|
"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: Gregory J. Jerabek
Appointed to: Wood County Circuit Court Appointment date: Jan. 15, 2025, to term ending July 31, 2025 (seeking election in April 2025) Education: Law School – Hamline School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point High School – Roncalli High, Manitowoc, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: March 2005-present – Attorney-Shareholder, Nash Law Group S.C. Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin General character of practice: I have a general practice which includes, or at times has included: criminal defense, municipal prosecution, civil litigation, personal injury litigation, collections, probate, estate planning, real estate transactions, bankruptcy, guardianships, guardian ad litem appointments, family law, termination of parental rights , CHIPS, employment discrimination/harassment, unemployment, social security disability, appeals, and juvenile law. Describe typical clients: My clients have come from diverse backgrounds. I do not believe that I have “specialized” in one area of law or another, or in any particular type of client. I provide a wide-range of practice areas which as allowed me to provide practical solutions across several areas of the law to a complete spectrum of clients. Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately 30 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: The interest of C.J.O., Wood County Case . . . In 2020, I was the lawyer for a mother and her husband who wanted to adopt his 10-year-old stepson. Despite not having any semblance of a relationship with the child, the natural father contested the termination of his rights and subsequent adoption. This case stands out as significant to me for several reasons. First, it was one of the first jury trials held during the COVID-19 pandemic. Selecting a jury and trying a case while masked presented a unique set of challenges. Second, due to the pandemic, the case was delayed beyond time limits, obviously for good cause; however, despite cause, the added strain that this put on my clients makes the case stand out. Third, the jury returned with a verdict finding grounds to terminate in under fifteen minutes, which makes the case a significant moment in my career. IN RE THE MATTER OF DISCIPTINARY ACTION BY THE CITY OF NEKOOSA AGAINST MARK KANE Nekoosa Ambulance Disciplinary Hearing . . . In October of 2020, I was appointed by the City of Nekoosa to act as an Impartial Hearing Officer to review the decision of Nekoosa Ambulance Service in demoting Mark Kane from a Lieutenant position following an allegation of sexual harassment. A hearing was held on November 18, 2020. This was significant as it was my first experience as an impartial hearing officer. I was careful to construct a solid record, advised the appellant of his right to have counsel present as well as advising the appellant that as the hearing officer, I could not act on his behalf. I issued a written decision (attached as a writing sample to this application) approximately three weeks following the hearing. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have had in excess of 50 unemployment and sexual harassment proceedings during my career to Wisconsin Administrative Law Judges, for both employees and employers. In every case, I have acted as the lawyer from initial contact through any appeal. I have also had Social Security disability hearings on behalf of applicants whose applications were previously denied. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I have participated in countless mediations, some as representation for the parties, but several as the mediator in both family law/placement matters, as well as civil litigation. As a mediator, I have been successful in resolving every case in which I was involved. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I volunteered for the judicial campaigns of both Timothy Gebert (Wood County) and Jeffrey Wisnicky (Kewaunee County). Previous runs for public office: Kewaunee County District Attorney, 2004, received approximately 44% of vote All public offices to which you were appointed or elected: Wisconsin Rapids Police and Fire Commission, appointed, 2010-2017 All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Timothy S. Gebert, Wood Country Circuit Court Judge, 2023 Jeffrey R. Wisnicky, Kewaunee County Circuit Court Judge, 2022 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wood County Crime Stoppers, secretary, 2019-present United Way of South Wood and Adams County, board of directors, 2007-2012 Boys & Girls Club of the Wisconsin Rapids Area, board of directors, 2006-2008, 2014-2017; president 2017-2018 Wisconsin Rapids Police and Fire Commission, 2010-2017; president 2015-2017 Howe Elementary PTC, president, 2016-2017 Wood County Bar Association, president, 2009-2014 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I have filed several bankruptcy cases on a pro bono basis and I routinely waive associated fees for serving as a Guardian ad Litem in adoption cases (child and adult). Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I believe that the opportunity to serve as a judge is a profound privilege and have worked the entirety of my twenty-year career intentionally gaining the broad-based experience necessary to effectively and meaningfully serve. I submit my application, not for personal financial gain or a desire to be addressed as "your honor", but to serve the people of Wood County Wisconsin with integrity and intention. Except for my time in law school, I have lived my life in Wisconsin. Born in small-town Wisconsin to loving, humble, hard-working parents, I developed a strong sense of community, founded on the principles of morality, honesty, strong work ethic, and accountability. I strive to utilize this strong foundation in my daily life and work. I am proud of who I am, but not too prideful to admit my mistakes, then to address and learn from them. I believe that everyone deserves the opportunity to do the same, including litigants in the criminal justice system, without being summarily branded irredeemable. I believe that this sense of responsibility toward humanity, in concert with a strong sense of practicality, will allow me to best serve the families of Wood County. For example: placement matters often become more about who "wins", ignoring the reality that there is no winner when parents fight over a child, rather than what is in the best interest of the child. In these situations, my intent is to foster the collaborative efforts necessary to limit the exposure of children to high conflict placement situations. Though it is impractical to outline a multitude of examples, I re-emphasize my global desire to serve in a way that provides a positive and lasting impact on my community. I believe that, given my background and intentions, my greatest opportunity to do so is as a judge. In this role, my dedication will be to the application of law, with efficient, practical, and direct administration of justice. 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. There is no doubt that most, if not all, Wisconsinites place great value on family. Because of this core value, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling in Michels v. Lyons (In re A.A.L.), 2019 WI 57, has had a significant positive and negative impact on the people of Wisconsin, expanding rights for parents, and curtailing them for grandparents. For many years I routinely handled grandparent visitation cases, both on behalf of petitioning grandparents and responding parents. In many of these cases, the matter was routine, and grandparents were usually given some dedicated time with their grandchildren. Although the time was usually quite limited, the relationship would be preserved, and the child would have the benefit of another source of trusted care. In Michels v. Lyons, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a petitioning grandparent is required to overcome the presumption in favor of a fit parent's placement decisions with clear and convincing evidence that the decision is not in the child's best interest. This changed the burden of proof in grandparent visitation cases and likely altered the routine nature of grandparent visitation petitions permanently. I have tremendous respect for Justice Dallett's majority opinion, and the constitutional analysis of the precedent on this issue is thorough and on point. I would agree that the several grandparent visitation statutes are constitutional on their face but are unconstitutional as applied in Michels v. Lyons. Given the fundamental liberty interest at stake (a parent's right to raise their children), the higher clear and convincing standard is appropriate. I also agree, as Justice Dallett wrote, that "[a] circuit court should not substitute its judgment for the judgment of a fit parent, even if it disagrees with the parent's decision." 2019 WI 57 ¶ 37. This decision ultimately gives parents more authority to dictate who may or may not have contact with their children. In most of the grandparent visitation cases I handled, the parent(s) of the child had legitimate concerns for wanting to limit the grandparents contact with the child. In those cases, a parent should decide what is best for their child without interference from the courts. However, there are some cases where a fit parent cuts off a loving and supportive grandparent simply out of spite, which tragically can have a negative consequence on not only the grandparents, but more importantly, the child. Fortunately, circuit courts are left with the discretion of what evidence is clear and convincing to overcome the presumption set forth in Michels v. Lyons. So long as a judge can appreciate that their opinion about the parent's decision is not part of the analysis, it is possible to still find that grandparent visitation, despite the objections of a parent, is still in the child's best interest. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: First is retired Wood County Circuit Court Judge, James Mason. I spent the first six years of my practice routinely appearing in front of Judge Mason. His cordialness to the bar, sense of importance ascribed to every case, and attention to case details, were remarkable. Judge Mason afforded the smallest of matters, such as traffic or small claims, the same time and dedication he provided to the most serious. Judge Mason impressed upon me that the court's time was not his time, rather it was the litigant's, and time was never wasted when being utilized to obtain the relevant facts necessary to render a decision in accordance with the law. In my years of practice, his attention to rendering a thoughtful decision based on the law, without injecting opinion, has been unparalleled. Judge Mason exemplified what I believe a circuit court judge ought to be. Second is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who I consider to be one of the founders of our modern understanding of free speech. I, as he, believe that freedom of speech is our most important fundamental liberty interest and is also the most often attacked. These attacks often come in the form of outcries that speech constitutes violence or hate, or in the form of books banned from schools in the name of opinion and public protection. I see these issues as an assault on free speech, which is ultimately harmful to the whole of society. I try to impress upon and exemplify, to my children and stepchildren, the importance of the free exchange of ideas, even in cases where a vast majority of people would find the ideas offensive or hurtful. When any speech is suppressed, we are all chained to that suppression. Justice Brandeis detailed it best when he wrote, "It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears . . . if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." The proper role of a judge: A judge should ensure the efficient and thorough adjudication of the court system, providing every case timely due consideration, yet efficiently and effectively respecting the schedule and those it impacts. Efficient administration, recognition, and respect assist in maintaining the people's confidence in the judicial system. As exemplified by Judge James Mason, cordial treatment of all parties and their counsel is foundational to a respected courtroom. A judge should help ensure that both represented and unrepresented individuals receive fair treatment under the law. To a judge, it may just be another small claims case, a minor dispute over placement time, or a bond modification hearing, but to the parties, it may be the most significant aspect of their life. Therefore, all cases and parties should be treated with respect and given the time they deserve. A judge should follow the rule of law without deference to opinion or emotion. Every judge has personal experiences that may influence their decisions, but strict adherence to the law limits the risk of unpredictable decisions which do not conform to the law. A judge should be truly neutral and impartial and never let any personal bias overcome the need to be consistent. A judge should act as a safeguard against violations of an individual's rights, but also rule with deference to the State's level of interest, victims of offenses, and the need to protect the public. Careful considerations must be made in every case but balanced against the need for consistency by the judiciary. A judge should be respectful of the fact that his or her job is to ensure that the law is applied as written and intended, not as they see fit in a particular case.
0 Comments
By Alexandria Staubach and Margo Kirchner Gov. Tony Evers has appointed significantly more women and people of color as judges than his predecessor did, shifting the makeup of Wisconsin’s judiciary. Of Evers’ 66 judicial appointments through 2024, 25 (38%) are persons of color and 36 (55%) are women. Among the appointments are Black, Indigenous, Latin, and Asian individuals. Evers’ appointments seem to show a concerted effort to provide litigants with state judges who are more representative of the state’s overall demographics than was previously the case. To achieve a more diverse bench, Evers in 2019 created a diverse Judicial Selection Advisory Committee, responsible for interviewing and recommending candidates for him to consider when he fills vacancies. Evers placed individuals from different backgrounds on the selection committee. Committee member Craig Mastantuono recently told WJI that Evers joined the committee at its first meeting and told them that judicial appointments were not to be rewards for donors or the politically connected. “I really think that says something about this governor,” he said. “It was very important to the governor to achieve a higher level of competency and diversity in the courts," Mastantuono said. The committee comprises 15 attorneys from different heritages, practice areas, and locations around the state. Mastantuono is first-generation Mexican on his mother’s side, a former officer of the Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers’ Association, and a criminal defense attorney in Milwaukee. He has been on the committee during both of Evers’ terms. Other former and current committee members have come from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds. As for practice areas, current members include a retired circuit court judge, a deputy corporation counsel, a district attorney, a retired public defender, a University of Wisconsin Law School professor, an in-house corporate attorney, and law firm attorneys. They hail from New Richmond, Wausau, Neenah, Appleton, and Trempealeau and Portage counties, as well as the Milwaukee and Madison areas. Evers was “smart to access (a variety) of communities and put them at the table to recruit and recommend applicants,” Mastantuono said. Mastantuono noted that when the committee considers applicants, diversity involves not only gender, race, and ethnicity, but also practice area. Appointees are not predominantly prosecutors and large firm attorneys; they include public defenders and legal aid providers, among others. Attorneys gain “insight from sitting next to someone who struggles to pay the rent,” he said, and they can take that empathy with them to the bench as judges. “It’s a complete myth that there’s a trade-off between competence and diversity,” he said. “We’ve raised the competency and quality of the bench while achieving diversity.” Prior to the Evers Administration, Wisconsin had one of the least diverse or representative benches in the nation. A report by the American Constitution Society in 2016 gave Wisconsin an “F” grade, ranking the state 44th in the nation for judicial diversity. Among the report’s findings on Wisconsin’s judiciary, it found that white men were 41% of the state’s population but held 76% of judicial seats, while women of color were 9% of the population but held only 1% of judicial seats. The Walker Administration demonstrated a strong preference for conservative white men. A document provided by Evers’ office in response to WJI’s request for records created by the Walker Administration shows that of the 93 judges Walker appointed from 2011 to early 2019 only one was a person of color (Black) and just 23 were women.
Among the 69 white men Walker appointed were Brian Hagedorn to the Court of the Appeals in 2015, Daniel Kelly to the Supreme Court in 2016, and Brad Schimel to Waukesha County Circuit Court in 2018 (following his loss as the Republican candidate for attorney general that year).
