Evers' judges: Diane L. Meulemans

​"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: Diane L. Meulemans
 
Appointed to: Waupaca County Circuit Court
 
Appointment date: Feb. 5, 2026, to a term ending July 31, 2027
 
Education:
Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison
Master’s – University of Wisconsin-Madison
Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse
High School – West Bend East, West Bend, Wisconsin
 
Recent legal employment:
April 2014-present – Corporation counsel, Waupaca County
July 2013-April 2014 – Corporation counsel, Green Lake County
February 2007-July 2013 – Deputy corporation counsel, Marathon County
December 2003-February 2007 – Assistant corporation counsel, Marathon County
 
Bar and administrative memberships:
Supreme Court of the United States
State Bar of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
 
General character of practice:
Since 2003, my practice has been dedicated to providing legal representation to the County, its elected officials, and departments and to the public interest in service through the Office of Corporation Counsel. As Waupaca County Corporation Counsel, I provide legal services to the County Board of Supervisors on matters of governance, legislation, administrative home rule powers, and ethics. I serve as the Board's Parliamentarian. I provide legal guidance to the County’s Standing Committees. I respond to any legal matter that is required for the County’s successful functioning as a corporate body and a local government unit.
 
Although there are constant themes, Counties require a breadth of legal knowledge across a wide variety of substantive legal areas: business aspects such as contracts and leases; real estate transactions including right-of-way acquisition; public records and open meetings laws; intergovernmental agreements; governance and legislative actions; and competitive bidding for procurement and public works to name a few. As a government attorney, I must also demonstrate the ability to communicate complex legal opinions in a manner that is understandable to the intended audience and relevant to the issue presented in order for sound decisions to be made. I provide written and oral legal opinions to my professional colleagues, including elected officials such as the Sheriff, Treasurer, Clerk of Court, Register of Deeds, and County Clerk. I provide legal services for a County Board of Supervisors consisting of twenty-seven Supervisors. Legal services for the County Board include written opinions upon request of the County Board Chair, ethics guidance for individual Supervisors, and “real time” answers and information when legal or procedural questions arise during County Board or Standing Committee meetings.
 
In addition, the Office of Corporation Counsel represents the County as Plaintiff in ordinance enforcement through citations and complex forfeiture actions, as Petitioner's Counsel to the Department of Human Services in Chapter 54 guardianship and Chapter 55 protective placement matters, and the interests of the public in Chapter 48 child welfare matters and Chapter 51 involuntary commitment matters. In Marathon and Green Lake County, I have also served as the Child Support Agency’s attorney focusing on matters under Chapter 767 Family Code to establish child support and non-financial orders, adjudicate paternity, review orders when appropriate, and enforce orders when payers are non-compliant. In Waupaca County, I am the Child Support Agency Administrator and must stay current with state policies and legislative changes and case law affecting Chapter 767. I have a wide substantive legal knowledge in civil matters affecting individuals and families in Waupaca County. As a prosecutor, I must adhere to the civil rules of procedure, discovery and pre-trial motions, and the rules of evidence as set forth in Wisconsin Statutes.
 
In all of my years in the Office of Corporation Counsel, I have maintained a successful working relationship with the District Attorney’s Office. The Corporation Counsel and the District Attorney often work in tandem with criminal law for Child Support Agency referrals for felony non-support criminal charges, in criminal mental health order to treat being converted to civil commitment orders, and in child welfare cases that have a parent also charged with the crime of child neglect or abuse. I have also developed positive working relationships with Waupaca County’s law enforcement jurisdictions. City and Village Police Department Officers and Sheriff’s Office Deputies frequently serve as fact witnesses in mental commitment and child welfare cases. I have appeared at countless “in custody” hearings where individuals make their initial appearance on criminal complaints or to quash a civil child support warrant or to have an allocution hearing on a Commitment Order for a contempt sanction. My day-to-day practice in Circuit Court has significant overlap with the criminal justice system. I am confident that I will be able to quickly expand my knowledge of the criminal code, and to properly ensure the rules of criminal procedure have been followed by the State and the Defendant as set forth in Wisconsin Statutes. My knowledge of the rules of evidence will be foundational in this endeavor. A successful Corporation Counsel is well versed in civil and criminal law as the two areas frequently overlap and are engaged with legal partners, including the District Attorney and law enforcement personnel. I have accomplished both.
 
