Evers' judges: Gregory J. Jerabek

​"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.

---