Walker also appointed James Troupis to Dane County Circuit Court in 2015 and Vincent Biskupic to Outagamie County Circuit Court in 2014. Prior to his judicial appointment, Troupis had worked on the 2011 Republican redistricting maps and Act 10 public union bargaining legislation. In recent years, Troupis represented Donald Trump before the Wisconsin Supreme Court in an attempt to have the 2020 presidential election result overturned and was involved in the false Trump elector scheme. A decade prior to his judicial appointment, Biskupic was a district attorney embroiled in controversy over alleged deals for defendants who made donations to crime prevention and victim advocacy groups. Biskupic's brother was an attorney for the Walker campaign. Judges appointed by a Wisconsin governor run for election in the next available April election cycle. Nationally, the debate about diversity initiatives rages on. But President Joe Biden’s diversification of the federal bench—more than 60% of his appointees were women, with 37% being women of color—should be a lasting legacy. "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: Samantha S. Wagner
Appointed to: Brown County Circuit Court Appointment date: Aug. 28, 2024, to term ending July 31, 2025 (seeking election in April 2025) Education: Law School – Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri Undergraduate – University of San Diego, San Diego, California High School – Juan Diego Catholic High, Draper, Utah Recent legal employment: October 2012-present – Lead assistant corporation counsel, Brown County, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: As the Lead Assistant Corporation Counsel for Brown County, I am responsible for all child welfare cases in Brown County, including cases for children in need of protection or services, juvenile guardianships, termination of parental rights, and administrative substantiation appeal hearings. I supervise another attorney who assists in these cases as well as a shared paralegal. My office is in the Brown County Human Services building so I often have employees stopping by for an opinion on a wide range of topics including economic support issues, juvenile justice concerns, open records requests, and civil rights issues. On top of these responsibilities I am the HIPAA compliance officer for Brown County, which includes ensuring compliance at our Community Treatment Center, Public Heath Department, jail health services unit, employee benefits, and community programs offering health related services. Lastly, I chair the committee for supervised release placements under Chapter 980, and locate statutorily compliant placements while providing the public notice and an opportunity to participate in our committee meetings. Describe typical clients: As an attorney for Brown County, I could offer legal advice to or represent any of the over 1,600 employees. The focus throughout my career has been in the Human Services field, focusing on representing employees and handling legal matters in the Children, Youth and Families Unit, Economic Support Unit, Community Programs, Public Health, and the Community Treatment Center, including the inpatient psychiatric hospital. I have also provided legal advice to employees that work with Criminal Justice Services and work within the courthouse. However, in any case for a Petition for Protection or Services, I represent the public so my client is not an individual person, yet what the public would expect me to do in any given situation in accordance with the law. Throughout my time with Brown County there have been many employees that have come and gone, and I have learned how each employee operates in order to not only provide them the best advice, but to also make sure they feel heard. Most of the employees are in high stress job and do not always need a legal answer, but need support. I am the longest tenured attorney in my office by over four years, and given my length of service have the historical knowledge that is helpful with each of the employees I advise. Number of cases tried to verdict: Jury trial, 8 cases; bench trial, 19 cases 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: In re the Interest of [redacted] I was the Child in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) petitioner on behalf of Brown County for each of these four children. . . . As the CHIPS prosecutor it was my decision to file each of these petitions after receiving a referral from child protection for court jurisdiction due to concerns of physical abuse and inappropriate discipline being utilized in the home by the step-father to three of the children, father to [redacted]. It was determined that the step-father was having these children kneel in the corner on rice and forcing them to kneel in the corner for large periods of time as punishment. He was also whipping each of the children with a belt on a regular basis. The oldest child suffered from a seizure disorder and it was found that during an episode, the step-father kicked her in the abdomen and dragged her across the floor to her corner by her hair. The mother was aware of the abuse in the home, but was frequently at work. This case was open pending adjudication from August 27, 2021, to May 30, 2023, due to COVID scheduling, a maternity leave for one of the attorneys, and calendaring. While pending trial, there was also a companion criminal case for the father handled by the Brown County District Attorney’s Office. The bond in that case prevented him from having contact with any of the children. The mother chose to remain living with the father, which in turn prevented any of the children from ever being able to return home. One child went to live with his mother in another county, one child aged out of foster care, and the other two children are now under guardianships. This case is significant to me because in the end, after 21 months of the case pending for trial, I settled the case by allowing the mothers of the children to sign petitions requesting jurisdiction and placement of the children, primarily because they could not return under a criminal bond condition to their original family residence. By resolving the case in this nature, the abusive step-father was not held accountable in the CHIPS case, but the matter resolved short of a trial. I did this because I knew that the children would have to testify in the criminal case, and I did not want to put the children through the trauma of testifying in court with a jury present on more than one occasion. Also present would have been the abusive father, or step-father, who they had not seen in years. In handling the case this way I felt like I put aside some of my beliefs in accountability, yet did so knowing the outcome would be the same as if there was a trial. I had to consistently remind myself of the end goal for these children and to determine the route that would be least traumatic for the children. This is the way that many cases can be handled – knowing where you want to end up in a case, and then plan your route to get there. In re the Interest of [redacted] I was the Child in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) petitioner on behalf of Brown County for this child and acted as the attorney for Brown County Human Services in the Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) case and subsequent appeal. . . . In 2014, I filed a CHIPS case for a young boy, [redacted]. The case was referred to me by child protection for sexual abuse to the child by his father, and neglect by his mother due to concerns with alcohol abuse. Throughout this CHIPS case there were many external factors that impacted the CHIPS case from progressing forward. The father was originally charged with the sexual abuse and those charges were subsequently dismissed. This impacted the type of sex offender treatment he could participate in, which is turn interrupted the agency’s ability to move forward in contact. The mother continued to not work towards her sobriety and would waiver in her beliefs that the abuse was occurring. The child was suffering significant trauma responses that manifested in both emotional and physical ailments requiring medical attention. In October 2015 I filed a motion to suspended the father’s visits by court order prior to the Dispositional Order being entered, which was granted. The Dispositional Order was entered and after some time a Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) case was filed. I did not handle this particular case, but the court terminated the father’s rights. The mother had passed away while the TPR was pending. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision given the order suspending the visits was done prior to the Dispositional Order and therefore did not apply to the grounds used against the father. I then resumed the CHIPS Case. I immediately got back into court and filed to suspend the father’s visitation again because none of the concerns from the first order were rectified. This was a bit more challenging as now the father was in prison for an unrelated matter, but his conditions were crafted to essentially put the ball in his court on whether he wanted to participate. The second TPR case was filed and again the court granted the TPR. I then handled the second round of appeals, and the decision was upheld making this child eligible for adoption eight years after his original removal. I attended the adoption hearing on August 24, 2022, and it was by far one of the biggest celebrations in the courthouse that I have attended. This case is significant to me for a number of reasons but primarily because it is the epitome of perseverance. There were numerous child protection workers, attorneys, and judges on these files, but I was the one who was there upon initial removal and there at adoption day. It is important to understand that mistakes or oversights are going to be made, but when those are acknowledged you must pivot and move forward. I still see this now young man in the community and we catch up from time to time. He is thriving and doing well, and it reminds me to continue working hard even when you may stumble back, there is always a way forward. Supervised Release Committee and Brown County Case 21CV58 As the chair of the supervised release committee created under Chapter 980, I was the primary point of contact in this lawsuit against Brown County and others. . . . The case and all committee actives took place in January to May 2021. The supervised release committee was created so that when an individual being released under Wis. Stat. § 980.08 they are returned to their county of residence for placement, and not just any statutorily appropriate residence around the state. This committee contains representatives from different agencies. The primary responsibility of the committee is to locate residences that meet statutory criteria within the county and identify those properties and the landlord to the Department of Health Services (DHS) when an individual is granted supervised release. I have done a number of these over the years, and complications in the process can be increased when a new residence has to be located. There are also some individuals who may have additional criteria depending on their victims. In January 2021 the committee was tasked to find a residence with additional criteria that no children could live in adjacent properties. A residence in New Franken was located and purchased by a landlord. The committee was immediately contacted by a neighbor who was very involved with the Boy Scouts and used a portion of their property for Boy Scout storage. There was one meeting where approximately 50 members of the Boy Scouts, including children, came and talk to the committee about the use of the property and that the residence next door should not be used to house these types of individuals. The committee ultimately decided that the use of the property did not rise to the level to exclude the property and sent the residence to DHS as a potential option. Recommendations were made that extra safeguards could be put in place given the possible use next door by the Boy Scouts to retrieve their items from storage. The circuit court then approved the placement and release plan for the individual, and the property became occupied. This was a significant experience to me because not only did I have to act as chair of the meeting and listen to each member of the public speak, I had to remain impartial and consider every fact being presented and then review it in conjunction with the statutory requirements. While my personal feelings may have been different from my professional, there is a balancing of interests that must happen. The individual to be released had served his time, a court had approved his release, and it was not my job to place additional, non-statutory, barriers in the way. At every attempt I tried to educate the public about the supervised release program and ensure that every precaution was being recommended, but the right decision was made. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: In my current role I am responsible for providing legal advice and assisting in any civil rights complaints or grievances made against an employee that escalates outside of the internal county policy. For example, I handled a claim with the US Office for Civil Rights claiming that a foster care rate was unfairly set based on race. After presenting the agency with all of the information requested and argument as to why the rate was set a certain way, separate and apart from the foster parent's race, it was determine the county's actions were appropriate. I have handled other civil rights claims or employee grievances with the Department of Children and Families and Division of Safety and Professional Services. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). Apart from my work in child welfare, I am also the HIPAA Compliance Officer for Brown County and the Chair of the Supervised Release Committee. As HIPAA Compliance officer, I am responsible to ensure compliance with all County HIPAA policies with state and federal law, develop employee training, investigate potential breach incidents, and ensure the county's technical safeguards are in compliance. As the chair of the Supervised Release Committee, it is my role to locate properties that meet requirements for Chapter 980 offenders ordered to supervised release. I also provide public notice and run the committee meetings following open meeting and open records requirements. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: NA Previous runs for public office: NA All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: NA Professional or civic and charitable organizations: GRACE (Green Bay Area Catholic Education) Board of Trustees, trustee, June 2024-present 2025 Conference of Child Welfare and the Courts Planning Committee, member, June 2024-present Wisconsin Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, president, April 2018-present American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, State Chapters Committee, member, April 2018-present National Association on Counsel for Children, member, June 2023-present State Bar Mock Trial, Brown County, co-site coordinator, January 2021-present Brown County Bar Association Board, vice president, board member, January 2021-present CASA Presents Fundraiser Planning Committee, member, 2023-present Women’s Fund, Powerful Event, committee and volunteer member, 2023-present St. Norbert College Parish, Finance Council, Board Member, August 2020-present Willow Tree Child Advocacy Center, River Cruise Volunteer, 2022-present Notre Dame of De Pere Elementary, school volunteer, 2022-present 2021 Conference of Child Welfare and the Courts, planning committee member, 2020-2021 St. John the Evangelist Homeless Shelter, Green Bay, WI, Community Leadership Counsel, 2014-2016 Helping Hands, Thika, Kenya, volunteer, January 2009 Youth Works, Cairo, IL and Rosebud, SD, volunteer and chaperone, July 2008, July 2009 Gus Macker 3-on-3 Basketball Tournament, Wausau, WI, volunteer, June 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 Southern Sudanese Community Center, San Diego, CA, volunteer, August 2007-May 2008 International Rescue Committee, San Diego, CA, volunteer, January-May 2006 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: As a government employee I do not have the same opportunities as other attorneys to represent clients pro bono and assist them through the legal process. Instead, I have taken the opportunities afforded to me to train and educate the community about the child welfare system. Whether that is through trainings at child welfare conferences or with CASA, or through speaking with foster parents to understand the process, I believe that education is the best method to have the information disseminated throughout the community. Breaking down common misconceptions of the legal system has been something I have tried to highlight not only in presentations I've made, but in all of the volunteer programs I have been involved in. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the citizens of Wisconsin, but more importantly the community of Brown County as the next Brown County Circuit Court Judge because I have spent the last 12 years working in this community. I have been involved in almost every aspect of the legal system seen in the courthouse. As the attorney prosecuting child welfare cases for the county, I am in the courtroom every day, practicing primarily in civil litigation. However, so often these same parents are also facing criminal charges, small claims cases, family law matters, or evictions. I am continuously working with cases where I may not be directly involved, but these other cases have tremendous importance in the case I am prosecuting. In the last three years I have been involved in the creation of Brown County's Family Recovery Court, which allows for parents with CHIPS cases, and possible criminal cases, to be heard under a treatment court model. This approach allows the Court to service the family as a whole. Working through this process has given me an appreciation for the judicial system, but also for efficiency. This is one of the reasons I want to be a Judge - to allow for efficiency in our court system and for each individual who steps in my courtroom to have their concerns or cases resolved in a thorough manner. Too many times I have had parents work hard to have their children returned to their care, to only then be sentenced and unavailable due to their incarceration. By looking at each party on a case in a wholistic manner, the court system can achieve their intended purpose no matter the case or cause. Apart from criminal cases, many people come to the courthouse on their own, and usually for the first time. They are often nervous or unsure how to proceed. They are also likely facing some of the hardest times of their lives, and this is important to remember and be cognizant of in each and every case. I have worked to honor this throughout my entire career and it is an approach I want to bring to the bench. I want to continue serving my community while trying to make some of the changes to allow the Brown County courts to evolve with our growing and ever changing community. Brown County is changing and I want to be part of that change. This community deserves someone on the bench who wants to constantly improve, constantly learn, and constantly question arguments made in order to make the best decisions possible. 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 State of Wisconsin has eleven federally recognized tribes within its borders, as well as a large number of Native American residents who belong to other tribes across the country. In 2023 these tribal members waited to see the fate of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in the United State Supreme Court decision for Haaland v. Brackeen. At question was the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act, which provides additional protections to Indian families after the historical removal of Indian children from their family homes and placement in boarding schools in the 19th and 20th centuries. The case itself did not just incorporate theories of ICWA and specific child welfare practices, but included analysis by the Supreme Court of the Indian Commerce Clause and anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment. The Petitioners were contesting the constitutionality of the ICWA and the additional requirements the federal government required of each state to treat children subject to ICWA to a higher standard than another children. The Supreme Court found ICWA to be constitutional under the Indian Commerce Clause, because this legislation does not just include the trading of goods, but also includes the government’s involvement with many different Indian affairs. To simplify the determination as to the anti-commandeering clause, since ICWA applies to any parties in a case subject to ICWA, not just the state, there is not a constitutional issue. The Court did decline due to lack of standing to analyze the challenges to enforcement of ICWA placement preferences, specifically an equal protection claim. In practice, this would have been the most impactful analysis in providing guidance for the application of ICWA in Wisconsin’s legal system. Throughout the majority opinion and in the oral arguments, the practice of ICWA and the child welfare system, was not the primary focus. By not addressing this issue, and arguably one that could have fractured the current Supreme Court, the door has been left open for future challenges. Regardless this decision was a win for the people of Wisconsin given the large Native American population, and specifically important for Brown County given the interactions the Oneida Nation and Menominee Tribe. These interactions are not only with cases subject to ICWA, but all interactions with state and local government and these sovereign Indian nations. Th findings in Brackeen only solidified the rights that Native American tribes possess to have their seat at the table. It confirms the continued practice of recognizing tribes as a sovereign entity, and in Wisconsin with a high population of Native American residents, this is very impactful. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I have had the opportunity to practice in front of a number of judges throughout my legal career. One of these judges is the retired Honorable William M. Atkinson, who served Brown County from 1991 to 2019 and remains serving as a reserve judge. I met Judge Atkinson when he served on the juvenile rotation about five years into my career. I was astonished at how he was able to bring practicality to the bench and make decisions in a way that made sense to every one present. It was not that everyone appreciated his decisions, but you could not argue with the logic in his analysis. His interpretation of the law also incorporated an unseen sensibility. He allowed for parties to make their record, but only when the arguments were productive and relevant. He was respectful of parties’ time and it was clear he knew the gravity of his decisions. He did not waiver or delay in his decisions and his approach to the bench is something admired by many who entered his courtroom, even if they were unsuccessful in their cases. While not a traditional western judge, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a commissioner and the chair of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, is someone I greatly admire. After apartheid in South Africa the government searched for a way to respond to the human rights violations that had been committed by both the government during apartheid and those activists who challenged them. Archbishop Tutu approached this commission not only for accountability but to mend the fractures within his community, focusing on confession, forgiveness and restitution. When I was studying in South Africa and went to Robben Island, which was used as a prison during apartheid. I spoke with a former inmate, and now tour guide, who had witnessed Archbishop Tutu during his work on the commission. What I remember the most from this conversation was this man explaining the patience Archbishop Tutu had and the shared emotional response he had for both those seeking forgiveness and from those who were victims. This practice should be incorporated in courtrooms today, by understanding that when individuals are involved in the justice system, they are real people, with real emotions attached and should be treated with respect, regardless of why they are there. Lastly, I admire Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Most people admire her for strong will and solid conviction, but I admire her as a female in a male dominated field. She was able to find success in all areas of her life. Everyone is familiar with her as a Justice, but my admiration comes in her ability to find the balance. Even as a law student she was a mother of a young child and focused on the work when needed but then gave her child, and eventual children, the love and attention they deserved. Her practice of the law and her commitment to family is something any working parent, especially a mother, should admire. The proper role of a judge: On the surface, the role of a judge is to be a fair and impartial individual in the community who has the unique role to hear multiple sides of an issue, apply the correct standard of law, and come to a just solution. However, a judge’s job in practice is so much more. In a courtroom the judge is the one person who is able to have no motive, no preconceived notion, is able to listen carefully to all participants, question the positions and then make a sound decision. Any decision made by the judge significantly impact every aspect of a person’s life, no matter the case, and that duty should not be taken lightly. A judge should make sure everyone is heard and that all of the information is provided to make the best decision possible in every case. No judge should be afraid to ask questions and remain inquisitive about the issues being presented. A judge is not the expert on every case they hear, but as the evaluator of fact, they should try and understand every applicable aspect of a case. A judge is also a member in the community who can make decisions on behalf of every member of society. The decisions a judge makes in the courtroom where the law may not be as straightforward should be a reflection of societal expectations. As a public servant I am very aware that with every decision made, there will always be someone who is not satisfied. But if the decision is made based in the law and incorporating community expectations then the decision is sound. Providing the explanation of how you came to your decision is a practice that every judge should have and employ in their courtroom. The importance of a good record cannot be understated. Not only does it provide for individuals in the courtroom to gain an understanding of the court’s decision, but preserves that decision and rationale for any appellate use. Lastly a judge’s role is to uphold the law and ensure that each community member’s rights are respected and protected. The American judicial system provides these protections but they are only as good as their enforcement. Even if it means that a case may be dismissed on procedural defect or there is a substantial change in the outcome of a case, an individual’s rights under the law and constitution are paramount. It is the role of a judge, and of the legal system as a whole, to make sure that the law is implemented fairly and justly. "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: Lukas L. Steiner
Appointed to: Crawford County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 26, 2024, to term ending July 31, 2025 (seeking election in April 2025) Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh High School – Potosi High, Potosi, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: January 2020-present – District attorney, Crawford County, Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin January 2016-December 2019 – Attorney, McNamara, Reinicke, Vogelsberg & Helmke, Lancaster, Wisconsin January 2011-December 2015 – Attorney, Kopp McKichan, LLP, Platteville, Wisconsin August 2010-December 2010 – Attorney, Law Office of Attorney Luke Steiner, Platteville, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: I am presently the Crawford County District Attorney, and being the only lawyer in the office, I handle the prosecution of all criminal and most traffic violations in the county. I also prosecute nearly all government-related juvenile matters, in the county, including delinquency and CHIPS/JIPS cases. Describe typical clients: My current "clients" are the people of Crawford County, and I try to take care to remember that I work for everyone, and not let myself get sucked into the trap of focusing my efforts to appease law enforcement officials or our county's social workers, who investigate the cases that I prosecute. They do good work, and they are good folks, but they, like all of us, have their own agendas and viewpoints. I feel it is important, in this position, to try to identify and address the diverse concerns and perspectives of my constituents. Often, I must do that in the abstract, so a general sense of empathy and objectivity is required. I specialized, in my general practice, prior to becoming District Attorney, largely in criminal defense, so I feel I have a very strong foundational basis for competently handling criminal cases. I also practiced fairly extensively in family law, handling divorces and custody/placement disputes. My experience, in that area is recent enough, that I feel comfortable with my general competence in that area, as well. Number of cases tried to verdict: Appoximately 20-25, by jury trial. Approximately 100, by court trial. 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: In October, 2023, as Crawford County District Attorney, I prosecuted a felony impaired-driving case that involved a Defendant, who was found asleep, alone, in the driver's seat of his vehicle, on a country road, late at night. Judge Lynn Rider presided, and Attorney Daniel M. Key represented the Defendant. The case-in-chief was unremarkable, and went as one might expect, under these circumstances. The case became more remarkable, when the Defendant chose to testify, and claimed that he stopped on the country road and drank a large amount of liquor, while stopped. In my case-in-chief, I called the alcohol analyst, from the State Laboratory of Hygiene, and introduced the blood-alcohol test results. In response to the Defendant's testimony, I recalled the analyst, in rebuttal, and went through a "blood-alcohol curve" analysis to demonstrate that the Defendant's claim, specifically as to the amount, and time, that he claimed to have drunk the alcohol, was inconsistent with the reported test result. This trial was significant because it forced me to quickly assess the Defendant's claim against the evidence already introduced, and to adapt to address that unexpected testimony. I had experience with "blood-alcohol curve" evidence, as a defense attorney, and I was able to put that experience to use, more clearly and seamlessly than might have expected. The jury's verdict resulted in a conviction. In February, 2022, I prosecuted, and tried, domestic battery charges involving a reluctant victim. Again, Judge Rider presided, and the Defendant was represented by Attorney Jeffrey W. Erickson. Despite my, and my victim-witness coordinator's, best efforts, we were unable to convince the complaining victim to participate in pretrial preparation. The suspicion of spousal intimidation was historically documented, at least generally. I was well aware that the victim was reluctant to testify, but the evidence that the victim was assaulted was relatively clear. My direct examination was difficult, but I was able, using the recorded evidence, e.g., recorded statements and photographs, to tease out a basic recitation of particulars the assault. I believe that I did so with sufficient tact, that the victim's reluctance to testify noticeably waned during the course of my examination. That experience, itself, taught me several lessons, but is not primarily why this case was significant. On cross examination, the victim contradicted, in most material respects, the testimony the victim gave, on direct. The victim even went so far as to testify that the testimony, offered on direct, was untrue. I did my best to rehabilitate, on re-direct, and rested the State's case with a sense that the jury could “see the forest for the trees.” The Defendant chose to testify, and he admitted that he assaulted a bystander, for which he was also charged; however, with respect to that charge, the Defendant claimed self-defense. In his direct testimony, he did not testify to any facts relating to the assault of the reluctant victim. In my cross-examination, I fixated on the self-defense claim, and chose not to explicitly press the Defendant on his basic claim that he did not engage in assault of the reluctant victim. In addition to the fact that he offered no testimony regarding the reluctant victim's assault, I thought that the extent to which the reluctant victim's contradictory testimony had been addressed was adequate to support the argument that his unspoken claim that he did not assault the reluctant victim should be disbelieved. This case's primary significance arose in the context of closing arguments. In my closing, I addressed the Defendant's claim of self-defense, as best I could, and then I made the mistake of addressing his lack of testimony about the reluctant victim's assault, by essentially saying that if I were accused of such an assault, and I didn't do it, I would have so testified. The jury convicted, on the reluctant victim's assault, and acquitted on the charge, to which the Defendant claimed self-defense. My rash comment, in my closing argument, was made without objection, and led to an ineffective assistance of counsel challenge, which ultimately laid bare my folly. Had I simply questioned the Defendant about the particulars of the reluctant victim's assault, I could have commented on his responses; however, because I neglected to do so, and made the flippant comment I did, I had to concede that I improperly commented on a matter to which the Defendant had not testified. I conceded not only my error, but also my error's import, and agreed to the case being reopened, and the conviction being vacated. The ultimate significance of this case is that it demonstrates the care one must take to not let one's frustration cloud one's focus and judgment. I let my frustration, with the context in which testimony was introduced, control the manner in which I commented on that testimony, in a way that I would not have, had I taken more care to let my frustration pass, and been more diligent in my focus on the rules of evidence, as opposed to the particulars of the case and the trial. I have found, over the years, that I am a person who learns as much, and often more, from my failures and follies than from my successes. This case was a good example of that. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have not done much, except for administrative review hearings in the context of defending clients accused of impaired driving, as well as a few probation revocation hearings, for private clients, prior to becoming District Attorney. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). Most of my experience, prior to becoming District attorney, strictly involved litigation, as most of my clients did not have the resources to attempt both arbitration/mediation, as well as litigation, in the event of unsuccessful alternative efforts. I did infrequently counsel divorce clients in mediation. I acted as local counsel in a single instance of formal mediation of a civil dispute, with former-judge Patrick Fiedler, acting as the mediator. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I have only participated in my own campaign, for my present term, as District Attorney. I ran unopposed, in 2020, so I did not engage in much of what would be considered campaign activities. To the extent campaign activities were conducted, I did them all. Previous runs for public office: District Attorney – Crawford County, elected November 2020 Public offices to which you were appointed or elected: District Attorney – Crawford County, appointed and then elected, January 2020-present All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: None listed Have you ever been party to a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff or a defendant? Shortly after my admission to the bar, circa 2010, I was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, in Winnebago County, for my drunken part in an altercation with my then-wife, and her sister. I took, and continue to take, full responsibility for my disorderly, irresponsible, and regrettable behavior. I entered into, and completed, a diversion agreement that involved participating in counseling, for several months. As a result, the case was dismissed, without entry of a conviction. Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Grant County Bar Association, president, 2014-2015 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: In my practice, prior to becoming District Attorney, I did not engage in what I would consider formal pro bono work, but I often took clients and represented them, as their circumstance dictated, knowing, from the outset of engagement, that I would be compensated less than fully. To the dismay of some of the partners, at the firms for which I worked, I never fully embraced the practice of law as a business-person, and never lost the, too-often youthful, idealism of law as a means to help people, more than as a means to build financial stability or accumulate wealth. I never considered the size of a client's fee-deposit/retainer, in determining the scope, or extent, of the services I provided them. Early in my tenure as District Attorney, colleagues would ask how I liked the position, and I often offered that I enjoyed, inter alia, not having to track my hours and being able to disregard the financial aspects of a private legal practice. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the people of Wisconsin, and specifically, the people of Crawford County, as a judge, because I believe they deserve a judge who cares about their community. I first made Crawford County my home, when I began my appointment as District Attorney in January, 2020. Honestly, I was slightly apprehensive about moving to Crawford County because, in the surrounding area, including neighboring Grant County, where I was raised and had practiced law for the preceding 9 years, Crawford County was often, mostly jokingly, derided as being a less refined or sophisticated place. I have found those, again mostly, though not entirely, facetious derisions to be well off-base. My neighbors and contemporaries, here, are amongst the best people with whom one might hope to associate. I aim to be, hopefully as judge, a fixture in the Crawford County community for the rest of my career. To the extent that some of the specific quarrels with Crawford County’s criminal justice culture had merit, I have worked hard with local authorities to correct and improve the deficiencies I’ve encountered. It would be disingenuous of me to disclaim my own ambition as a basis for my desire to become a judge. A judge is, I believe, close to the pinnacle of this profession. I have studied and practiced the law earnestly for essentially my entire adult life, and I am motivated and aspirational, by nature. As District Attorney, for nearly the past 5 years, I have become acquainted with the local legal community, and as such, I believe that I am well, and perhaps uniquely, suited to foster a manner of continuity that I believe will be helpful to the continued function of our court system. To this point, I have been a member of Crawford County’s Treatment Court Program, which was in its relative infancy when I became District Attorney. The program has grown, during my involvement, and I am pleased to say that it is in a more robust, functional, and productive state than it was when I first became involved. That said, treatment courts are a relatively new, and unquestionably delicate, institution. I believe that a transition of my role, in that program, will facilitate the program’s endurance and growth. Most of all, I want to become the judge in Crawford County because I have a deep sense of commitment to the law as a societal bedrock. I am confident in the breadth and depth of my legal knowledge, as a foundation for the rigors of running the only circuit court in the county. I feel a sense of obligation, to both the law and to this community, and I welcome the challenge of fostering the continuation of, and improvement to, a fair and just system legal system here. 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. Though it has, perhaps, become a cliché, in response to similar questions, I believe that Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), has, of any case issued in the past 25 years, had the most significantly deleterious impact on the manner in which elections are conducted, and even the manner in which elected offices have, subsequently, come to be executed. I take little issue with the decision, on its basic merits; however, its import is undeniable. The rapid expansion of spending on all manner of elections, in the wake of Citizens United, has impacted the political and social discourse, in this State, and this country, to an extent that I don’t expect was fully anticipated. In that regard, I believe it serves as a solemn reminder that judicial decisions often reach far past the interests of the litigants before a particular court. While judges certainly have a duty to decide the cases before them, I believe it also important that judges and justices give earnest consideration, to the fullest extent possible, to how their decisions might play out, in the real world. I believe that to be a commentary endorsing judicial restraint, rather than activism. The most recent contest for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court serves as an example. In the race for that seat, over $50 million was spent, in total, including over $20 million, by the candidates, themselves, a sum more than quadrupling the spending, by candidates, in the preceding election*. The influence of the often unclear sources of these expenditures is readily apparent. In that election, candidates, in ways, and to an extent, not previously seen, disregarded the long-standing principle of restraint in expressing opinions, and positions, on matters before, or likely to come before, the court. This has, in my estimation, eroded some of the foundational integrity of our courts. I firmly believe that those seeking, or seated on, courts have a duty to avoid even the appearance of having pre-judged any matter that jurist might be called upon to decide. While I recognize that contemporary funding of these races encourages, and in some respects even seems to mandate, broadcasting such explicit positions, I feel that those seeking judicial positions have a duty and obligation to refrain from succumbing to the temptation that has arisen from Citizens United. The positions subsequently taken, and proliferated, by PACs were, I think, easily conceived and expected; however, it is unfortunate that the same response now seems to be the norm for candidates. As to the contemporary manner in which elected offices are executed, Citizens United has led to far too many legislators, executives, and thankfully, to a lesser extent, judges, seemingly engaging in constant politicking, rather than simply performing the duties of the offices they hold. There is no simple remedy to the present state of affairs, short of significant campaign finance reform. That being unlikely, the proper path forward may simply be a renewed, and perhaps redoubled, commitment to basic principles of integrity that are consistent with the foundations of our governmental institutions. *See, e.g., “Wisconsin Supreme Court Race Cost Record $51M,” at https://www.wisdc.org/news/press-releases/139-press-release-2023/7390-wisconsin-supreme-court-race-cost-record-51m, (last accessed 5/27/24). Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Three of the judges I most admire include the three, before whom, I have most regularly appeared: recently retired, Judge Robert P. Van de Hey, Judge Craig R. Day, and Judge Lynn M. Rider. I count myself lucky to have been able to practice before such competent and prudent judges. By presiding over the vast majority of the cases I’ve handled, they have each played a role in my continued development as a lawyer and as a man. Each has done so in different ways. I am sincerely humbled that each of them so willingly endorsed my application to the bench. Judge Van de Hey had been on the bench for over 10 years when I first began my regular practice in his courtroom. I was initially, and continued to be, throughout my career, impressed at his expansive legal knowledge. He represented, and indeed he was, a judge who was never confused, or flummoxed, by even the most esoteric legal particularities. I have now practiced law for just slightly longer that J. Van de Hey had, when he was first appointed to the bench, and, throughout my career, I have considered his apparent expertise in all substantive areas of the law as an aspirational exemplar. Judge Van de Hey had a notably calm and reserved demeanor, on the bench, that I always found impressive, and which he always maintained, even when the proceedings before him occasionally became abnormally contentious or disordered. Judge Day is, frankly, the judge who I believe has most impacted my development as an attorney. He has done so by being a judge who clearly conveys his simple, and basic, expectation that lawyers, practicing in his court, do so efficiently and proficiently. I have often heard fellow lawyers complain, of Judge Day, as intimidating and overbearing, often, in terms that decorum demands I not repeat, here. I have never found that to be my impression, of him. He demands lawyers be prepared, concise, competent, and respectful – all qualities that good lawyers should aspire to possess, in abundance. Judge Day is also a thoughtful, intelligent, and eloquent man, and he takes care to explain his decisions, from the bench, clearly and comprehensively. That benefits the parties and the lawyers who practice in his court. I have a great deal of respect for Judge Rider, and I have a somewhat unique relationship with her, in large part due to the fact that I practice, in her court, nearly every day that she holds court. We have a unique professional relationship, being the lone judge and sole prosecutor, in a small county. We have worked together in Crawford County’s Treatment Court, as equals, which I believe is to her significant credit. Apart from her fairness and competence, I most respect Judge Rider’s compassion and empathy. She regularly make clear that she cares about the litigants, in her court, apart from the circumstances that brought them there. I try to emulate those qualities in my current practice, and hope to do so from her bench. The proper role of a judge: It may be a bit trite, but I believe, a judge is a shepherd of the law. In performing the, perhaps, primary task of hearing and deciding cases, a judge has a duty, above all, to fidelity to the law. A judge has a duty of impartiality and an obligation to ensure justice and fairness for the litigants who appear in that judge’s courtroom just as importantly, but only, in turn, to his duty to the law. Judges certainly have the authority, and in some instances, the obligation, even, to creatively apply the law to cases the judge hears; however, a judge must take care to never stray too far from the law’s strictures, in the judge’s endeavor to see that justice is done. A judge must be a willing and eager scholar. Our law is so voluminous, and ever-changing, that, as judge, one must accept that an adequate understanding requires continuous study. A judge cannot become complacent in his, or her, own grasp of the laws, procedural and substantive. In this regard, a judge must also be humble and willing to accept the law’s application, in various controversies, that may be presented in creative and perhaps novel ways. A judge must carefully entertain the law’s application, as may be suggested by litigants, while gauging the application against that judge’s own base of knowledge. A judge has an obligation to oversee, and direct, the procedural application of the law. That duty may be no more true, or expansive, as it is in a single-judge county. This requires a judge to supervise the conduct and performance of the court’s clerks and staff. I have gleaned that this is a delicate undertaking, and as such, a judge must be understanding of the personalities involved. A judge must be a leader, and set the tone, so to speak, for the entire legal community, in that judge’s jurisdiction. I have found that my own style of leadership, is by example. That requires integrity in a judge’s personal, as well as his professional dealings. A judge must set expectations for all who work and transact in the judge’s court, if that court is to function as designed. I firmly believe that a judge can, and should, play a significant role in the development of the members of the bar. Judges can do so by setting clear expectations and demanding quality work, through preparedness, professionalism, and candor. A judge must be patient, calm, and reserved, even under circumstances where the judge’s clear expectations are not met. This is perhaps most true in a judge’s dealings with unrepresented litigants. A judge has an obligation to promote free access to the court and, when dealing with unrepresented parties, a duty to help them navigate the complicated legal process. Judges can, and must, do this without giving advice or hinting at prejudgment. Finally, a judge must be a bastion of integrity. Particularly in a small community, like Crawford County, the judge never ceases to exist in his professional capacity. "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: Douglas J. Hoffer
Appointed to: Eau Claire County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 26, 2024, to term ending July 31, 2025 Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Phoenix (online), Madison, Wisconsin High School – Verona Area High, Verona, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: September 2013-present – Deputy city attorney, Eau Claire, Wisconsin June 2010-September 2013 – Associate attorney, de la Mora & de la Mora, Elm Grove, 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 U.S. Supreme Court General character of practice: I work as an in-house attorney for the City of Eau Claire. This position involves a diverse general practice that provides legal advice to the city council as well as every city department. My practice includes litigation & appellate law, employment law, real estate development & land use law, municipal prosecution, election law, public records & open meetings law, ordinance drafting, contract drafting & negotiating, labor law, and various other areas of law. Describe typical clients: For the last 10 1/ 2 years I have exclusively represented the City of Eau Claire. Prior to joining the City of Eau Claire I worked in private practice where I served as the Assistant Village or Town Attorney for five communities, and represented private clients primarily in litigation and matters involving land use law. Number of cases tried to verdict: 100+ 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: 1) Voters With Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 2018 WI 63, 383 Wis. 2d 1, 913 N.W.2d 131. ("Voters I") This case involved a civil lawsuit brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty challenging both the constitutionality of tax incremental financing ("TIF"), and the standard of review for civil lawsuits challenging city council legislative determinations. I represented the City of Eau Claire in the circuit court, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court in this case. In addition to being the primary writer on all briefs in this case, I also presented oral argument in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The case had the potential to impact billions of dollars of economic development projects statewide. The State Bar of Wisconsin named the Wisconsin Supreme Court case, which was decided in the City of Eau Claire's favor, one of the 10 most important cases of 2018. I believe this was the first case the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty lost in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The attorneys of record for the Plaintiffs in this case were the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. Oral argument for the Plaintiffs was presented by Rick Esenberg. 2) Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S.Ct. 2525 (2019) (Amicus) The case examined the legality of warrantless blood draws of unconscious individuals arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. I wrote an amicus brief in this case in front of the United States Supreme Court. The parties argued the case should be resolved under the doctrine of implied consent. My amicus brief argued the Supreme Court should resolve the case under the doctrine of exigent circumstances. The United States Supreme Court resolved the case applying the exigent circumstances doctrine, and reached a decision similar to the result I advocated for in my brief. The State of Wisconsin was represented by the Wisconsin Department of Justice. Gerald Mitchell was represented by Andrew Hinkel. 3) Voters With Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 2021 WI App 36, 960 N.W.2d 628 (Unpublished) ("Voters II") This case involved a civil lawsuit brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty challenging the City of Eau Claire's use of tax incremental financing and arguing whether whether the common law statute of limitations applies to lawsuits challenging city council legislative determinations creating TIF districts. I succesfully represented the City of Eau Claire in front of the circuit court and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The circuit court granted the City of Eau Claire's Motion to Dismiss, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. I was the primary author of all briefs and presented oral argument in front of the circuit court in this case. I believe this was the first case in which the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty lost at the Court of Appeals and did not file a Petition for Review with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Rick Esenberg was the attorney of record for the Plaintiffs in this case. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have worked on labor and employment matters before the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). My practice involves serving as in-house counsel to the City of Eau Claire. I provide advice to the city council and all city departments in various areas of law. I have worked on labor matters before the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, and regularly refer matters for mediation or diversion. 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 Jill Karofsky, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2020 Judge Sara Harless, Eau Claire Circuit Court, 2018 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wisconsin Municipal Mutual Insurance Company, board of directors, 2021-present Group Health Cooperative of Eau Claire, board of directors, president, 2015-present Chippewa Valley Museum Foundation, board of directors, president, 2016-2022 American Cancer Society, State Leadership Board, 2017-2018 State Bar of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program Committee, 2013-2016 Brookfield Rotary, president and member, 2012-2013 Waukesha County Bar, Young Lawyers Division chair, 2010-2013 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: In addition to the volunteer service mentioned elsewhere in this application I regularly provide pro bono work in the State Bar of Wisconsin's Wills for Heroes program, have served in various responsibilities for the last 10 years on my church's leadership councils, have spent countless hours volunteering for Scouting America, Junior Achievement, the Wisconsin high school mock trial tournament, and many other causes. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: There are a number of reasons why I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as a judge. First, I believe service is an important way to demonstrate my gratitude. Second, I find public service fulfilling. Lastly, I believe my experience and temperament will allow me to do this important job well. Growing up my dream job was being an attorney, but that dream would not have occurred without the help I received along the way. I was a participant in the Head Start program. I received free lunches throughout my time in elementary, middle, and high school. I was 31 years old and had a family when I started law school, and received various government benefits that made law school attendance possible. Throughout my life I had teachers and others that made time to mentor me. I am grateful for all of these programs and all of the people that I have helped me in my life. Finding ways to serve others is an important way I can express gratitude for all that has been done for me. Serving others is not just about giving back, but is something I truly enjoy. My career in public service, and the extensive time I spend engaged in public service in my free time are not entirely altruistic. Instead, the choices I make to serve are also based on the fulfillment I feel in helping others. I believe I will find the work done as a circuit court judge personally fulfilling. The work of circuit court judges is often hard and thankless. I believe my experience and temperament will allow me to do this important job well. Good judges are tireless students of the law that have empathy for those appearing in front of them. The diverse nature of my legal practice, and the volume or articles I’ve written and presentations I’ve given demonstrate how much I enjoy studying the law. The extensive time I spend engaged in public service in my private life demonstrates how much I care about helping others. I’m excited about the opportunity to serve as a circuit court judge, and I believe I will do the job well. 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. A case that I believe had a significant negative impact on the people of Wisconsin is Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2022 WI 64, 403 Wis. 2d 607, 976 N.W.2d 519. In Teigen the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that Wisconsin law did not permit absentee-ballot drop boxes, and also did not permit a voter’s agent to return a voter’s absentee ballot. The Supreme Court’s final decision is not the only part of this case that negatively impacted the people of Wisconsin. While the case was pending, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided not to extend a stay of the circuit court decision. This case negatively impacted voter access, the administration of a fair election, and public confidence in the courts. The February 11, 2022 decision made by the Wisconsin Supreme Court not to extend the stay of the circuit court decision created confusion and turmoil for municipal clerks. Many communities without a spring primary sent out absentee ballots ahead of this decision and had to scramble to follow up with voters. The rules and procedures for the primary were different than the rules and procedures for the April election. Decisions had to be made reprinting ballots with different instructions (a choice that would impact some communities’ ability to meet other statutory deadlines). As the primary attorney in the Eau Claire City Attorney’s office that advises the municipal clerk on election law matters, I saw firsthand the disruption, confusion, and difficult choices this decision created for municipal clerks and other election officials. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s final decision in this case had similar negative impacts. The Court’s decision prohibiting voters from obtaining assistance from third parties in returning absentee ballots did not consider the impact of this decision. The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin later permanently enjoined this portion of the decision because it violated the Voting Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently granted review on other issues addressed by this case. Voting is a fundamental right. Decisions that make it more difficult to exercise this right should carefully weigh the impact of such decisions on voters, the people charged with administering elections, and public confidence in the courts and other government institutions. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Among the many judges or justices I admire are former Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Janine Geske, and former Elm Grove Municipal Court Judge Tim Steinle. I admire Chief Justice Abrahamson for the intellectual rigor and clarity of her opinions. Chief Justice Abrahamson’s opinions always provided sufficient discussion and support so that a reader understood how she reached her decisions. By providing a clear understanding of how she reached her decisions, Chief Justice Abrahamson helped lower courts and litigants clearly understand what the law was. Her opinions’ clarity and intellectual rigor also helped lower courts and litigants understand how to apply her decisions when their cases involved factual differences. As an advocate that appeared in front of Chief Justice Abrahamson three times I was grateful for the glimpse her opinions provided into her understanding of the law. I admire Justice Geske for the important work she has done in promoting restorative justice and alternative dispute resolution. The growth in alternative dispute resolution has saved time, saved money, increased satisfaction in how cases are resolved, less damage to relationships between the parties and many other benefits. The growth in restorative justice has resulted in reduced post-traumatic stress for crime victims, reduced reoffending rates among offenders, and often better overall results. These results would not have been possible without Justice Geske’s efforts. I admire former Elm Grove Municipal Court Judge Tim Steinle because of the way he approached cases. Judge Steinle was very knowledgeable on litigation topics, was meticulously prepared, and always treated individuals in his court with respect. The professional way in which he attended to his duties, as well as the humanity he brought to the role had a profound impact on me as a young attorney. Additionally, Judge Steinle’s approach provided litigants with confidence that they had a fair opportunity to have their case heard. If given the opportunity to serve as a circuit court judge I would strive to emulate the qualities of Chief Justice Abrahamson, Justice Geske, and Judge Steinle I described above. The proper role of a judge: Judges have a number of important responsibilities in overseeing the judicial process. First, judges ensure that cases are handled in a fair manner consistent with the law. Proceedings are fair when each side is provided a sufficient opportunity to make their case, decisions are based only on relevant facts, and the law is applied in a reasonable, consistent, and fair manner by a judge who has put in the necessary effort to understand the legal issues. When the law is clear judges apply the law even when a decision contradicts their own policy preferences. When the law is not clear judges must do their best to reach reasonable results consistent with the law. At the same time, judges must understand and consider the practical consequences of their decisions. Second, I strongly agree with President Obama’s opinion that good judges have empathy. This does not mean that judges should not be objective, or that judges can disregard clear legal mandates when they disagree with them. Instead, an empathetic judge understands that how they handle their responsibilities impacts real people, and their decisions reflect practical considerations. Good judges make sure that attorneys, litigants, jurors, and others involved in the judicial system understand how decisions were reached. "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: Milton L. Childs