Waupaca County does not have a County Administrator or Executive. Therefore, I am involved in county projects and decision making that are not fundamentally legal in nature. For example, I have been involved in a multi-year $35 million Courthouse remodel project that started in 2021. Construction is underway and the substantial completion date is July 2027. I have been fully involved in all aspects of the project, from the development of the Request for Proposals; managing competitive bidding awards; AIA contract negotiations with the architect and the construction management firm; and continued engagement with the project professionals to make sure the project is on time and on budget. At each stage of the project, legal services were provided and communicated to the County Board of Supervisors and the relevant Standing Committees for educated decisions to be made.
 
On June 19, 2024, Waupaca County also endured a Network Interruption that affected county-wide systems and service delivery. I was called upon to lead the County through the cyber incident, working closely with outside counsel and its technical advisors, to guide the County Board in decision making regarding the possible compromise of County data, the resolution of the incident, and the restoration of County services. The County was back online on July 5, 2024 and required data breach notices met necessary federal and state timelines in December 2024 and January 2025. This incident demonstrates that although I can be prepared for the routine aspects of my legal duties and responsibilities, I must also demonstrate leadership, clear thinking, reasoned decision making, and an ability to communicate complex facts to others in a manner that is understandable and guides proper decision making in times of crisis and for which I had no prior experience.
 
Throughout all of my practice experience, starting at Wisconsin Judicare in 2000, I have been asked to make legal decisions, at times in writing, but frequently orally and contemporaneously, when presented with a particular set of facts or situations. I am able to apply the situation presented to the appropriate law, make reasoned decisions founded in the law, and communicate the legal decision to the intended audience. The wealth of substantive legal knowledge I have gained over the course of my career has provided me with an excellent foundation to serve as a judge. The decision making and communication skills I have developed over my career are exactly the type of skills that will make me an effective judge.
 
Describe typical clients:
My clients are the citizens of Waupaca County, the County Board, its elected officials, and its Departments. Representing a body as a client can be challenging as individuals who are a part of the body may have competing interests or differing goals. It is always critical to effectively communicate the facts and the relevant law to be able to advise the body and to not be swayed by a particular point of view or outcome.
 
As the Corporation Counsel, representing the County Board, I have undertaken significant legislative legal writing in Waupaca County through ordinance revisions, including repealing and replacing entire Chapters of the Code of Ordinances. I provide legal advice to the County’s elected officials and
Department Heads regarding the Wisconsin Public Records and Open Meetings laws.
 
I have experience in areas of the law that are frequently on the Circuit Court docket. My experience as a practitioner in these substantive areas is advantageous when called upon as a judge to make findings, rulings, and orders in these substantive areas. In these cases, I represent the interests of the public (Chapters 48 and 51), the Department of Human Services (Chapters 54 and 55), and the State of Wisconsin (Chapter 767). Most of these case types also have
stringent timelines and notice requirements to uphold due process rights of
individuals as liberty interests are affected. As a practitioner, I am principled in affording individuals all the process that the law provides both to maintain the
integrity of the proceeding and to protect the individual’s rights. I will do the same as a judge. I also understand that a family law case will be “open” throughout a child’s minority and beyond. The judge may be called upon to enter orders affecting the family as facts and circumstances change for the case participants over time. It is critical for a judge to understand that families are dynamic and their need for court involvement may also evolve over time.
 
I specialize in Chapter 54 guardianships, Chapter 55 protective placements, and Chapter 51 involuntary commitments. I have handled these matters for over twenty years. I have prosecuted child welfare cases and termination of parental rights cases under Chapter 48 for almost twenty years. I have expertise in sections of Chapter 767 Family Law that apply to the child support program, including Wis. Admin. Code DCF 150 Child Support Standard, because of my involvement with County Child Support Agencies since 2003. I am routinely in Circuit Court for these cases, requiring me to be prepared to present my case both factually and through legal argument.
 
After over a decade in the position of Corporation Counsel, I can honestly say no one day is the same as any other, and I am always challenged to expand my practice areas to make certain the legal needs of the County are met. As a judge, I will be called upon to do the same to judiciously manage the proceedings before me.
 
