. It wasn’t because the ADA questioned the defendant’s guilt. And it wasn’t just because the case was imperfect. We were told it was because of the judge’s sentencing record. The judge’s reputation is consistent with the ENE data. The judge was known to impose probation even in aggravated situations, so even if a trial resulted in conviction, we were warned not to expect incarceration. It’s impossible to say whether I would have advocated for incarceration. In an ideal world, all my family would really like is to keep the defendant from ever driving again. But that’s not a sentence the court can impose, and it’s also not the point. The sense that incarceration was totally off the table didn’t just seem to affect the plea; it seemed to affect the defense attorney’s expectations regardless of his client’s guilt or innocence. It seemed to affect the value of taking the case to trial. And it definitely impacted our perception of the criminal justice system in Milwaukee. The idea that practices from courtroom to courtroom, and indeed outcomes for similar misconduct, depend so much on what judge you randomly pull is tiresome in an already emotionally exhausting system. It makes one question the credibility of a system that purports to strive for impartiality and what we’re told is equal access to justice. We were never naive about the possible outcomes (including dismissal). It took a lot to even have the case investigated. I always anticipated the impact of ADA discretion on the case, and I understand that defense attorneys have an obligation to zealously protect their clients, but I honestly didn’t foresee the impact of judicial discretion in sentencing. Frankly, there was less of it in the jurisdiction where I practiced. I feel like we’ve accepted that balance in an elected judiciary includes some judges who sentence severely and some judges who don’t. But unlike in the Legislature, where a 50/50 split results in inaction for everyone, or a conservative majority results in conservative policies for everyone, a split across courts means that what you can expect from a sentence as a defendant, defense attorney, prosecutor or victim depends more on judicial disposition and less on individual conduct or the law. Overall, according to ENE’s report, sentences are tending more toward ADA recommendations since ENE began its court watch program in June 2024, with judges adopting more lenient sentences 52% of the time as compared to 72% of the time. While I don’t think ADA recommendations are a particularly telling metric, and we really don’t know how more or less lenient the sentencing is, I do know the lack of consistency across courtrooms is a tough pill to swallow when it’s happening. There’s a litany of criticisms that can be levied against the criminal justice system. And my sense, whether you agree with how things are currently structured or not, is that our courtrooms really are full of people trying very hard to do the right thing. Nevertheless, for a victim (and I assume for a defendant as well), the reality of disparate outcomes feels like a game. Who can get what from whom, with less focus on what’s right for the community, you, and whatever justice really means. In its report, ENE “recognizes the challenging responsibility judges face in balancing the unique facts of each case, the circumstances of the defendant, and the interests of justice.” The group acknowledges sentencing efforts by judges like “including educational sentencing components such as victim-impact essays and attendance at vehicular homicide hearings, which help offenders better understand the real-world consequences of reckless driving.” I recognize these challenges, too, and I recognize that we elect our judges (though many are appointed first) for their discretion, but I do wonder if we’ve lost some of the plot. To be clear, I think judicial discretion is a good thing. I think sentences tailored to individual defendants are a good thing. But if sentencing need only be “consistent and proportionate” within the confines of an individual courtroom, it may be worth questioning what those words really mean.
0 Comments
"Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: Samuel T. Berg
Appointed to: Walworth County Circuit Court Appointment date: Nov. 7, 2025, to term ending July 31, 2027 Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison High School – Big Foot High, Walworth, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: October 2024-present – Associate attorney, Gardiner Koch Weisberg & Wrona, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin June 2020-October 2024 – Assistant district attorney, Walworth County District Attorney’s Office July 2016-June 2020 – Assistant attorney general, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, Wisconsin August 2014-July 2016 – Law clerk, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Hon. William C. Griesbach, Green Bay, Wisconsin May 2014-August 2014 – Associate attorney, Kravit, Hovel & Krawczyk, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin General character of practice: Our law firm has over 50 practice areas and represents individuals and corporations in a diverse range of concentrations. The general character of our Lake Geneva office, where I primarily work, is a general practice setting, including civil litigation, criminal defense, probate and guardianship, personal injury, estate planning, real estate, business formation, contract review, and employment law. As a senior associate in this office, I handle all of these case types on a regular basis, I oversee the intake process and handle most new client meetings, and I manage 4-5 other attorneys. Describe typical clients: My firm's general practice setting means I represent diverse clients, including business owners, wealthy individual clients, condo and homeowners associations, white and blue collar clients, clients facing various criminal charges, and indigent clients in contingency fee cases. Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately 25 jury trials and numerous bench trials List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: State v. Gabriel Estrada; Walworth County . . . . This case was significant because the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts, including multiple felonies, and the defendant was sentenced to multiple years in prison, even though the case was initially referred for a single misdemeanor charge. This case is representative of how I tried to prosecute domestic violence cases: by listening to the victim and, when I believed her and when she provided ample supporting documentation to corroborate her statements, by aggressively prosecuting the case to keep the victim safe and allow her to get out of the cycle of domestic violence. State v. Larry Mitchell; Walworth County . . . . This case was significant because it was my first criminal trial and my first trial as a prosecutor. I had to prepare two felony cases for trial that day, one of which had a recanting victim and one of which had a victim who was refusing to come to court. The case where the victim refused to come to court ended up proceeding that day and even without her participation, I was able to obtain a felony false imprisonment conviction. It is not ideal to try a case without the victim but I knew that the case would have to be dismissed if I did not do so, and I felt that trying the case was necessary to protect the victim and the public. Preparing for these two cases and trying this case showed me that as a prosecutor, I would have to work hard, understand the rules of evidence intimately, and figure out how to appeal to jurors' sense of justice. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: As an assistant attorney general in the civil litigation unit of the Wisconsin Department of Justice, I handled certiorari actions in circuit court for judicial review of various administrative proceedings. However, my positions have not, to date, involved participating directly in administrative agency or commission proceedings. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I have handled numerous mediations in state and federal cases. At my current firm, I represent clients in real estate transactions and perform estate planning, contract drafting, and advising in a general counsel role. Previously, as an ADA and AAG, I advised law enforcement agencies, oversaw investigations, advised local district attorney's offices, and advised organizational clients such as the Department of Corrections. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I volunteered to help my former colleague, Walworth County District Attorney Zeke Wiedenfeld, with his campaign for re-election in 2024. My participation was limited to obtaining approximately 10-20 signatures from family and friends, which I did to help Zeke secure a place on the ballot. This was an uncontested election. Previous runs for public office: N/A All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: N/A Professional or civic and charitable organizations: St. James the Less Academy, School Advisory Committee, 2024-present St. Francis de Sales School, School Advisory Committee, 2023-2024 St. Francis de Sales Parish, religious education teacher, 2022-present St. Thomas More Society of Madison, board member, 2019-2024 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: During law school, I volunteered at the Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic at the House of Peace on 1702 W. Walnut St. in Milwaukee. We met with individuals who were typically indigent and who were facing all kinds of legal challenges, most commonly landlord-tenant/eviction issues. Our representation would be limited to one meeting per matter and would consist of providing preliminary advice, basic assistance drafting pleadings, and referrals to attorneys or agencies that could assist further. I also volunteered at the adult guardianship clinic at the law school. This involved going through training and then assisting individuals become guardians of adult wards in uncontested cases. We assisted the proposed guardians by helping them complete the necessary forms and navigate the guardianship process. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I am grateful to be considered for an appointment to the Walworth County Circuit Court and humbled to be in a position to apply at this stage in my career. I want to serve as a judge for the people of Wisconsin—and specifically, of the county where I grew up—because I believe I am uniquely qualified for the job and because I want to use my gifts in whatever way most enables me to promote the common good and make a difference in my community. I am uniquely qualified for the job because I have a broad range of legal experience. My legal experience includes substantial experience trying cases, which is crucial for a circuit court judge. I have tried numerous cases in state court, federal court, criminal court, civil court, on the plaintiff's side, and on the defense side. I have spent over four years exclusively practicing civil litigation and over four more years exclusively prosecuting criminal cases. In my current position, I continue to practice civil litigation and criminal law, as well as personal injury, probate and guardianship, and juvenile law. I also have significant experience in non-litigation matters including contract drafting, employment law, corporate law, estate planning, and real estate law. I have been fortunate to work in an unusually broad range of concentrations, and this has prepared me well for the role of a circuit court judge, particularly in Walworth County, where each judge handles all types of matters at the same time. In addition, I have a record of working well with others. I have been blessed to work under and be mentored by some exceptional lawyers and judges, including the Honorable John Franke (when I assisted him with his duties as the special prosecutor of an inquest), the Honorable Michael Brennan of the Seventh Circuit (when he was managing partner of Gass Weber Mullins in Milwaukee), the Honorable William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (as his law clerk), the Honorable Ann Peacock (when she was directing the Civil Litigation Unit at WDOJ), and, most recently, District Attorney Zeke Wiedenfeld and my current employer in private practice, Attorney Tom Gardiner. These mentors taught me not only how to practice law but also how to be a professional and how to work well with supervisors, colleagues, and people under my supervision. As I explain more below, an important part of a circuit court judge's role, particularly in a county of our relative size, is to be an administrator of the justice system, and such administrative duties necessarily require working well with others. For these reasons, I believe I have a unique skill set that would enable me to be successful on the Walworth County Circuit Court bench. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023) and Kindschy v. Aish, 2024 WI 27 are two recent decisions that will have an overall positive impact on the people of Wisconsin. These cases each involved delineating the line between constitutionally protected speech and "true threats" which are beyond the scope of First Amendment protection. In Counterman, in an opinion written by Justice Kagan, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a man who was prosecuted for stalking a woman online. In Kindschy, in an opinion written by Justice Dallet for a unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court, the ruling was in favor of an anti-abortion protestor whose activities included singling out one clinic staff member and making statements that she believed to be threatening. These cases involve courts doing what courts do: reviewing difficult factual scenarios and making a ruling based on the law, even if it is in favor of an individual who has engaged in behavior that many find objectionable. These are not easy decisions, and this is an important area of law, as society continues to grapple with rising gun violence, online radicalization of various ideologies, and more aggressive enforcement and prosecution of hate speech by legislators and prosecutors of all political stripes. But these are instances in which our highest courts correctly came down in favor of the important principle of freedom of speech. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I admire Judge William C. Griesbach and Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin because of their dedication to public service, their collegiality, and their commitment to doing what is right. Both men have been judges for nearly 30 years. Judge Griesbach is a former prosecutor and Judge Adelman is a former state senator. As Judge Griesbach's law clerk, I watched him come to work early, stay late, and come in on most Saturdays. Judge Adelman is also well known as a hardworking judge who reads everything and writes prolifically. These men showed me that there is no substitute for hard work in the legal profession. These judges also showed me the importance of mutual respect and collegiality. Reminiscent of the late Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg, Judge Griesbach and Judge Adelman were appointed by presidents of different political parties, but they have a special working relationship and friendship. I saw firsthand that they did not always agree on certain issues, but they valued each other's opinions and debated each other openly, honestly, and respectfully. Finally, these judges are committed to doing what is right in the promotion of the common good. It is sometimes said that the role of a judge is to "call balls and strikes," and although that is true to a certain extent, Judge Griesbach and Judge Adelman showed me that compassion and conscience also have an inescapable role to play in the administration of justice. The proper role of a judge: A judge must administer justice by faithfully interpreting and applying the law as enacted by the legislative branch, by overseeing the conduct of the executive branch, and by enforcing the statutory and constitutional rights of all citizens. A judge must maintain