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: Oct. 29, 2019 (elected 2020 to term ending Aug. 1, 2026) Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Master of Business Administration – Keller Graduate School of Management, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – Xavier University of LA, New Orleans, Louisiana High School – Milwaukee Trade and Technical High, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: July 2009-present – Attorney manager, Wisconsin State Public Defender, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin February 2007-July 2009 – Assistant state public defender, Wisconsin State Public Defender, Racine, Wisconsin June 2006-February 2007 – Attorney, Childs Law Office, Glendale, Wisconsin September 2004-June 2006 – Assistant state public defender, Wisconsin State Public Defender, Sheboygan, Wisconsin Military service: 1984-1992 – Department of the Navy, Branch - United States Marine Corps. Highest Rank - E-5/Sergeant, Discharge - Honorable Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin General character of practice: I am currently an Attorney Manager for the WI Public Defender in the Milwaukee Juvenile and Mental Health. My practice is broken into 4 areas. 1. I represent juveniles and adults under Chapter 51, involuntary commitments. This includes individuals on initial commitments, extensions and redetentions. 2. I represent adults under Chapter 54/55 - guardianships and protective placements. 3. I represent adults on termination of parental rights cases. 4. I manage the mental health team - other staff attorneys and private bar attorneys that represent our Chapter 51, Chapter 54/55 and TPR clients. Also as manager, I attend meetings within the judicial system and within the community and I am a resource for other attorneys across the state in the area of mental health. Describe typical clients: 1. Many of my Chapter 51 clients are individuals that had been living pretty normal lives in the community, but for some reason stopped taking their medication or maybe they were never on meds, but their illness has reached a point that they need assistance. 2. My typical Chapter 54/55 client is an aging adult that is going through dementia or a degenerative brain disorder. They are at a point where they can no longer care for themself. 3. My typical TPR parent is a young female in her 20s or 30s, with some AODA issues, a victim of domestic violence and struggling with poverty. Many do not have the support system in place that so many other parents have. Number of cases tried to verdict: Jury: 70+, Court: 80+, Administrative: 40+ 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: In 2010 I was introduced to a 14 year old boy that was being charged with 2 counts of 1st degree sexual assault of a child and 1 count of exposing genitals. He was one of the first of many clients that I would begin to represent that was from a failed adoption. His adopted parents no longer wanted him, so he had no family or support. His birth mother was not able to care for him at that time. He would spend the next three years in the juvenile justice system, bouncing around from several residential treatment centers and finally ending up in Lincoln Hills. He did not pick up any additional charges during the next three years. He completed his sex offender treatment, but the facilitators felt that he was not putting as much into his lessons as they felt he could have. In October 2013, two months before his 18th birthday, we had a hearing requesting that the court permanently stay his sex registration. ADA Amanda Kirklewski was requesting that he register, but was leaving the amount of time up to the court. I was requesting a permanent stay. Judge Rebecca Bradley ordered lifetime registration taking into consideration some of the following: the ages of the victims, where the incidents took place (in church) and the probability that he would reoffend. This was the first lifetime registration that anyone in our office could remember being ordered. He was released from Lincoln Hills on his 18th birthday, December 30, 2013 and dropped off at the Milwaukee Rescue Mission in downtown Milwaukee. This case continues to remind me of the importance of the work that I do with juveniles and how decisions that so many juveniles make at a young age can affect them the rest of their life. In 2013 - 2015, I had an opportunity to represent a deaf TPR father. The case was scheduled in front of Judge Mark Sanders. The ADA was Elisabeth Mueller and the GAL was Deanna Weiss. This case educated all of the legal parties about the deaf community and the proper use of interpreters in the court system. I was also able to confront many of my biases and my ignorance about members of the deaf community. After completing this case, I have had the opportunity to work with several organizations within the deaf community and participate in the Legal interpreter Training Institute as they train and prepare new interpreters. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: 1. When I was in private practice, I appeared before several administrative judges representing individuals in unemployment compensation hearings and parole/probation revocation hearings. 2. As an Assistant State Public Defender, I have represented individuals in parole/probation revocation hearings. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). 2015 - 2017 - Equal Employment Opportunity & Affirmative Action Officer for the WI State Public Defender - The position involved investigating, mediating and resolving employment and discrimination complaints Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: None Previous runs for public office: [None listed] All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Joseph Donald, Wisconsin State Supreme Court, 2015 Paul Rifelj, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge, 2016 Danielle Shelton, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge, 2018 Rebecca Kiefer, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge, 2018 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Tabernacle Community Baptist Church, music director, current WI Association of African American Lawyers, past board of director member, current National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, current State Bar of Wisconsin, Board of Governors, Diversity /Inclusion Oversight Committee, 2015-2017 Civic Music Association of Milwaukee, board member, 2015 WIAA Basketball official, current (over 20 years) American Legion, Post 455, current (over 20 years) Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: No significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: Becoming a judge was not one of my goals in life when I was younger. There are times I still do not believe that I am a lawyer. I dreamed of giving back to my community by either creating a business or becoming a teacher. I became a teacher. I had the opportunity to teach for a number of years and I really enjoyed it. My students were the ones that encouraged me to become a lawyer. They would share with me their challenges at home, in their community and in the courtroom. I became an advocate for them; providing support, even coming to court on a few occasions to speak on their behalf. I begin to read law books, cases and the State statutes. I then decided to go to law school to get a better understanding of the law, with the goal of becoming a true legal advocate for the community. My goal was to learn as much as I could and then to share my education with the community. My reason for wanting to serve the people of Wisconsin as a judge is similar; to educate and serve my community. As a judge, I would remain involved in Milwaukee County; educating people of the laws, the changes that are occurring in the laws, make them aware of their rights and encourage them to participate in all areas of the political process. I would work with entities, across the county, and listen to their concerns, issues and recommendations to improve the judicial system. Additionally, I would work hard to reconnect the judicial system and the community. There is a strong disconnect and distrust, all across the county. This divide appears to be continuing to grow. Many citizens throughout the county feel that they have no voice; they feel isolated and ignored. Many citizens are looking for those on the bench for leadership. I have had the opportunity to appear in front of some great judges across the State. These judges were not afraid to apply the law properly. They were not afraid to hold people accountable, but still show respect to all of the litigants involved. These judges visit schools, senior citizen centers, churches and other place to hear from their constituents; and not just during election time. My goal would be to do the same. I am very concerned that many of the judges in Milwaukee County are disconnected with the people that come in front of them - in all areas of the law. 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. I believe that the Wisconsin Supreme Court Case, In the Interest of Jerrell C.J., 2004 WI App 9, 269 Wis.2d 442, has had a significant positive impact on the people of Wisconsin. Prior to this case being decided, law enforcement jurisdictions across the State were inconsistent in juvenile interrogations. Most did not record interrogations. Additionally, many of the parents of my juvenile clients would be shocked (and still are) when I would tell them that the police does not have to contact them or allow them to be in the room when they interrogate their child. Requiring police to electronically record all juvenile interrogations provided some protections to juveniles. The decision also explained the benefits from recording juvenile interrogations: (1) it will provide courts with a more accurate and reliable record of the juvenile's interrogation, (2) it will reduce the number of disputes over Miranda and voluntariness issues for juveniles, (3) it will protect the individual interest of police officers wrongfully accused of improper tactics, (4) it will enhance law enforcement interrogations of juveniles, and (5) it will protect the rights of the accused. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: One judge that I admire is Judge James Bolgert in Sheboygan County. A few months after graduating from law school, obtained a position in the Sheboygan County Public Defender's Office. I was advised how conservative the judges were in Sheboygan, except for Judge Bolgert. I was also advised that he was not afraid of going below the prosecutor's recommendation (and even at times going below the defense attorney's recommendation). However, my respect and admiration for him was for the way he treated the defendants. He would allow the defendants an opportunity to tell their story and explain how they ended up in the situation that they were in. He gave first time offenders the benefit of the doubt, but would be a little harsher on probation violators. During sentencing, he took into consideration the person's history, or lack of history, their support system, their mental health or AODA, as well as other factors. As a new attorney, he was patient with me. He understood the caseload of public defenders, so he would allow public defenders to appear at 8:30, before private attorneys. This helped me to create a good habit of getting to court early. He also had a month orange book club. He would meet with attorneys from across the county once a month during the lunch hour to review new cases that came out. This was also helpful to meet in staying current with new case law. The second judge that I admire is Judge John DiMotto in Milwaukee County. A number of years ago Judge DiMotto rotated to the TPR calendar at Children Court. He had a reputation of knowing the law extremely well and he expected attorneys that appeared before him to know the law and be prepared. He did not disappoint me. I learned so much in the area of civil law in those two years. He was approachable. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a judge is to interpret the law and be an impartial decision maker. Judges must be fair and treat all parties equal, removing any bias. They must be firm, but humble. They must be able to communicate effectively, but with the right temperament "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: Theresa A. Beck
Appointed to: Jefferson County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 26, 2024, to term ending July 31, 2025 Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Whitewater High School – Lake Mills High, Lake Mills, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: May 2010-present – Assistant district attorney, Jefferson County, Jefferson, Wisconsin January 2009-May 2010 – Attorney-partner, Beck & Kiewit, S.C., Jefferson, Wisconsin June 2000-December 2008 – Associate attorney, Monogue & Witt, S.C., Jefferson, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: ln my current role as an Assistant District Attorney I am assigned juvenile delinquency, criminal (misdemeanor and felony), and criminal traffic referrals. My practice includes the responsibility for reviewing and making charging decisions, litigating pre-trial motions, negotiating offers to resolve cases and representing the State and or County at trial. In juvenile, criminal misdemeanor and criminal traffic cases, I am responsible for representing the State or County in appellate matters. My practice previously included the prosecution of Chapter 48 cases, including Children in Need of Protection and Services and Termination of Parental Rights cases, between 2010 through 2019. Describe typical clients: In my capacity as an Assistant District Attorney, the client is both the State of Wisconsin and Jefferson County. The cases involve prosecution of criminal, traffic and juvenile matters on behalf of those entities. My current areas of specialty are criminal and juvenile law. While in private practice, my specialty was family, and juvenile law I also was appointed by the courts as a GAL tasked with representing the best interests of children in custody matters. Number of cases tried to verdict: approximately 85-90 cases 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: (1) State v. Terrance Curtis, Jefferson County Case No. 15CF359 . . . . This is a First-Degree Reckless Homicide case that originated in 2015. The matter involved the death of a young child in a rural Jefferson County residence. I was assigned the case by the District Attorney, Susan Happ after the matter was charged. I was the sole prosecutor for the case, through pre-trial litigation, trial, and all post conviction litigation. The appellate work on this file was handled by the Wisconsin Department of Justice Appellate Division, as the case made its way from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, where it was affirmed and remanded back to the Circuit Court. After exhausting his appellate issues, the defendant recently filed a Motion under Section 974.06 requesting a new trial. The matter is currently inactive, pending an evaluation by the State Public Defender's Office and the filing of a responsive brief by defense counsel. Two of the primary issues at trial and in post-conviction practice have been "Denny" third party evidence and a dispute over the victim's cause of death. The trial was significant for a number of reasons. The evidentiary issues were complex during the trial. Specifically, the allegation that a third party within the home was responsible for the child's death and that the injuries sustained by the victim were caused by a fall rather than multiple blunt force trauma injuries. The testimony at trial relied heavily on scientific/technical opinions by the medical examiner. The defense expert at trial, attempted to opine as to cause and manner of death, despite lacking sufficient credentials to render those opinions. The trial involved conflicting experts on a variety of issues. This matter was tried to a jury in a weeklong trial that resulted in a conviction and a significant prison sentence. Given the severity of the crime, the technical nature of the evidence, the sheer number of witnesses, and exhibits as well as the impact on the victim's family; this matter is one of the most significant trials of my career thus far. #2) State of Wisconsin v. Mark Salgado, Jefferson County Case No. 18CF118 . . . . This matter is an Attempted Homicide, Kidnapping and Substantial battery case involving a multi hour standoff with law enforcement at a local motel. The primary defense argument was that this incident was mental health related, namely it was a botched self-harm episode, rather than an intentional attempt to harm the victim. The defendant entered a not guilty & NGI plea during the pre-trial phase of the case. A subsequent evaluation of the defendant did not support the claim of NGI. The defendant maintained his NGI plea despite the lack of support by the court appointed evaluator. Defense counsel did not seek to retain their own expert to address NGI matters, their strategy appeared to be to cross examine the State's expert vigorously at trial. Just prior to the commencement of the trial, the defendant elected to waive his right to a jury and proceed to a bench trial in 2019. After the State's evidentiary presentation, the defendant withdrew his NGI plea and elected to testify in his own defense. One of the significant issues addressed prior to and during the trial was the defense strategy of not retaining their own NGI expert. The Court was required to address whether an NGI claim could be substantiated based solely on the cross examination of the court appointed evaluator, without additional expert testimony. Issues of who had the burden of persuasion and production of evidence were highlighted by the Court related to the NGI aspect of the case. The trial court took extra precautions to ensure that the defendant understood the proceedings, given his NGI claim. At the conclusion of the trial, the defendant was found guilty on all the charges and later sentenced to prison. The convictions were later affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review. There is no current motion practice before the trial court. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: None Non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation): None Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: None Previous runs for public office: None All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Joann Miller, Jefferson County Circuit Court, Br. 3, 2015 Jennifer Weston, Jefferson County Circuit Court, Br. 1, 2009 Susan Happ, Attorney General, 2014 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Council for Performing Arts in Jefferson County, executive committee secretary, May 2004-June 2010 Campus Guardians of Wisconsin, board member, February 2024-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: My primary volunteer service has been with the State Bar High School Mock Trial Tournament during the previous 8 years. I became a volunteer for the Juneau regional tournament, volunteering annually in the competition. My roles have been everything from being a score sheet runner, acting as a performance judge and a presiding judge for competitions. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: The justice system is a vital component to our society. Circuit Court judges are the gatekeepers of the legal system, and they must confront a large and diverse case load. This significant responsibility should be fulfilled by judges who have experience in multiple areas of the law, who have excellent interpersonal and administrative skills, and by individuals who can maintain an even judicial temperament. In addition to addressing the courtroom aspects of the position, a judge must be able to successfully interact with other judicial system stakeholders, to ensure the court system is running smoothly. Citizens who come before the courts are best served by judges who have practical experience in the law. A judge who can quickly understand and narrow the issues to be decided, apply the rules of evidence to arrive at a conclusion that is lawful, and fair to the parties involved, provides the best outcome. This approach also promotes efficiency in calendar management, to ensure cases are resolved promptly, and the parties can reach finality without unnecessary delay. In the previous 24 years, I have taken part in various aspects of the justice system, allowing me to accumulate the skills necessary to fulfill the duties of a judge. As a private practice attorney and a prosecutor, I have gained experience in multiple areas of law, including family law, juvenile law, guardian ad litem work, criminal law, civil litigation, and probate law. I have litigated my entire career in the circuit courts of Jefferson County. This experience has provided me with an understanding of how the circuit court system functions in Jefferson County. I have established relationships with many of the stakeholders involved in the legal system. As a lifelong resident of Jefferson County, I have developed relationships with many individuals who live in the area, providing an opportunity to fine tune my interpersonal skills, and to gain the trust of individuals who need legal assistance. The system will benefit from someone who can hit the ground running, is familiar with the existing framework of the County, and has the necessary skills to fulfill the obligations of the position. I believe that my experience, and my existing relationships within the system, and my temperament make me an ideal candidate to fulfill the obligations of the role of a circuit court judge. Decisions by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court which have impacted the people of Wisconsin: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022) The United States Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade after 49 years of well settled law impacted the citizens of Wisconsin by removing a conduit to reproductive care. The legacy of the decision created uncertainty for patients and medical providers in Wisconsin and all over the United States. The removal of the protections of Roe has impacted the reproductive rights of our citizens today in a negative manner. After Roe was overturned, the state was left with the 1849 law, which contains no exceptions, and is significantly outdated. The law was authored before issues such as alternative conception methods were even contemplated. Subsequent legal challenges to the law such as the December 2023 ruling from Dane County, has done little to alleviate the uncertainty around reproductive care. The Dane County decision is working its way through the appellate courts, leaving the matter unresolved. Many medical professionals have expressed fear of losing their license or being prosecuted for providing care to their patients. Individuals who need medical care may be forced to seek these services outside of the State. They face potential barriers of locating a physician or clinic to perform the services, increased costs, and the inability to utilize insurance coverage. The politics of this decision has impacted a vital relationship in society, namely the relationship between a doctor and a patient. Until there is some legal resolution to this issue, or the law is revisited, medical professionals will be hampered from providing care for patients, and it may discourage doctors from continuing the practice of medicine in Wisconsin, leaving fewer options for patients. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: (1) Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson Although no longer with us, Chief Justice Abrahamson left a long-lasting legacy on the Wisconsin legal system. Her dedication to educating the public about the legal system and its role in society was remarkable. From her tenure as a law professor through her time on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, she devoted her life to the education of individuals on the rule of law and fought to increase accessibility to the legal system. Her support of pro se litigant clinics is one example. Justice Abrahamson recognized a need to address the growing percentage of self-represented parties. She recognized that providing the necessary tools to self-represented individuals allowed the system to function more effectively and increased public confidence. This approach allows stakeholders to fulfill their obligations. Specifically for judges, they can maintain their neutrality, and decide cases based solely upon the facts and the law. These contributions to the enhancement of the functioning of the legal system benefit everyone. Justice Abrahamson spent much of her time trying to improve the justice system. Her efforts to educate litigants on procedure and thus improve accessibility to the justice system have promoted confidence in a system that is often complex and difficult to navigate. Justice Abrahamson’s efforts showed a devotion to law that is admirable. 2) Former Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge-Jacqueline Erwin Judge Erwin was a presiding judge in Branch 3 of the Jefferson County Circuit court system for twenty-two years. She retired from the bench in January 2013. During her tenure on the bench, Judge Erwin exhibited many admirable qualities which helped her fulfill her obligations as a judge. She is smart, tough, and fair. She worked hard and expected others to do the same. Judge Erwin was well versed in the law, and she worked extremely hard to remain up to date as the body of law changed. In areas of the law where she had not previously practiced, she did her research. She took notes, she prepared her files, and she was always ready to address her caseload in an efficient and prompt manner. She was constantly striving to be a better judge. She expected the same level of commitment from the lawyers and litigants who appeared in her courtroom. She expected all parties to conduct themselves in accordance with legal and moral ethics and to maintain professionalism in her court. She challenged me and others to be better lawyers. In her decisions, Judge Erwin was tough, yet fair. Her decisions were rarely overturned on appeal. When I think of the qualities a judge must possess to effectively fulfill the obligations of the position, Judge Erwin personifies all of them. Those qualities of a strong intellect, a desire to continue learning, a strong sense of ethics and professionalism and compassion and empathy are all qualities that I strive to exemplify every day. The proper role of a judge: Circuit Court judges are the gatekeepers of the legal system. Their responsibilities include presiding over proceedings, maintaining order in the court, and ensuring the prompt administration of justice. A judge must also always maintain impartiality and decorum. Judges must be educated in multiple areas of the law and have a working knowledge of the rules of criminal and civil procedure as trial court judges preside over diverse types of proceedings. One of the primary duties of a judge requires the determination of the admissibility, and relevance of evidence offered by the parties. A judge should ensure that for all hearings there is a proper record kept of the proceedings. Judges should ensure that all parties have a chance to be heard and present their evidence and arguments. Once the parties have fulfilled their duties, it is incumbent upon the judge to apply the law, and exercise appropriate discretion, rendering a prompt decision to the parties, setting forth the basis for their decision, on the record, or in writing. In a hearing involving a jury, the judge also acts as a director of the proceedings to ensure that the jurors are informed of their duties and their general needs are addressed during their duty. A judge must ensure that a jury is properly instructed on the law and ensure that the jury only hears relevant and non-prejudicial information. A judge also needs to have excellent interpersonal skills, as they are dealing with the litigants, lawyers, victims, jurors, other magistrates and court personnel on a daily basis. A judge should always ensure that professional courtesy is maintained and should expect courteous behavior of those who appear in court. "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: Payal Khandhar
Appointed to: Dane County Circuit Court Appointment date: June 17, 2024, to term ending July 31, 2025 Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison High School – York Community High, Elmhurst, Illinois Recent legal employment: May 2016-present – Attorney/owner, Jasti & Khandhar, Madison, Wisconsin April 2012-May 2016 – Assistant state public defender, Madison, Wisconsin August 2009-April 2012 – Assistant state public defender, Spooner, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin General character of practice: My practice is primarily state and federal criminal defense. Half, to two-thirds of my cases are appointments through the State or Federal Public Defender's Offices. Since 2018 I have also conducted Supplemental Hearings as a Supplement Court Commissioner for Dane County Branch 7. Describe typical clients: My clients are predominantly young, indigent, and have many obstacles in their lives. I have developed a reputation of working well with individuals deemed to be 'difficult clients.' Most commonly, I receive referrals for individuals who struggle with mental illness and those who are distrustful of the system. Number of cases tried to verdict: 17 to verdict; 2 as second chair; 1 as standby counsel 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: I have not included case names or case numbers per the advice of Ethics Counsel for the State Bar of Wisconsin. Dane County Case Judge Julie Genovese Assistant District Attorney Paul Humphrey I was appointed to this case in July of 2021 through the Criminal Defense Project. It was a fraud case with complicated financial and medical issues. This case was outside of my area of expertise, but as part of the Criminal Defense Project you are expected to take all cases appointed to you. My client had multiple previous attorneys who withdrew from the case. I was appointed as the sole attorney on the case, and I tried it alone. Ultimately, in September of 2022 we had a four day jury trial. After five hours of deliberation, the jury found my client not guilty of all charges. This was my first jury trial after COVID. It also required the cross-examination of numerous medical experts. The discovery included extensive financial and medical records. After not trying cases during COVID, starting with such a complicated case was overwhelming and intimidating. I worked hard to give my client the best possible chance of success at trial. Even before the verdict, my client thanked me because my hours of dedication to his case were evident during every part of the trial. Dane County Case Judge Jill Karofsky Assistant District Attorney Matthew Moeser and Assistant District Attorney Tracy McMiller I was appointed to represent my client in October of 2018 for his federal charges and ultimately took over his state cases in January of 2019 when he was dissatisfied with his state attorney. I tried the state case alone in April of 2019. I was very nervous at the beginning of this trial because we did not have many facts in our favor. Regardless, my client wanted a trial and deserved to have the best possible trial given the facts. Everything was contested in this trial. Very few decisions went in our favor. Many of the alleged offenses were captured on surveillance video or discussed over recorded jail calls. Given the circumstances, I had to be creative in presenting my client's defense in a way that incorporated all of the bad facts, but still supported not guilty verdicts. Ultimately, the jury deliberated for five and a half hours (over two days) before returning guilty verdicts on seven of the nine charges The fact that the jury took so long to deliberate confirmed that I had presented a strong defense for my client, despite the evidence not being in our favor. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I regularly represent clients in contested revocation hearings before the Division of Hearings and Appeals. Over the last 15 years, I would estimate that I have had approximately 60 contested revocation hearings. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation): None Previous runs for public office: None listed Public offices to which you were appointed or elected: November 2018-present – appointed supplemental court commissioner, Madison, Wisconsin Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Treasurer - Campaign to Elect Diane Schlipper for Dane County Circuit Judge, Branch 3 All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Diane Schlipper, Dane County Circuit Court judge, 2022 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, board of directors, September 2019-present ARC Community Services, board of directors, April 2024-present WACDL, member, July 2016-present DCCDLA, member, March 2017-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: JustDane JustDane is a non-profit agency that assists justice impacted individuals, and focuses on systematic change, to create a just and equitable community. I served on the JustDane (formerly known as Madison area Urban Ministries) Board of Directors from 2003 - 2009 and again from 2016 to 2023. For the last five years I was the Board President. I helped lead the organization through strategic planning as well as a name change. Merit Selection Panel for the Reappointment of the Part-Time Magistrate Judge I served on the Merit Selection Panel that ultimately recommended Magistrate Judge Peter Oppeneer for reappointment in the Western District of Wisconsin. I was appointed to this committee by Chief Judge James D. Peterson in July of 2021. Madison Metropolitan School District From March of 2017 to October 2018 I served on the Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD) ad hoc Education Resource Officer (ERO) Committee where we reevaluated the Madison Police Department's (MPD) contract with MMSD. This contract places MPD Officers in each of the four major MMSD High Schools. This was a contentious and time consuming committee. Tipping the Scales Since Spring of 2021, once a year, I co-teach a lesson on racial profiling to East High School students in the Dane County Courthouse as part of the Tipping the Scales Program. The purpose of this program is expose high school student to a diverse set of lawyers that are otherwise underrepresented in the field. Before beginning the lesson, we share our paths to becoming lawyers and educate the students about the importance of diversity in the legal system. Red Caboose Day Care Center From the Fall of 2013 to the Fall of 2018 I served on the Health, Nutrition, and Safety Committee to help ensure healthy meals and a safe environment for the children at the daycare. From the Fall of 2011 to the Fall of 2016 I also served on the Personnel Committee helping the agency update and rewrite personnel policies and job descriptions. I periodically volunteer with Legal Action at their Expungement Clinics. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: Although I have been an attorney for fourteen years, I have spent the last twenty years committed to creating a just and equitable community. I started my journey as a case manager in a residential facility, supervising women released from prison. This was my first exposure to the justice system. Working alongside the Department of Corrections and the Bureau of Prisons, I gained an understanding of the complexity in balancing the needs of formerly incarcerated people against the needs of the community to which they returned. I built on that experience as a neighborhood-based case worker, assisting low-income families to stabilize their housing. I was fortunate to have these experiences before I began law school. They allowed me to envision the real-life consequences of what was otherwise presented as theoretical legal concepts in a classroom. I continued to engage with the community during law school, acting as the community service liaison for a student organization. This background gave me a solid foundation for my first legal job as an Assistant State Public Defender. As an Assistant State Public Defender, I practiced indigent defense where I advocated for justice and equity one case at a time. Eventually, I left the Public Defender’s Office to dedicate more time to each case. Regardless, most of my work in private practice is still indigent defense. The flexibility of private practice allows me to increase my volunteer work to address broader issues of justice and equity. Additionally, as a private practitioner, I have taken on the roles of supplemental court commissioner and guardian ad litem. These different roles balanced and broadened my concept of justice. As a circuit court judge, I will have an opportunity to incorporate all my experiences to make just and equitable decisions. It will be a continuation of my commitment to the community. Circuit Court Judge would be the next step in my career dedicated to serving the people of Wisconsin. 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. Within the last few years alone, there have been life changing court decisions that will have widespread impact on the people of Wisconsin. Although by comparison State v. Lickes, 394 Wis. 2d 161 (2021), may not seem significant to some, it is the case that has impacted the greatest number of my young clients with criminal convictions. In Lickes, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that (1) a violation of a Department of Corrections (DOC) imposed condition of probation, not just a court ordered condition of probation, is sufficient to deny an individual expungement; and (2) if an individual violates a DOC imposed condition of probation, the Circuit Court does not have the discretion to find that the individual otherwise successfully completed their sentence for the purpose of expungement. The purpose of probation is to allow an individual to learn and grow while being safely monitored in the community. Individuals are placed on probation after taking responsibility and pleading guilty to criminal charges, so there is no doubt that they previously struggled to follow the rules. With young defendants, their charges are often the result of immaturity, impulsivity, the influence of negative peers, substance use disorder, undiagnosed mental health issues, trauma, or other factors that do not immediately go away simply by being placed on probation. As such, it should come as no surprise that many continue to struggle while they are supervised, and may continue to make poor choices while on their road to becoming law abiding adults. While on supervision, if the poor choice does not require revocation, it should be used an opportunity to learn with the guidance and monitoring of the DOC. If an individual can learn from their mistakes and still make forward progress, they should not lose the option for expungement. Taking away the opportunity for expungement with any rules violation makes expungement unattainable to most, if not all my clients. If the community would not otherwise be harmed, and it is in the best interest of the individual who has otherwise successfully completed their sentence, demanding perfection is an unnecessary and impossible standard to impose upon a young person. Prior to Lickes, I commonly negotiated a recommendation for expungement as part of a plea agreement. Although the requirements for expungement in Wisconsin were already far more stringent than most other jurisdictions, expungement after completing a sentence was still a possibility for many of my young clients. After Lickes, I no longer emphasize the value of expungement. Although I want to believe my clients can be successful on probation, it is unlikely that any young person who is already in the criminal justice system can complete years of probation without a single rules violation. And now, because of Lickes, the record of their youthful mistakes will continue to remain public. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg There are many reasons to admire Justice Ginsburg – her legal acumen, her professional accomplishments, and her forward thinking on social justice issues. In addition to all these attributes, above all, I admire her lifelong ability to maintain true to her beliefs in the face of opposition. Often, throughout my life, I have been one of few women of color in the room. In professional settings, it is common for me to be the only woman of color. Because my experiences have been different than many of my professional colleagues, at times my perspective and my opinions are also different. When you are the only person in the room in your demographic, and you hold a different opinion, it takes a lot of courage to share that opinion. It is sometimes easier to convince yourself that your opinion must be wrong, or holds less value. Justice Ginsburg was one of very few women in her law school. She was one of very few women law professors. For much of her service, she was one of just two women on the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Ginsburg spent most of her career being the only woman in the room. And yet she had the courage to maintain her position and express her opinions. Although in recent years she became famous for dissenting against the majority opinion, I can only imagine how difficult it was early in her career. Fortunately for us all, Justice Ginsburg remained true to her beliefs. And for that, I admire her courage. Dane County Judge John Markson and Burnett County Judge Kenneth Kutz I have had the privilege of appearing in front of both Judge Markson and Judge Kutz numerous times. Although they are different judges in many ways, they share common traits that I admire as an individual and as an advocate. Both judges treated every individual in the courtroom with respect. Regardless of your role in the case, when either judge spoke to you, you felt valued and heard. Both judges had a calm demeanor, no matter how litigious the case. This set the tone for their courtrooms, impacting how court staff and attorneys treated each other. Both Judge Markson and Judge Kutz had the ability to impose lengthy prison sentences on defendants convicted of committing serious crimes while still treating them with dignity. They acknowledged that defendants could commit terrible offenses and still not inherently be bad people. I have never heard either Judge Markson or Judge Kutz raise their voice, or say anything to humiliate or degrade a defendant. Among the dozens of judges I have practiced in front of over fifteen years, Judge Markson and Judge Kutz distinguish themselves as judges who embody the qualities of an excellent judge. The proper role of a judge: Fundamentally, a judge’s role is as a neutral and impartial decision maker. All judges make decisions, but how a judge conducts hearings, reviews filings, and comes to a decision can vary wildly as anyone who has practiced in front of different judges can attest to. The proper role of a judge is as a patient listener. Parties deserve the opportunity to be heard. The best judges listen, ask thoughtful questions, are transparent with their concerns, and communicate their decisions clearly. They are aware of their own gaps in knowledge, and bridge those gaps with hard work and intelligence. The proper role of a judge is to treat all parties with dignity and respect. I know firsthand that parties that leave the courtroom feeling like they were heard, and treated respectfully, are more willing to accept a decision even if a judge rules against them. Maintaining this culture within a courtroom also encourages all parties to treat each other accordingly. A judge should also be open-minded in making their decisions. Judges earn their role as a decision maker because of their education and experience. Unfortunately, judges sometimes presume that because they have been chosen to be the decision maker, they must have all the right answers. The proper role of a judge is to continue to educate themselves about the areas in which they preside, and be open to being educated by the parties about the case in front of them. A judge’s role is also to make decisions in a timely matter. Unquestionably, cases have an enormous impact on the named parties. What is often less visible, but equally important, is how those decisions impact the family of those parties, their employers, the community, and so on. Even if a decision is not in an individual’s favor, deciding in a timely manner allows the parties to cope with the outcome, and move on with their lives. Ultimately, the proper role of a judge is to strive to achieve justice with each case they preside over. "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: Jon Richards