As a judge, I will not control the types of proceedings that come before me. However, my substantive legal experience and the routine work of the Corporation Counsel that constantly involves the challenge to provide legal answers for new legal questions presented will serve me well when in making decisions as a judge.
 
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:
I have selected two cases that I have participated in to demonstrate the breadth of the legal skills in my service as Corporation Counsel. There is a case of state-wide significance and one of evolution of a case to ensure individual rights fit evolving circumstances.
 
Waupaca County v. K.E.K., 2021 WI 9, 395 Wis.2d 460, 954 N.W.2d 366.
This case is significant in the common law evolution of Chapter 51
recommitment hearings under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(am), a process that continues to the present day. Since the time K.E.K was in the trial court in 2018, Chapter 51 recommitment hearings, also called extension hearings, have been in both the
Court of Appeals and the Wisconsin Supreme Court on multiple issues related to the burden of proof required as to dangerousness of a person presently receiving treatment for mental health, the notice requirements to the individual, the ability to enter default orders, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the competency of the court to proceed if mandatory timelines are not followed.
 
K.E.K. was in individual who was committed to a sixth month involuntary commitment order with an order for involuntary medication and treatment in 2017 after a jury trial under what is known colloquially as “the 5th Standard” in Waupaca County Case No. 17ME44. As the initial commitment period was set to expire, the County, representing the public interest pursuant Wis. Stat. sec. 51.20(4), petitioned for both orders to be extended on May 18, 2018. After a bench trial, K.E.K.’s commitment order and order for involuntary medication and
treatment was extended for an additional twelve months. K.E.K. appealed the trial court’s order, arguing that the recommitment statute was unconstitutional on its face and as applied and violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.
Waupaca County was represented by my office, including Assistant Corporation Counsel David G. Been. The presiding trial court judge was Judge Vicki L. Clussman. This case then went to the Court of Appeals (Waupaca County v.
K.E.K., 389 Wis.2d 104, 2019 WI App 58) and the Wisconsin Supreme Court
(Waupaca County v. K.E.K., 2021 WI 9, 395 Wis.2d 460, 954 N.W.2d 366). K.E.K. was represented in the trial court by Assistant State Public Defender Kate Drury and on appeal by Appellate Public Defender Colleen G. Ball. I was involved in this process in trial preparation, reviewing and editing briefs, providing secondary legal research, and preparing for oral argument. The Supreme Court ruled in the County’s favor and upheld the constitutionality of the recommitment statute both facially and as applied.
 
K.E.K. filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court again alleging the statute was unconstitutional on its face and applied. See 142 S. Ct. 594. After being served notice of the Petition for Review in July 2021, I brought this case to its ultimate conclusion. First, I responded by notifying the United States Supreme Court that Waupaca County would not be filing a Brief in Opposition. The United States Supreme Court, however, directed Waupaca County to do so. I was admitted to the Supreme Court of the United States bar. I was assisted in assembling the Brief in Opposition by Kearney Law Office who also provided guidance on the procedures of filing in the Supreme Court and the internal workings of the Supreme Court. I contributed the fundamental legal knowledge of the practical and legal requirements of Chapter 51 recommitments cases and the individuals with mental illness who have exhibited dangerous behaviors in the community triggering the intervention of the court process, including applying the law to the facts and the stringent due process protections within the law, including strict timelines. Together we worked on the County’s legal analysis and argument. On October 27, 2021, I filed the Brief in Opposition in the Supreme Court of the United States. On December 6, 2021, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States. 142 S. Ct. 594 (Mem), 211 L.Ed.2d 369.
 
The utilization of the recommitment statute as an integral tool to ensure individuals with mental illness whose condition places himself of herself in danger to self or others while residing in the community receive necessary treatment and medication to regain stability and safety in their lives. The legal work by the Waupaca County Office of Corporation Counsel has upheld the constitutionality of the statute that is significant in maintaining personal and community safety. To date, Waupaca County v. K.E.K., has a total of forty-six citing references on Westlaw, including twenty-two cases demonstrating its impact on jurisprudence related to Chapter 51 recommitment standard, but the standard of review required in finding a statute unconstitutional both facially and applied.
 
Waupaca County’s Brief in Opposition is submitted as one of my writing samples.
 