impartiality in all matters and must treat with respect and courtesy all litigants, attorneys, and indeed all people they encounter in both their professional and personal lives. Such respect is required by virtue of the human dignity of every person, and such impartiality is required to maintain the public's utmost confidence in the integrity of the judiciary specifically and the rule of law in general. A judge must also be a leader of the justice system in which he or she serves. A judge should be active in the local bar and should assist and mentor attorneys, especially new attorneys, thereby enhancing the quality of legal representation for the public and guaranteeing the efficacy of the justice system for generations to come. Finally, being a judge requires humility and courage. Humility is needed to stay open-minded and to never stop learning and growing. Courage is needed to do what is right, especially when it is difficult. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: Whitney A. Healy
Appointed to: Outagamie County Circuit Court Appointment date: Nov. 7, 2025, to term ending July 31, 2027 Education: Law School – Valparaiso University Law School, Valparaiso, Indiana Undergraduate – Loras College, Dubuque, Iowa High School – Barneveld High, Barneveld, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: September 2021-present – Civil litigation attorney, Habush, Habush & Rottier, Appleton, Wisconsin February 2020-April 2021 – Senior associate attorney, Sterling Law Offices, Madison, Wisconsin March 2019-September 2021 – Buyer’s agent, Realty Executives Cooper Spransy, Fitchburg, Wisconsin September 2015-March 2019 – Civil litigation attorney, Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs, Madison, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: My current practice involves representing plaintiffs who have been physically, emotionally, or financially harmed due to the negligence or wrongdoing of another. Although I practice throughout the Fox Valley, the majority of my cases arise from or involve residents of Outagamie County. My caseload is primarily comprised of car accident-related cases, but I also handle premises and strict liability cases. In advocating for the injured party, I assist in recovering compensation for medical bills, lost wages, as well as pain and suffering. I currently have over 100 active files, with approximately 25% of them in litigation at any given time. Because I pride myself on providing individualized representation, this requires great attention to detail and a deep understanding of the nuances of each case. Describe typical clients: I have spent most of my legal career practicing on the plaintiff side of personal injury. During the first half of my career, I also focused on civil rights litigation, employment law, and family law. A unique aspect of my practice is that my clients come from diverse and varied backgrounds. I am privileged to have represented individuals of different races, genders, political affiliations, and socioeconomic statuses. I believe every person deserves justice and a fair opportunity. Accordingly, I have dedicated my career to serving individuals. As a personal injury attorney, I work with people who have been physically, emotionally, and financially impacted through no fault of their own. In civil rights litigation, I represented those whose constitutional rights were violated by government entities and public figures. In employment law, I represented individuals who were harassed, discriminated against, or wrongfully terminated. These clients were often afraid of retaliation, losing their livelihood, or being ostracized. Finally, as a family law practitioner, I represented individuals facing one of the most emotionally challenging transitions in their lives. Number of cases tried to verdict: 7 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: Nick Solomon, et al. vs. John Cabot University, et al. … This case was brought after the murder of [redacted], a student at the University of Madison-Wisconsin who was studying abroad at John Cabot University ("JCU") in Rome, Italy. I was extensively involved in this case. Before bringing a complaint, I researched all I could about JCU, including its history, policies, procedures, and incorporation documents. During my research, I discovered that JCU had been plagued by student deaths year after year, which all occurred in a very similar fashion. Nevertheless, JCU never provided any warnings or even notice to any of the schools in the United States with which it contracted. After discovering that JCU was incorporated in Delaware, we knew we could bring a claim against it in the United States. Moreover, once I was able to locate the identities of prior victims, I reached out to their families to get more information on what occurred abroad that led to their deaths. The more victims I spoke with, the more it became clear that these deaths all occurred within blocks of the campus in a very similar manner. The interesting caveat to this was that most of the research I conducted was in Italian, so many of my findings required translation. This became even more troubling because the Italian newspapers would report on these deaths, but typically not the newspapers in the United States. Once we were prepared with this information, we filed a lawsuit against, primarily, John Cabot University. The litigation was