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: Sept. 21, 2020 (elected 2021 to term ending Aug. 1, 2027) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Undergraduate – Lawrence University, Appleton, Wisconsin High School – Waukesha North High School, Waukesha, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: November 2015-present – Attorney and partner, Ziino, Germanotta, Knoll & Christensen, Milwaukee, Wisconsin August 2012-November 2015 – Attorney and shareholder, Richards Law Office, S.C., no longer operating January 1999-December 2014 – State representative, Wisconsin State Assembly January 2012-August 2012 – Attorney, Walny Legal Group, LLC, Milwaukee, Wisconsin September 2009-November 2011 – Attorney, Offices of Emmanuel Mamalakis, S.C., Wauwatosa, Wisconsin April 2002-August 2009 – Attorney, Jeffrey S. Hynes & Associates, S.C., Elm Grove, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: Wisconsin Supreme Court Federal Courts (unspecified) General character of practice: I am a partner in a general practice law firm. My firm has been operating for nearly 70 years and our client base is a broad range of people, some from families who have worked with our firm for many years. I enjoy the challenge of effectively addressing the variety of matters my clients bring to me. I manage my own clients and am, in the vast majority of cases, solely responsible for handling their matters. My practice involves a great deal of interaction with clients, the drafting and review of complex documents, formulating strategies for estate plans and business transactions, litigation and carrying out of negotiations on behalf of my clients. When my clients are involved disputes, I have represented them in the courts, in front of administrative agencies, in arbitrations and in informal negotiations. As one example of my work, two years ago I was the lead attorney representing the seller of a successful, heavily-regulated business with several employees which he had operated for more than three decades. After much negotiation and successful procurement of government approvals, we completed the sale and allowed my client to retire. In another recent matter, I successfully worked with clients to create and obtain IRS recognition for a non-profit organization that uses contributions from the United States to fund the construction and operation of a series of children's homes in Kenya. I also recently worked with a family to handle the affairs of a woman who died, suddenly and unexpectedly, leaving a son. I regularly take on pro bono matters. In my pro bono work I have handled evictions, probate matters, municipal citations, non-profit law, real estate matters, election law and policy projects. In addition to my traditional legal work, I am the director of a multi-disciplinary coalition that is helping to address the opioid crisis and protect Lake Michigan through the safe disposal of unused medicine. Describe typical clients: My clients come from a broad cross-section of society - some far more financially sound, emotionally stable and familiar with the legal system than others. While some of my clients engage me to help them with the legal issues involved with expanding their business, others engage me when they are deeply in debt or when they are being evicted. I have represented plaintiffs in personal injury actions. I have drafted complex estate plans and marital property agreements for affluent clients and drafted simple wills for people with no close relatives and few worldly possessions. I have represented for-profit companies, to handle a wide range of business and corporate governance matters, and non-profit organizations. My practice areas are business counselling including contract negotiations and the buying and selling of businesses, real estate, estate planning, probate administration, landlord-tenant work, family law, disability law, non-profit law and representing plaintiffs in personal injury cases. I have also practiced elections law and have helped with several efforts to ensure that voters are able to cast their votes without unlawful interference. Number of cases tried to verdict: Over my career, the vast majority of my cases have settled before a complete trial to a verdict. I have tried five cases to a verdict. 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: 1. GTO Stucco & Designs, LLC v. Brookfield Ventures, LLC. Milwaukee County Case Number 18 CV 6964. I represented the plaintiff which was seeking payment for work it had performed. The case was significant because of its relative complexity. It involved several fact and expert witnesses, the application of construction law, the enforcement of a mandatory arbitration clause in the parties' agreement, and the application of arbitration rules to our dispute. Through my own investigation and cultivation of a strong expert witness, we developed a convincing set of facts and legal theories which produced a positive outcome for my client: a good settlement one day before arbitration was to begin. 2. Divall Midland Associates Limited Partnership II v. Kathleen Buck. Ozaukee County Case Number 2019 SC 226. I represented the defendant who was recovering from a stroke. My client asserted that her lease had been wrongfully terminated and that her possessions and car had been unlawfully discarded by the landlord while my client was still in an assisted care facility. The case was challenging because my client had communication challenges due to her stroke, the law was tilted heavily in the landlord's favor, and new facts continually came to light. I was able to overcome those challenges, the landlord dismissed the eviction action they had filed and I was able to resolve the case to my client's satisfaction. 3. Eagle View Manor v. Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Wisconsin Division of Hearings and Appeals Case No. ML-19-0152. I represented the petitioner, the operator of a nursing home that was disputing violations issued against by the Department of Health Services. The case was extremely fact-intensive and involved a significant amount fact gathering, applying those facts to the statutes and administrative rules governing nursing homes and several long and detailed meetings with counsel for the Department of Health Services to challenge their findings, argue the law and address their concerns. We were able to address the department's concerns, they granted the relief my client requested and my client dismissed the appeal. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have served as the sole attorney representing clients in adversary proceedings before administrative law judges (ALJs) for the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD) and for the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS). I have also represented clients before municipal licensing committees. My cases before DWD ALJs concerned a.) determining the appropriate party responsible for the workers compensation obligations for a particular set of employees, b.) whether people who work for my clients should be considered independent contractors or employees and c.) whether my client owed unemployment benefits to a terminated employee. In cases before the DHS ALJ I represented the owner of a nursing home to resolve citations issued against properties it owns. Before municipal licensing committees, I have represented clients who were transferring their business license from one party to another or who were seeking to renew their licenses under challenging circumstances. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I have engaged in several forums to resolve disputes through mediation and arbitration. I successfully completed mediation or arbitration in each matter in which I participated. I have successfully arbitrated personal injury cases, disputes over the ownership interests in a company, and disputes over property interests when a couple ended their relationship. Last year, I successfully petitioned the court to compel arbitration to enforce a mandatory arbitration clause in a construction contract. On the eve of the arbitration we settled the case. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Milwaukee County Election Counsel for Democratic Party of Wisconsin, 09/2014 to 11/2014 Treasurer, Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee, 2004-2008 Volunteer on many campaigns for President, United States Senate, United States Congress, Mayor, State Assembly and State Senate All offices to which you were appointed or elected: State representative, elected, January 1999-December 2014 Supplemental court commissioner, appointed, June 2017-present Community special prosecutor, appointed, November 2011-April 2012 Previous runs for public office: Attorney general, defeated in August 2014 primary State representative, won elections 1998-2012 All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Over the years I have endorsed many people for judicial or non-partisan offices. Below is a representative list of those I have endorsed. Jill Karofsky, Supreme Court justice, 2019 Brett Blomme, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2019 Rebecca Kiefer, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2019 Chris Larson, Milwaukee County executive, 2019 Tom Barrett, Milwaukee mayor, 2020, 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004 Jo Casta Zamarripa, Milwaukee alder, 2019 Marina Dimitrijevich, Milwaukee alder, 2019 Lisa Neubauer, Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, 2017 Rebecca Dallet, Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, 2016 Danielle Shelton, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2018 Hannah Dugan, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2016 Kritsi Yang, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2017 Laura Gramling Perez, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2015 Gwen Connelly, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2015 David Feiss, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2014 Joe Donald, Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, 2015 Carolina Stark, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2012 Mark Sanders, Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, 2011 Chris Abele, Milwaukee County executive, 2012 Louis Butler, Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, 2007 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: American Constitution Society, board member, Milwaukee chapter, 2016-present Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Milwaukee, mentor to my 'little brother,' 2007-2019 Woodlands School, Inc., trustee and committee member, 2019-present Take Back My Meds, MKE, coalition director, September 2015-present Milwaukee County Substance Abuse and Prevention Coalition, member, 2016-present Medical Society of Milwaukee County, board member, 2015-2018 Brady Street Area Association, board member, 2000-2019 Immanuel Presbyterian Church, board member, trustee and Sunday school teacher, assorted dates from 2015-present Wisconsin Center District, board member, 2009-2011 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: My pro bono legal work has included work for clients of LOTUS Legal Clinic, the clients of which are survivors of human trafficking. I have helped them with real estate and probate matters. Another aspect of my work with LOTUS is strengthening the Wisconsin statute that makes it possible for survivors of human trafficking to clear certain convictions from their criminal records that resulted from them being coerced by their traffickers. I have worked with prosecutors, judges and legislators to develop such a statute that can be workable and effective. I have also represented tenants who were being evicted from their apartments or whose property was unlawfully taken by their landlord after the tenant left the premises. I have successfully represented those clients and have had their eviction actions dismissed in Milwaukee and Ozaukee counties. I was a 'big brother', through the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program, for 12 years. We started when my 'little brother' was eight years old and he is now 20 and a father. I have learned a great deal from him and his family and I hope he learned a little from me. Life for my little brother is not, and has never been, easy. My little brother's circumstances were constantly changing. His family moved roughly every year, he had his possessions stolen more than once, and he experienced trauma several times. School was difficult. He is a kind, compassionate young man who likes to take care of others and loves animals. We continue to explore options for him to continue his education and improve his opportunities to make a living. My little brother knows he can come to me anytime, and I check in with him as well. Now that he is a young father he is working to provide for his daughter. His care for her and his commitment are wonderful. For several recent general elections I have served as a volunteer attorney on the Milwaukee Election Protection Team for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. I have monitored polling locations in the City of Milwaukee to ensure that all eligible voters are able to cast their vote and have their vote counted. Finally, I have worked with the students in my Sunday school class to serve meals to homeless women and their families at the Cathedral Center in downtown Milwaukee and have helped pack meals for the homeless through the Larry Under the Bridge homeless meal program. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to be a judge because I care deeply about Milwaukee County and about the quality and integrity of the courts. I have the experience, temperament, and skill to be a judge who will apply the law accurately and fairly, run their court room efficiently and work to improve a justice system serving the needs of a diverse community where the scales of justice are often woefully unbalanced. My wide-ranging practice over nearly 25 years as an attorney has given me real-world knowledge about how various areas of the law impact people. Even when matters I worked on did not involve large dollar amounts, they almost always involved some of the largest transactions, most important decisions and most consequential moments for my clients. I would bring to the bench a deep understanding of how economics and power shape the issues raised to the court and the behavior of people appearing before the court. I have treated each client of mine with courtesy and respect and believe, whether people are at their best or at their worst, they still have rights that the justice system must honor. As a judge I would treat the people who come before me with that same level of courtesy and respect. I understand the need for judges to be impartial and to provide well-researched, reasoned, consistent and timely decisions that correctly apply the law and take into account the equities of a case. My sixteen years as a state legislator representing Milwaukee gave me invaluable training in dealing with a wide range of people fairly, effectively addressing complex social issues and creating lasting and positive change. I respect and understand what goes into making a law and the vital role of the courts in accurately and consistently interpreting and applying the laws passed by the elected representatives of the people. I believe judges need to be collaborative partners in efforts to make the justice system more accessible, more transparent and more equitable. Judges need to actively seek more knowledge about the forces shaping our society and resulting in matters before the court. I have led several initiatives to bring people together in Milwaukee County to create change. I worked with victims of gun violence and law enforcement officials to attempt to pass a law requiring background checks for gun purchases. I worked with judges in Milwaukee County Children's Court, the Office of the Public Defender, the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office, the City of Milwaukee Office of Violence Prevention and community leaders to lay the groundwork for what became a comprehensive violence prevention plan for the city of Milwaukee modeled on best practices in other cities. I am currently working on an initiative with LOTUS Legal Clinic to address how the law treats survivors of human trafficking. I want to be a judge who will work for reform in our justice system. I want to bring my experience, passion for the community and work-ethic to the work of being a judge. 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. I believe that Citizens United v. FEC (2010) has dramatically changed how politics works in our country for the worse. The ruling gave corporations the power to purchase advertising and otherwise participate in elections. It also held that corporations and unions can spend virtually unlimited sums to convince people to vote for or against political candidates, as long as the spending is independent of the candidates. Justice Stevens predicted in his dissent the decision "will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process." His prediction has been borne out. After Citizens United, other Supreme Court decisions opened the door to new regulations and laws regarding money and the elections system that benefit corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens. The resulting 'super PACs' and 'dark money' nonprofit organizations have created enormous opportunities for corporations to spend money influencing the political process with ever-diminishing transparency. In the 2014 U.S. Senate elections, as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics, outside spending more than doubled since 2010. In 2018, that figure more than doubled again. Also in 2018, the majority of outside spending on elections came either from dark money nonprofit organizations or groups receiving funding from those organizations. As money has poured into the election system in exponentially higher amounts the voices of ordinary citizens have increasingly been drowned out, the political power of the already rich and powerful has become stronger, and cynicism and division in our political system has grown markedly. The Wisconsin Supreme Court's League of Women Voters, et al. v. Walker, et al. (2014) decision hurt our democracy by upholding Wisconsin's voter identification law that makes voting more difficult for many Wisconsin residents. As Justice Abrahamson wrote in her dissent, "Without any evidence that in-person voter impersonation is a problem in Wisconsin, the voting restrictions the [Court approved gave] Wisconsin the most restrictive voting laws in America." I have seen first-hand, as an attorney monitoring elections in Milwaukee County and as a City of Milwaukee poll worker, the delays, frustration and embarrassment the voter identification law causes. Some citizens who show up to the polls are turned away because they did not have the paperwork required by the new law that would allow them to vote. I believe the restrictive voter identification law upheld by the court was a principal reason why 41,000 fewer people voted in the City of Milwaukee in the 2016 general election, when the law was in place, than in the 2012 general election, when the law was not in place. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I admire Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's commitment to civil rights, her life-long quest for people to be treated equally under the law and the scholarship, gift for language and common sense she brings to her decisions and dissents. Instead of seeing the law as abstract and untouched by the lives of real people, she brings the real-world experience of litigants into her decisions. Her powerful dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007), in which a woman was denied the ability to be paid the same as her male counterparts, called for Congress to address an improper interpretation of the law at issue. That call compelled Congress to take action and pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I admire her belief, as she once stated in an interview, that the Constitution "has broad themes that were meant to grow with an evolving society" and is not a document meant only to govern the world as it existed in the 1780s. For example, with regard to the 14th Amendment, she clarified that gender equality is a constitutional right in United States v. Virginia (I996). Her dissent in Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) argued that in analyzing the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment "[a]ctions designed to burden groups long denied full citizenship stature are not sensibly ranked with measures taken to hasten the day when entrenched discrimination and its aftereffects have been extirpated." I admire former Justice Shirley Abrahamson for her scholarship, for how she has stressed the importance of an independent court, for her work ethic, and for her focus on individual rights. I agree with her view that the Wisconsin constitution guarantees rights to individuals that are in addition to the rights provided by the United States constitution. I also admire her view, similar to Justice Ginsburg, that the law must evolve to meet the changing the needs of society. In these days when the judiciary is under attack, I admire her call for judicial independence. I admire her eagerness to learn how the courts operate in the lives of people who never appear before the Supreme Court, even serving for a short time to hear cases in Milwaukee County Small Claims Court. Finally, I admire her call for more transparency in the courts and leading the fight to allow cameras in the court. I admire Court of Appeals Judge Joe Donald for his leadership and commitment to the rights of people who appear before the court. As a Circuit Court Judge, he took on challenging leadership assignments, having served twice as the presiding judge in Milwaukee County Children's Court. In being the driving force to establish drug courts in Milwaukee County he has been an effective champion for innovation in the courts. He has consistently championed upholding the rights of individuals who appear before the courts, with a focus on procedural jurisprudence and on ensuring that investigations are done in a consistent and fair manner. The proper role of a judge: The overarching role of a judge is to dispense justice by interpreting and applying the law accurately, even-handedly and in a manner that best serves the community. A judge must ensure that the rights guaranteed to parties under the Constitution, especially due process rights, are protected. Where possible, it is important to set litigants up for success. For example, where addiction is the root cause of behavior that has brought a person before the court, requiring participation in a drug treatment program as part of a sentence. A judge must read through the pleadings and other parts of the case file and give all parties a chance to be heard. A judge must conduct trials in an even-handed manner and allow each side to present their case within the bounds of the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure. After each party has presented their case, the judge must interpret and apply the law, keeping up-to-date with recent developments. Interpretation requires carefully reading not only the laws and court decisions that bear on the matter, it also involves weighing the equities of a case to apply the law fairly and consistently. An important part of being a judge is reaching decisions. Even in difficult cases where the law or equities are not clear, a judge owes the people coming before them the ability to make decisions in an efficient manner. A judge should ensure that when a decision is made the person on the receiving end of the sentence or judgment has participated in the decision and not just had the decision thrust upon them. A judge bears a special responsibility to the community to be engaged in efforts to improve the justice system and the operation of the courts. Where possible, a judge should seek a deeper understanding of forces shaping society and actively work to find practical ways to apply that understanding to their work as a judge within the bounds of the law. A judge should also strive to make the courts and the justice system, to the extent possible, open and accessible to the public, especially to pro se litigants. For example, on the doors to his chambers, former judge Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Charles Kahn, posted a sign stating, "Welcome! This is an open and public courtroom! Please walk in." Former Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Michael Dwyer worked to make procedures in family court easy to understand for pro se litigants. A judge should work to reduce the intimidation and confusion many people feel when approaching the courts. "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: Bridget J. Schoenborn Appointed to: Waukesha County Circuit Court Appointment date: May 24, 2024, to term ending July 31, 2025 Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California High School – St. Lucy’s Priory High, Glendora, California Recent legal employment: May 2008-present – Assistant U.S. attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Milwaukee, Wisconsin June 2005-May 2008 – Pro se law clerk, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit General character of practice: Serves as a Criminal Division trial and appellate attorney representing the United States in all stages of the investigation and prosecution of federal offenses with an emphasis on complex narcotics offenses and related financial crimes. Responsible for the day-to-day prosecution of narcotics trafficking offenses, including drug conspiracies, illegal internet pharmacies, money laundering offenses, and violent crime. Pre-trial preparation of prosecution memoranda, search and seizure warrant affidavits, obtaining wiretap interception orders, criminal complaints, indictments, and plea agreements. Describe typical clients: Over the past 15 years, I have specialized in various practice areas, with particular emphasis on the following: drug conspiracies; illegal internet pharmacies; gang prosecutions; dogfighting offenses; firearms violations; money laundering and structuring offenses; and cryptocurrency seizures. Number of cases tried to verdict: 6 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: United States v. Sanchez Vargas, et al., Case No. 20-Cr-127 (E.D. Wis.)(Hon. Pamela Pepper): In this matter, I represented the United States in all stages of the proceedings. This prosecution was based on a DEA investigation that began after an individual in Oconomowoc, who was purchasing controlled substances from an illegal internet pharmacy, committed suicide. The controlled substances, including Tapentadol, Carisoprodol, and Tramadol, were sold online without a prescription and mailed to customers across the country. Two California-based co-conspirators involved in shipping the controlled substances were convicted. This case was significant because it stopped the illegal distribution of pharmaceuticals through the website. Dates of involvement were: 2020 to 2023. Defense counsel: Gabriela Leija, Martin Pruhs, and Paul Basseliz. United States v. Gerardo Lara, et al., Case No. 21-Cr-204 (E.D. Wis.)(Hon. Lynn Adelman): In this matter, I am co-counsel in the prosecution of fourteen defendants charged with firearms violations, structuring offenses, and conspiracy to distribute crack and powder cocaine in Wisconsin and Illinois. To date, ten defendants have been convicted and sentenced. This case was significant because the conspiracy had connection to kilogram level cocaine distributors and many of the convicted defendants were career offenders who had significant criminal records. Dates of involvement are: 2021-present. Defense counsel: Michelle Jacobs, Edward Hunt, Eric Hart, Matt Ricci, Jeffrey Purnell, Kathleen Quinn, Christopher Cherella, Michael Hart, Martin Pruhs, Craig Johnson, and Angela Kachelski. United States v. Approximately 32,133.63 Tether (USDT) Cryptocurrency from Binance Account Number Ending 8770, Case No. 22-Cv-989 (E.D. Wis.)(Hon. Pamela Pepper): In this matter, the government pursued forfeiture of Tether cryptocurrency on grounds that it constituted wire fraud proceeds and was involved in money laundering. Specifically, between May 26 and May 28, 2022, A.D. provided $30,200 in U.S. currency in gift cards and Bitcoin to an individual falsely claiming that there was a warrant for victim A.D.'s arrest. The fraudster eventually converted A.D.'s money into Tether cryptocurrency, which was stored at Binance. The government tendered a seizure warrant to Binance and commenced judicial forfeiture of 32,133.63 Tether. After serving the Binance account holder via email and certified mail at his residence in India, and receiving no claim to the property, the government obtained default judgment and forfeited the asset. This case was significant because asset forfeiture enabled the return of fraud proceeds to victim A.D. Dates of involvement were 2022-2023. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have not practiced before an administrative agency. However, as part of my criminal case responsibilities, I have prosecuted defendants whose terms of probation and extended supervision were revoked by an Administrative Law Judge. In connection with my civil practice, and as part of the forfeiture referral process, I am familiar with administrative law issues arising in matters handled by federal law enforcement agencies. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). In the criminal context, my non-litigation experience consists primarily in reviewing, drafting, and obtaining search and seizure warrants. I have prepared hundreds of search warrants for physical locations (residences, storage units, safety deposit boxes), electronic search warrants (email and social media accounts), and Title III wiretap intercepts. In the civil context, my non-litigation experience consists of preparing seizure warrants and conducting depositions. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Not applicable Previous runs for public office: Not applicable All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Not applicable Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Elm Grove Police and Fire Commission, member, June 2022-present Elm Grove Woman’s Club, member, January 2022-present State Bar of Wisconsin, Diversity Clerkship Program Selection Committee, participant, 2020, 2021, 2022 Eastern District of Wisconsin Bar Association, co-chair, Criminal Committee, 2012-2018 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: From approximately 2006 to 2008, I was a member of the Eastern District of Wisconsin Bar Association Pro Bono Commitee. As a part of this committee, I reviewed policies and procedures for appointing pro bono attorneys to represent pro se parties in federal court. From approximately 2010 to 2014, I was a member of the Elm Grove Junior Guild. This organization has a strong emphasis on philanthropy, and for several years I was on the Memorial Day Parade Committee, which is responsible for organizing the annual parade in Elm Grove. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve as a Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge because I want to be the fair and impartial person who makes the thorough, well-informed, and challenging decisions needed to guide parties through litigation. I believe that this position is a natural progression from my current public service experience. I was a law clerk for nearly three years and have served as an Assistant United States Attorney for more than fifteen years. After seeing the judiciary from the inside, helping judges and drafting opinions, and then as a litigant, appearing before numerous district court and magistrate judges to argue on behalf of the United States, I believe that serving on the judiciary is where I need to go next to serve the people of Wisconsin. My qualifications for the position of being a circuit court judge have evolved. First, as a law clerk, I was in awe of the judges I worked with and for. My clerkship helped me appreciate the many-faceted role of a judge: to engage in thoughtful decision making, to learn about new areas of the law, to consider their judicial demeanor and appreciate that they are the public face of the court system, and, most importantly for me as a young lawyer, to be conscientious. As an example, I recall Magistrate Judge Patricia J. Gorence advising me to read pro se submissions carefully, because one meritorious argument could be nestled amongst dozens of others, nearly all of which were handwritten. Then, as a prosecutor, I sought to persuade judges to accept my reasoning and recommendations. Representing the United States, I am tasked with the ultimate goal of seeking justice. Justice, I learned, does not in every case call for a severe sentence or villainizing a perpetrator. Among many things, it means treating everyone, including defendants, with fairness and respect. As an example, I recall a case in which Judge Rudolph T. Randa sentenced the defendant, who had been incarcerated much of his life, to a significant term of prison based on his possession of a firearm and fentanyl. After imposing sentence, Judge Randa wished the defendant well and ask him to visit the judge's chambers upon his release from prison. I seek to be a circuit court judge because I have learned so much, both about what works and what does not, and I want to emulate the great judges I had the privilege of working with. I aspire to the conscientiousness of Magistrate Judge Gorence, the emotional awareness of Judge Randa, the preparedness of Judge William C. Griesbach, and the intellectual rigor of Judge Lynn Adelman. With this experience in mind, I believe that I am ready to serve as a Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge. 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. In Doubek v. Kaul, 2022WI931, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the Wisconsin disorderly conduct statute, Wis. Stat. § 947.01(1), is not a disqualifying predicate offense for purposes of carrying a concealed weapon. Doubek is important because, as the law currently stands, individuals may legally possess firearms even after having been convicted of domestic violence-related disorderly conduct, thereby exposing the public to an unacceptable risk of gun violence. Thankfully, Doubek’s dissent and the Attorney General’s proposed legislation demonstrate a desire to fix this legal loophole and reduce the risk of danger to the community. Daniel Doubek was convicted of disorderly conduct after breaking into his estranged wife’s trailer by smashing a window in the door, brandishing a 2 x 4 as a weapon, and loudly threatening her, telling her she “was dead.” When she yelled to the neighbors for help, he threatened to, “let her have it.” During this time, the couple’s four year old daughter slept nearby. Years later, Doubek successfully sought and obtained a concealed weapon license. However, in connection with a 2019 audit, the Wisconsin Department of Justice determined that he failed to meet one of the licensing requirements, namely he was “prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal or state law.” The federal law at issue, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), makes it illegal for an individual convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to possess a firearm. Based on Doubek’s disorderly conduct conviction, the Department of Justice believed he was precluded from possessing a firearm and revoked his license. Doubek successfully argued before the Supreme Court that the disorderly conduct statute, section 947.01(1), is not a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” because it did not have “as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of deadly weapon.” Accordingly, he was not a prohibited person under federal law and was entitled to a concealed weapon license. The Court agreed with Doubek and the case was reversed and remanded. Although correctly decided, Doubek highlights a glaring omission in the Wisconsin Statutes. As Justice Jill Karofsky explained in concurrence, “although Doubek is legally correct, this result is as nonsensical as it is dangerous. In the realm of domestic violence, threats to kill, like the one Doubek made to his wife, more than double the risk of femicide.” And when a domestic abuse perpetrator, who has engaged in threats to kill or any other type of domestic violence, has access to a gun, the lethality risk for his victim increases significantly. Recognizing this deadly combination, Congress enacted a federal firearm ban on domestic violence misdemeanants, section 922(g)(9), limiting domestic abusers’ access to guns. On November 13, 2023, Attorney General Josh Kaul announced legislation to reorganize the crime of disorderly conduct and the definition of domestic abuse so that individuals convicted of domestic violence- related disorderly conduct offenses will be prohibited from possessing firearms, seeking to have Wisconsin join the effort to prevent this unacceptable risk of violence. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Patricia J. Gorence, Magistrate Judge In June 2005, Magistrate Judge Gorence hired me as a pro se law clerk. The pro se law clerks worked for all of the judges in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, conducting research and writing, preparing orders and opinions, and monitoring and moving civil dockets. At the time, I was a young mother and Magistrate Judge Gorence had grown children of her own. She was the first federal female magistrate in Milwaukee. As an advocate for women’s education and employment, and my direct supervisor, Magistrate Judge Gorence played a huge role in shaping me as a young lawyer. Beyond her personal guidance, I learned from watching Judge Gorence as she encouraged parties to reach agreements but was willing to make tough decisions when they could not. She crafted thorough and well-researched opinions, explaining her decisions in practical terms. Judge Gorence wanted the parties to feel heard, and often displayed compassion and empathy, but at the same time kept the proceedings moving at a steady pace. Finally, she treated everyone in her courtroom, from her staff and clerks, to attorneys and defendants, equally and with respect. Lynn Adelman, District Court Judge From 2005 to 2008, I worked with Judge Adelman as a pro se law clerk. It was immediately clear how much Judge Adelman loves being a judge and engaging with the law. Beyond his trial court responsibilities, he often sits by designation on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and publishes articles about legal issues that are important to him. Working as a law clerk for Judge Adelman was not easy – his high standards demanded much of my research and writing skills – but I am a better lawyer as a result. Since joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office, I have appeared before Judge Adelman hundreds of times, and often in connection with my most significant cases. For example, during the summer of 2009, I prosecuted United States v. Bowie, Case No. 07-Cr-123 (E.D. Wis.), a week-long trial with numerous cooperating defendants as witnesses and dozens of wiretap intercepts as exhibits. At sentencing, Judge Adelman agreed that the defendant and his serious crimes posed a danger to the community and imposed a sentence of 253 months’ imprisonment. In the countless sentencing hearings I have had with him since, Judge Adelman and I do not always agree about the sentencing factors, offense enhancements, or guidelines ranges. However, regardless of the outcome, I immensely respect Judge Adelman for his intellectual honesty. I always feel heard and am confident that, although I may not get the outcome I seek, he is always prepared and thoughtful, using intellect and reason to support his findings. The proper role of a judge: Wisconsin Circuit Court Judges pledge to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Wisconsin, and to faithfully and impartially discharge their duties. It is the proper role of a judge to follow the statutory text and apply binding precedent, regardless of their personal beliefs. A judge should instill confidence in, and promote respect for, the legal system. I believe that a judge can accomplish this in the following ways. First, a judge must be as prepared as possible. This means reading the parties’ submissions and being ready to respond in court and in writing. It also means remaining present and meaningfully considering the arguments, issues, and facts raised on the record in open court. Next, a judge’s impartiality is critical. A judge must be committed to making thorough and intellectually honest decisions, and keeping an open mind until all of the issues are fully presented. Next, a judge should treat all those who appear in a courtroom fairly and equally. It is important to make litigants feel seen and heard, even though they may not receive the exact outcome they seek. The judge serves all parties in the courtroom, as well as the public outside the courtroom. This means getting to the heart of an issue quickly, making decisions, and keeping a caseload moving. Finally, a judge must be able to make difficult decisions. Many times, the parties in a courtroom are at the lowest point in their lives. Their liberty, parental rights, business, and way of life may be at stake. During these especially trying times, the parties turn to the courts to make decisions for them. A judge must be able to make thorough, well-informed, and efficient decisions.  Shoenborn (left) at her investiture on Aug. 15, 2024. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed