Evers' judges: Bridget J. Schoenborn

"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.