In the Matter of [redacted], Waupaca County Case No. 16-GN-15
I have been involved as Petitioner’s Counsel in this case since the filing of the guardianship petition on June 18, 2016, by Adult Protective Services Social Worker. The ward in this case is a young adult, born in 1996, who suffered a traumatic brain injury after a motorcycle accident. Presently the individual has a guardian of the person and a guardian of the estate first ordered in August 2016 and in October 2016 was ordered protectively placed.
 
The case is assigned to Waupaca County Judge Troy L. Nielsen. The ward has had four different attorneys appointed as his Guardian ad Litem: Attorneys Eric D. Hendrickson, Sean P. Donahue, Thomas J. Hart, and David William Franker. The ward has had four different attorneys appointed as Adversary Counsel: Attorneys Joseph M. Norby, Karen L. Marone, Thomas W. Johnson, Theodore C. Johnson, Richard E. Bender, and Steven Edward Hendrix.
 
This case is significant as it demonstrates the Court’s involvement in ensuring that an individual’s rights are retained and exercised with his then current capacities. It is not surprising that an individual recovers physically and cognitively from a traumatic brain injury. This ward’s recovery has been progressive, and the County has petitioned to have his rights restored as he has regained mental capacity to engage in decisions about his medical needs and his personal situation. The Determination and Order on Petition for Permanent Guardianship Due to Incompetency has been amended multiple times as warranted by the ward’s recovery. In April 2017, his right to obtain a fishing license was restored in full. In September 2018, his right to independently handle $100 per month at the discretion of the guardian was restored.
 
In May 2019, a Petition was filed to restore rights that he may exercise with the consent of the guardian of the person: consent to marriage; apply for a license under Ch. 29, Wis. Stat. other than fishing; consent to sterilization; and consent to organ, tissue, or bone marrow donation. In addition, Petition requested that rights regarding his health decisions, educational and social services decisions, and educational and vocational placements, among other rights, be partially restored to the ward to exercise with approval of his guardian of the person. At this time, the ward stated he wanted to have a girlfriend and have an intimate relationship, intending to hopefully be married. The County arranged for the ward to be evaluated by a psychologist regarding the restoration of the above rights, and the ward’s cognitive ability related to the issue of sexual consent, both in consenting to his own actions and in recognizing his partner’s consent or lack of consent and making appropriate sexual intimacy decisions. The goal throughout this process was to have this ward experience life in a manner that was consistent with his
cognitive abilities. In April 2020, the Order was amended to reflect the restoration of rights in the Petition for Modification. The psychologist offered his professional opinion that the ward did not have sufficient cognition and executive functioning regarding consent for sexual intimacy; however, the ward retains the right to marry if his guardian of the person also consents to the marriage granting him hope that he may marry in the future.
 
The Order for Protective Placement continues to be reviewed on an annual basis as is required by statute. The ward most recently was evaluated again by an examiner of his choice on the continuing need for a guardian and the appropriateness of his current group home placement as the least restrictive setting.
 
This case is significant to the ward and others under guardianship as it demonstrates that a case will have its own progression to mirror the recovery of the ward, who is the subject of the case. As Petitioner’s counsel, it is imperative to request the court to intervene in the least restrictive manner in the ward’s decision making. This case also demonstrates each Circuit Court decision and order has an impact on those who seek relief from the Court.
 
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
I have represented the respective County Department of Human Services or Social Services in child welfare substantiation appeals under Chapter 48 in various State of Wisconsin Department of Administration hearings.
 
I have represented the Waupaca County Planning and Zoning Office in appeals to the Waupaca County Board of Adjustment, a quasi-judicial body created by Wis. Stat. sec. 59.694.
 
I have handled appeals to the Social Security Administration as a Civil Unit Staff Attorney at Wisconsin Judicare.
 
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
As a Judicial Intern for Justice Prosser in 1999, I wrote three briefs for questions presented in cases pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
 
As a Civil Unit Staff Attorney at Wisconsin Judicare, I staffed a monthly walk-in free legal services clinic at the Wausau Salvation Army.
 
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:
Hon. Scott M. Corbett, Marathon County Circuit Court, Branch 6, 2021
 
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Waupaca County Bar Association, 2015-present
Green Lake County Bar Association, president, 2014
Marathon County Bar Association, 2003-2013
 
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
The three internships identified in Question 10 generated tangible resources for use in pro bono or volunteer legal services situations. The Goldmark Internship award included a stipend; however, the others did not. Each internship provided an opportunity to establish templates and other foundational resources to assist and engage other attorneys that are providing pro bono legal services.
 
These include the following deliverables:
 
-Developed administrative, screening and procedural forms for the Family Law Assistance Center, a volunteer-based weekly walk-in clinic serving pro se family law litigants as a legal intern at the Center for Public Representation;
 
-Wrote Constructing a Family Law Trial Level Brief When Domestic Violence is in the Record, a 130 page "template" brief for use by legal services attorneys, family law clinical programs, and pro bono attorneys state-wide for direct representation to low-income clients as a Goldmark Intern; and
 
-Wrote a landlord-tenant resource guide with information, procedures, and contact persons to resolve untenantability issues in a seven-county region as an intern at Western Wisconsin Legal Services.
 
Quotes:
 
Why I want to be a judge:
I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as a judge as it is noble work worth doing. I will continue to serve the people of Wisconsin by using the foundational legal knowledge I have gained over the last twenty-two years in matters that affect individuals, families, and children and most significantly in issues related to the protection of children, the safety of our most vulnerable adults, and the resolution of family law matters. I want to work to enhance the safety of the people of Wisconsin by approaching criminal cases with a focus on offender accountability and victims’ rights. I will serve the people of Waupaca County by fairly responding to the judicial remedies requested by all who seek the circuit court to resolve
matters affecting their lives, their livelihoods, and their communities.
 
One of my fundamental truths is that each person in the courtroom has a significant role in the adversarial judicial system established by Wisconsin law and common law. I will serve the people of Waupaca County by providing respect to all who enter my courtroom until that individual engages in words or actions that as a consequence deprive her or him of my respect. Even so, all will be treated with diplomacy and decorum. I will demand the same of others who appear before me.
For twenty-two years, I have spent nearly every working day engaged in the functioning of the county courthouse. I have a valuable understanding of the
Courts’ partners, namely the Clerk of Courts and the Probate Office. I appreciate, support, and understand the important work of the District Attorney’s Office and her staff. I have lived the work of the Office of Corporation Counsel. I have a wealth of knowledge regarding Waupaca County’s operations, including the annual budget process and its implications on funding and personnel decisions that may impact the circuit court. I will use this knowledge to ensure the people of Wisconsin are served by a Circuit Court that is sound and able to perform the essential delivery of court services to those who seek it.
 
I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as Waupaca County Circuit Court Branch III because I want to stand up for 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.
On behalf of the people of Wisconsin, I am troubled by the legal cases that have been filed to restrict voting rights. Therefore, I believe that one of several voter registration cases had a significant positive impact on the people of Wisconsin: State ex. rel. Zignego v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2021 WI 32, 396 Wi.2d 391, 957 N.W.2d 208. The case was intended to force the Wisconsin Elections Commission to purge voter registration records based on demographic information provided through the ERIC voter database. The Circuit Court used both its power of Mandamus and Contempt of Court to force Wisconsin Elections Commission to purge the voter registration rolls.
 
However, the holding in the case clarifies the responsibilities under Wis. Stat. § 6.50(3) to change the registration of electors who may have moved out of their municipality is solely given to the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners. The municipal clerk or board of election commissioners has a duty to act when they receive reliable and credible information that a registered elector has changed his or her residence to a location outside of the municipality. The case provided guidance that it is the responsibility of the municipal clerk or board of election commissioners must send a letter regarding the move to the elector, and if the register elector does not respond within 30 days, the clerk of board of election commissioners shall change the elector’s registration form eligible to ineligible status.
 
The Court held that the Wisconsin Elections Commission has no mandatory duties under Wis. Stat. § 6.50(3) regarding updating elector status based on change of residency information. As the Wisconsin Elections Commission has no mandatory duty to update elector status, the lower court’s use of the writ of mandamus and contempt of court powers was misplaced.
 
The case is significant as it demonstrates the Wisconsin Supreme Court using the plain language analysis of the actual words in the statute and applying the canon of statutory construction. In 2021, the decision provided a clear analytical approach to how the Court may examine the case cases brought before it. It is also significant that it demonstrates the power of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to withdraw language from the lower Court of Appeals decision where it declined to decide an issue that the Court of Appeals had decided, namely the writ of mandamus compelling the Wisconsin Election Commission to comply with § 6.50(3) and reversed the contempt order against the Wisconsin Election Commission.
 
The case is positive because it prevented approximately 234,000 electors from being disenfranchised to vote, supports Wisconsin’s unique system of election administration based on local municipal control and oversight, and takes a broad step in ending voter suppression in the present day where elections are won by slim margins. The decision fundamentally supports the statutory duties of local officials in the electoral process. This provides legitimacy to the elections process for all who engage in the civic duty of voting.
 
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
I admire Justice Ann Walsh Bradley because she has been a steadfast, consistent presence in her time on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In addition, she is consistent in interactions with others when she is not on the bench and in the community for various events and engagements. I did not practice in Marathon County when Justice Bradley was in Circuit Court, Branch 3. I met her for the first time as a Judicial Intern for Justice David T. Prosser in 1999.
 
Justice Bradley has consistently emphasized non-partisanship in the role of the judiciary, demonstrating independence and steadfastly applying the rule of law. She has advocated for transparency in governance, which as a Corporation Counsel has informed and directed the legal advice I provide to Waupaca County’s elected officials. Her opinions on open governance constantly serve as a polestar for me in my role as Corporation Counsel.
 
Waupaca County was able to meet Justice Bradley and the entire Supreme Court in its Justice on Wheels visit to Waupaca County on October 10, 2022.
Justice Bradley was, as always, engaging and effervescent in her love of the law and her work as a Justice.
 
I also admire Judge Greg Grau (Reserve), former Marathon County Circuit
Court, Branch 4. On December 18, 2003, at 8:30 AM, I was administered the oath to serve as Assistant Corporation Counsel for Marathon County. At 8:40 AM, Corporation Counsel Thomas P. Finley told me I was going to handle the child support cases in Branch 4, said that I would be “just fine,” and we walked to court together. I had not been inside a courtroom for two years, having worked at the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups Elder Law Center from November 2001 to December 2003. In that moment, I was struggling to get a grasp on the facts of the cases and trying to be calm as I represented the State of Wisconsin by
Marathon County Child Support Agency in ten different cases. As Judge Grau later told me at my “going away” party in Marathon County almost ten years later, I was “shaking like a leaf.” Then he laughed heartily. It was the only time he mentioned that day to me.
 
Judge Grau was even in his temperament on the bench, and consistent in his findings and holdings. He was measured and thoughtful in entering his rulings. He also offered quips or sarcasm when he found humor or irony in a situation, showing his humanity. I admire Judge Grau as he demonstrated that it is possible to make tough decisions with empathy and humility.
 
Finally, I admire Judge Grau as he made me want to be a better attorney by challenging me subtly and with support and guidance.
 
The proper role of a judge:
The proper role of a judge is to walk the tightrope between expressing her humanity in the management of the daily docket and in understanding the gravity of the decisions and orders she makes. A judge is independent in her decision making, applying the rule of law with equity and fairness. It is not the job of the judge to re-write the law but to interpret the law as the Legislature enacted it. A judge is neutral in her approach to each case, listening carefully to all of the evidence and fairly deciding the proper weight it should be given if she is the trier of fact. A judge is responsible for the decorum of the courtroom, setting and demonstrating a high standard for all to follow; and to direct an end to behaviors that are unacceptable in the courtroom.
 
A judge must stay current in the law, striving to continually educate herself on pending legislation, statutory amendments, and newly released cases. A judge must strive to have her decisions affirmed if they are appealed. A judge must not be complacent in her understanding of the law but constantly strive to enhance her understanding of the law and improve her skills in legal analysis.
 
A judge is a role model for others, including supporting new attorneys as they develop their skills and advocacy in representing their clients with integrity. A judge is willing to share her knowledge and love of the law with community members, including children, who are interested in the courts and court procedures.
 
Simply stated, a judge allows all voices to be heard.
 
In my career in public service, I have demonstrated the actions and attributes required to fulfill the role of a proper judge. I am able to listen to the question presented, receive complete factual information on the issue at hand, apply a thorough understanding of relevant statutes and case law, and offer a legal conclusion. I have practiced in a manner that is attentive to the situations before me, and that delivers sound legal advice to all those who have sought my counsel.

---