long and grueling. We were met with several motions, including motions to dismiss and motions to transfer the case. We ultimately overcame all of those motions. In taking depositions of the JCU staff members abroad, we learned that they kept what they called a "death list", which included all of the students who had died similarly. Ultimately, the case settled for a confidential amount at mediation. This case was significant because it underscored the importance of fighting for justice even when it seems impossible. JCU was a bad actor that continued to minimize the tragedies that occurred on its campus, allowing it to continue profiting from its study abroad programs at the expense of the students. This was a time that justice prevailed even though it seemed impossible. [Redacted] et al. vs. St. Clare Hospital, et al.; Medical Malpractice Trial and Appeal … This case involved an 18-month-old child [redacted] who was deprived of oxygen for nearly ten minutes after the providers at St. Clare Hospital paralyzed [redacted] to intubate him, but could not work the Ambu bag to provide oxygen to [redacted] was ultimately left completely incapacitated and unable to ever lead a "normal" life. The trial was a 2-week trial against the treating provider, the respiratory therapist, and the hospital. After two weeks, the jury determined that there was no fault on behalf of any of the defendants. The verdict was shattering. On motions after verdict, the trial court reversed the jury's decision and awarded a new trial in favor of our client. Unfortunately, the decision fell outside of the 90-day window for the court's competency, and the case was forced to go up on appeal. My role in this case was to brief any necessary motions that arose before, during, and after the trial. This included the motions after the verdict and the motion that secured a new trial. I also had the opportunity to get to know the family personally and create the "Day in the Life" video for [redacted]. This case was personally significant in several respects. First, it was the first time in my career that I felt failed by the process. I was so confident that the facts and the law were on our side that I could not fathom that the jury would not find in our favor. It was a lesson in not taking the process for granted. Second, it reaffirmed to me the necessity of taking on tough cases without fear of the outcome. Medical malpractice cases in Wisconsin are incredibly difficult. They are expensive, time-consuming, and incredibly risky. However, holding others accountable is essential work and necessary for our communities. Finally, it was an important lesson in knowing the critical deadlines for all parties involved, including the court. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: During my tenure at Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs (formerly known as Gingras, Cates & Luebke), I devoted a significant part of my practice to employment law matters. Accordingly, I compiled, drafted, and contested employment cases for employees before the Department of Workforce Development. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). At Sterling Lawyers, I completed a 40-hour divorce and family mediation training through the University of Wisconsin-Madison. This included Wis. Stat. 767.405 training on domestic violence dynamics and its effects on victims. I applied this training while serving as a mediator in family law cases. As a civil litigator, I have extensive experience as an advocate in the mediation process. At both Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs and Habush, Habush & Rottier, I have served as a client advocate in countless mediations. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: N/A Previous runs for public office: N/A All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Justice Susan M. Crawford, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2025 Justice Janet C. Protasiewicz, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2023 Judge Lisa S. Neubauer, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2019 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Outagamie County Bar Association, Executive Committee, September 2021-present Wisconsin Association for Justice, Executive & Legislative Committee, Board of Directors, September 2015-present Legal Association for Women, Board of Directors and Meet & Mingle Chair, September 2018-April 2021 Dane County Bar Association, member, September 2015-April 2021 Robert J. Parins Legal Society of Northeast Wisconsin, member, August 2025-present The James E. Doyle American Inn of Court, member, September 2019-February 2020 American Association for Justice, member, September 2015-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: For the past three years, I have volunteered to serve on the Executive Committee of the Outagamie County Bar Association. I have also served on the Executive Committee, Legislative Committee, and Board of Directors for the Wisconsin Association for Justice for the past four consecutive years. Moreover, I served as Vice Chair of the Women's Caucus of the Wisconsin Association for Justice in 2019 and Chair of the Women's Caucus of the Wisconsin Association for Justice in 2020. All of these positions were volunteer positions. From 2018 to 2021, I volunteered to serve on the Board of Directors for the Legal Association for Women in Madison, WI. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: My desire to serve as a judge arises out of my commitment to justice, empathy, integrity, and the belief that the judiciary should reflect the diversity of the communities it serves. While the law provides the blueprint for justice, empathy and lived experiences allow a judge to understand the human element involved in every case. My experiences have taught me to listen intently, think critically, and consider different perspectives. I grew up in a very homogeneous area of the state, where the representation of my culture and background was limited, if not nonexistent. I recall taking tests and filling out the race and ethnicity question, having to check both “white, non-Hispanic” and “Hispanic” while being reminded that I was different from my peers. I can imagine being a litigant or an individual facing a crime or attempting to exercise legal rights and feeling like the only person in the room who is different from everyone else. I firmly believe that experiencing that feeling repeatedly throughout my life has allowed me to see things from a different, more empathetic perspective. I am better able to understand the thoughts and emotions of the person who is “different”. I know the importance of representation and how critical it is that the judiciary mirrors the people it exists to serve. However, I also understand that diversity is just one factor inhibiting one's access to the justice system. Litigants often face barriers due to the cost, complexity, statutory caps, and an overall lack of understanding of the legal system. As a public servant, it is a judge’s responsibility to ensure that the court remains open to every single member of the community who may need it. I want to be a judge to ensure that the citizens of Outagamie County have access to the justice system when necessary. Finally, I feel called to serve as a judge in Outagamie County to help protect and uphold the law, no matter how difficult. A judge is entrusted with the responsibility to interpret and apply the law impartially without conceding to public pressure, personal biases, or societal chaos. I aspire to be a judge who upholds the integrity of our judicial system at a time when that feels threatened. Ultimately, I believe deeply in our justice system and the good that it can do when it is run fairly, empathetically, and with integrity. Ultimately, I want to be a judge to put those principles into practice for the citizens of our state and those who look to Outagamie County for assistance in resolving disputes or deciding their liberties. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s holding in Priorities USA v. Wisconsin Elections Commission is undoubtedly one of the most profoundly impactful decisions in recent history. Just last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, reinstated ballot drop boxes across the state by overruling the Supreme Court’s decision in Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission. Teigen was a case that led to a complete prohibition of drop boxes in Wisconsin. By overruling Teigen, the Court’s decision has had, and will continue to have, a profound positive effect on voter access and democratic participation in Wisconsin by making voting more accessible and by increasing confidence in the electoral process. In prior elections, voters who were elderly, disabled, or living in rural areas may have faced significant barriers in returning their ballots. Although mailing is still an option, it may not be reliable or trustworthy for some. The option of having a drop box instills additional confidence that their vote will, in fact, count. Moreover, Priorities USA reduces the risk of disenfranchisement. Unquestionably, limiting voters to mail-in ballots or hand delivery during business hours creates logistical challenges. Drop boxes offering around-the-clock access allow more votes to arrive on time and be counted. At a time when many states are facing growing restrictions on voter access, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Priorities USA v. Wisconsin Elections Commission is one that greatly benefits every single citizen of Wisconsin. It has not only expanded access to voting but also helped to restore faith in the electoral process. This is critical because it leads to greater participation, which in turn leads to a better-run democracy. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor In May 2009, the White House published a press release on Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor, describing her as “a sharp and fearless jurist who does not let powerful interests bully her into departing from the rule of law.” The White House, Background on Judge Sonia Sotomayor (May 26, 2009), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/background-judge-sonia-sotomayor. At a time when powerful interests seem to be threatening the laws our country is founded on, my admiration for Justice Sotomayor, based on this alone, is especially poignant. However, I admire Justice Sonia Sotomayor for a multitude of reasons. I admire her for her perseverance and the manner in which she has served on the United States Supreme Court. My own identity aligns with Justice Sotomayor in that we are both the daughters of immigrants who are first-generation attorneys. Just like Justice Sotomayor, I also knew from a young age that I wanted to pursue a career in law. I felt compelled to help the underserved in any way possible. I believed I could best achieve this through my intellect and love of learning. Moreover, Justice Sotomayor is also known for empathetically and pragmatically looking at cases with an eye toward the human impact of the Court’s decisions. She balances respect for the law with respect for her fellow people. She has been recognized as emphasizing the importance of treating individuals with dignity and respect, regardless of one’s own views. I, too, firmly believe in treating everyone with respect, irrespective of our differences. I admire that she also embodies this same belief. Finally, I admire Justice Sotomayor because she remains undeterred by political affiliation. Having been first nominated by George H.W. Bush to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and ultimately nominated by Barack Obama to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States, I find her ability to cross party lines admirable. The very position of a judge is complete and total impartiality. A judge is meant to follow the law and do what is right, regardless of their individual beliefs. Unfortunately, that line seems to be increasingly blurred nationwide. If I were to have the honor of serving the citizens of Outagamie County on the judiciary, I would aspire to exemplify the characteristics of Justice Sotomayor. Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. I find Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. to be one of the most courageous judges in history. In 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed Attorney Frank Johnson to serve on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Judge Johnson was only 37 years old at the time of his appointment to the federal bench and was the youngest sitting federal judge. At that time, he was faced with maintaining justice in the deep south during one of the most tumultuous periods in United States history. Within just one year of taking the bench, Judge Johnson decided Browder v. Gayle, holding that an Alabama statute permitting segregation on buses was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1961, Judge Johnson decided United States v. U.S. Klans, Knights of Ku Klux Klan, Inc. In that case, Judge Johnson stood firm on his belief that Goodwin J. Ruppenthal, the Chief of Police of the City of Montgomery, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment after he failed to take any of the usual precautionary measures to protect Freedom Riders. Because of Chief Ruppenthal’s inaction, the Freedom Riders were attacked by a mob of Klansmen upon their arrival in Montgomery. Throughout the next several years, Judge Johnson continued to encounter landmark cases in the civil rights movement, including Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, which was the first statewide desegregation order in Alabama, United States v. Alabama, which permitted black persons to vote so long as their application papers were equal to the least qualified white applicant accepted on voting rolls, and perhaps most famous was his decision in Williams v. Wallace, which prohibited authorities in Alabama from interfering with the Selma marches. Due to his unwavering commitment to the Constitution and equality, Judge Frank Johnson faced intense hostility. In 1963, his mother’s house in Montgomery was bombed. Governor George Wallace, a former classmate, called him a “integrating, carpetbagging, scalawagging, boldface liar.” Yet Johnson remained committed to the law, saying his “basic philosophy as a trial judge…is to follow the law and the facts without regard to the consequences.” I deeply admire Judge Frank Johnson as the epitome of doing the right thing despite difficulty. He maintained reason during unreasonable times. Because of judges like him, our society has made significant strides toward equality. Judge Johnson could have followed the status quo, but instead stood firm on constitutional principles when they were challenged most. The proper role of a judge: The role of a judge is rooted in public service. A judge serves the community and the legal system as a whole. In performing this service, a judge must preside with a commitment to fairness, humility, and integrity. A judge’s role extends beyond resolving disputes. A judge upholds the rule of law while treating individuals with dignity and respect. This applies to litigants, attorneys, jurors, witnesses, and even those observing the courtroom. The judge is ultimately a reflection of our civilized society when it is functioning at its best. To fulfill this duty, a judge must set aside personal interests and biases and instead prioritize doing the right thing and affirming that the courtroom serves the people above all else. A judge’s authority depends on the trust of the people rather than any power they may have been afforded. That trust is earned through impartiality, honesty, and veracity. It is a judge’s role to apply the law in a way that is uninfluenced by their personal beliefs, societal pressure, or political affiliation. This also requires accountability and courage to uphold the law, even when it may be unpopular. Ultimately, the judge’s role is to maintain the public’s confidence in the justice system by doing the right thing and protecting the ideals of justice. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed