Evers' judges: Lukas L. Steiner

​"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.

---