Evers' judges: Douglas J. Hoffer

​"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.

---