Evers' judges: Payal Khandhar

"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: Payal Khandhar
 
Appointed to: Dane County Circuit Court
 
Appointment date: June 17, 2024, to term ending July 31, 2025
 
Education:
Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison
Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison
High School – York Community High, Elmhurst, Illinois
 
Recent legal employment:
May 2016-present – Attorney/owner, Jasti & Khandhar, Madison, Wisconsin
April 2012-May 2016 – Assistant state public defender, Madison, Wisconsin
August 2009-April 2012 – Assistant state public defender, Spooner, Wisconsin
 
Bar and administrative memberships:
State Bar of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
 
General character of practice:
My practice is primarily state and federal criminal defense. Half, to two-thirds of my cases are appointments through the State or Federal Public Defender's Offices. Since 2018 I have also conducted Supplemental Hearings as a Supplement Court Commissioner for Dane County Branch 7.
 
Describe typical clients:
My clients are predominantly young, indigent, and have many obstacles in their lives. I have developed a reputation of working well with individuals deemed to be 'difficult clients.' Most commonly, I receive referrals for individuals who struggle with mental illness and those who are distrustful of the system.
 
Number of cases tried to verdict: 17 to verdict; 2 as second chair; 1 as standby counsel
 
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 not included case names or case numbers per the advice of Ethics Counsel for the State Bar of Wisconsin.
 
Dane County Case Judge Julie Genovese
Assistant District Attorney Paul Humphrey
I was appointed to this case in July of 2021 through the Criminal Defense Project. It was a fraud case with complicated financial and medical issues. This case was outside of my area of expertise, but as part of the Criminal Defense Project you are expected to take all cases appointed to you. My client had multiple previous attorneys who withdrew from the case. I was appointed as the sole attorney on the case, and I tried it alone. Ultimately, in September of 2022 we had a four day jury trial. After five hours of deliberation, the jury found my client not guilty of all charges. This was my first jury trial after COVID. It also required the cross-examination of numerous medical experts. The discovery included extensive financial and medical records. After not trying cases during COVID, starting with such a complicated case was overwhelming and intimidating. I worked hard to give my client the best possible chance of success at trial. Even before the verdict, my client thanked me because my hours of dedication to his case were evident during every part of the trial.
 
Dane County Case Judge Jill Karofsky
Assistant District Attorney Matthew Moeser and Assistant District Attorney Tracy McMiller
I was appointed to represent my client in October of 2018 for his federal charges and ultimately took over his state cases in January of 2019 when he was dissatisfied with his state attorney. I tried the state case alone in April of 2019. I was very nervous at the beginning of this trial because we did not have many facts in our favor. Regardless, my client wanted a trial and deserved to have the best possible trial given the facts. Everything was contested in this trial. Very few decisions went in our favor. Many of the alleged offenses were captured on surveillance video or discussed over recorded jail calls. Given the circumstances, I had to be creative in presenting my client's defense in a way that incorporated all of the bad facts, but still supported not guilty verdicts. Ultimately, the jury deliberated for five and a half hours (over two days) before returning guilty verdicts on seven of the nine charges The fact that the jury took so long to deliberate confirmed that I had presented a strong defense for my client, despite the evidence not being in our favor.
 
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
I regularly represent clients in contested revocation hearings before the Division of Hearings and Appeals. Over the last 15 years, I would estimate that I have had approximately 60 contested revocation hearings.
 
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation): None
 
Previous runs for public office: None listed
 
Public offices to which you were appointed or elected:
November 2018-present – appointed supplemental court commissioner, Madison, Wisconsin
 
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization:
Treasurer - Campaign to Elect Diane Schlipper for Dane County Circuit Judge, Branch 3
 
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years:
Diane Schlipper, Dane County Circuit Court judge, 2022
 
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, board of directors, September 2019-present
ARC Community Services, board of directors, April 2024-present
WACDL, member, July 2016-present
DCCDLA, member, March 2017-present
 
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
JustDane
JustDane is a non-profit agency that assists justice impacted individuals, and focuses on systematic change, to create a just and equitable community. I served on the JustDane (formerly known as Madison area Urban Ministries) Board of Directors from 2003 - 2009 and again from 2016 to 2023. For the last five years I was the Board President. I helped lead the organization through strategic planning as well as a name change.
 
Merit Selection Panel for the Reappointment of the Part-Time Magistrate Judge
I served on the Merit Selection Panel that ultimately recommended Magistrate Judge Peter Oppeneer for reappointment in the Western District of Wisconsin. I was appointed to this committee by Chief Judge James D. Peterson in July of 2021.
 
Madison Metropolitan School District
From March of 2017 to October 2018 I served on the Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD) ad hoc Education Resource Officer (ERO) Committee where we reevaluated the Madison Police Department's (MPD) contract with MMSD. This contract places MPD Officers in each of the four major MMSD High Schools. This was a contentious and time consuming committee.
 
Tipping the Scales
Since Spring of 2021, once a year, I co-teach a lesson on racial profiling to East High School students in the Dane County Courthouse as part of the Tipping the Scales Program. The purpose of this program is expose high school student to a diverse set of lawyers that are otherwise underrepresented in the field. Before beginning the lesson, we share our paths to becoming lawyers and educate the students about the importance of diversity in the legal system.
 
Red Caboose Day Care Center
From the Fall of 2013 to the Fall of 2018 I served on the Health, Nutrition, and Safety Committee to help ensure healthy meals and a safe environment for the children at the daycare. From the Fall of 2011 to the Fall of 2016 I also served on the Personnel Committee helping the agency update and rewrite personnel policies and job descriptions.
 
I periodically volunteer with Legal Action at their Expungement Clinics.
 
Quotes:
 
Why I want to be a judge:
Although I have been an attorney for fourteen years, I have spent the last twenty years committed to creating a just and equitable community. I started my journey as a case manager in a residential facility, supervising women released from prison. This was my first exposure to the justice system. Working alongside the Department of Corrections and the Bureau of Prisons, I gained an understanding of the complexity in balancing the needs of formerly incarcerated people against the needs of the community to which they returned. I built on that experience as a neighborhood-based case worker, assisting low-income families to stabilize their housing.
 
I was fortunate to have these experiences before I began law school. They allowed me to envision the real-life consequences of what was otherwise presented as theoretical legal concepts in a classroom. I continued to engage with the community during law school, acting as the community service liaison for a student organization. This background gave me a solid foundation for my first legal job as an Assistant State Public Defender.
 
As an Assistant State Public Defender, I practiced indigent defense where I advocated for justice and equity one case at a time. Eventually, I left the Public Defender’s Office to dedicate more time to each case. Regardless, most of my work in private practice is still indigent defense. The flexibility of private practice allows me to increase my volunteer work to address broader issues of justice and equity.
 
Additionally, as a private practitioner, I have taken on the roles of supplemental court commissioner and guardian ad litem.
 
These different roles balanced and broadened my concept of justice. As a circuit court judge, I will have an opportunity to incorporate all my experiences to make just and equitable decisions. It will be a continuation of my commitment to the community. Circuit Court Judge would be the next step in my career dedicated to serving 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.
Within the last few years alone, there have been life changing court decisions that will have widespread impact on the people of Wisconsin. Although by comparison State v. Lickes, 394 Wis. 2d 161 (2021), may not seem significant to some, it is the case that has impacted the greatest number of my young clients with criminal convictions. In Lickes, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that (1) a violation of a Department of Corrections (DOC) imposed condition of probation, not just a court ordered condition of probation, is sufficient to deny an individual expungement; and (2) if an individual violates a DOC imposed condition of probation, the Circuit Court does not have the discretion to find that the individual otherwise successfully completed their sentence for the purpose of expungement.
 
The purpose of probation is to allow an individual to learn and grow while being safely monitored in the community. Individuals are placed on probation after taking responsibility and pleading guilty to criminal charges, so there is no doubt that they previously struggled to follow the rules. With young defendants, their charges are often the result of immaturity, impulsivity, the influence of negative peers, substance use disorder, undiagnosed mental health issues, trauma, or other factors that do not immediately go away simply by being placed on probation. As such, it should come as no surprise that many continue to struggle while they are supervised, and may continue to make poor choices while on their road to becoming law abiding adults. While on supervision, if the poor choice does not require revocation, it should be used an opportunity to learn with the guidance and monitoring of the DOC. If an individual can learn from their mistakes and still make forward progress, they should not lose the option for expungement.
 
Taking away the opportunity for expungement with any rules violation makes expungement unattainable to most, if not all my clients. If the community would not otherwise be harmed, and it is in the best interest of the individual who has otherwise successfully completed their sentence, demanding perfection is an unnecessary and impossible standard to impose upon a young person.
 
Prior to Lickes, I commonly negotiated a recommendation for expungement as part of a plea agreement. Although the requirements for expungement in Wisconsin were already far more stringent than most other jurisdictions, expungement after completing a sentence was still a possibility for many of my young clients. After Lickes, I no longer emphasize the value of expungement. Although I want to believe my clients can be successful on probation, it is unlikely that any young person who is already in the criminal justice system can complete years of probation without a single rules violation. And now, because of Lickes, the record of their youthful mistakes will continue to remain public.
 
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
There are many reasons to admire Justice Ginsburg – her legal acumen, her professional accomplishments, and her forward thinking on social justice issues. In addition to all these attributes, above all, I admire her lifelong ability to maintain true to her beliefs in the face of opposition.
 
Often, throughout my life, I have been one of few women of color in the room. In professional settings, it is common for me to be the only woman of color. Because my experiences have been different than many of my professional colleagues, at times my perspective and my opinions are also different. When you are the only person in the room in your demographic, and you hold a different opinion, it takes a lot of courage to share that opinion. It is sometimes easier to convince yourself that your opinion must be wrong, or holds less value.

Justice Ginsburg was one of very few women in her law school. She was one of very few women law professors. For much of her service, she was one of just two women on the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Ginsburg spent most of her career being the only woman in the room. And yet she had the courage to maintain her position and express her opinions. Although in recent years she became famous for dissenting against the majority opinion, I can only imagine how difficult it was early in her career. Fortunately for us all, Justice Ginsburg remained true to her beliefs. And for that, I admire her courage. 
 
Dane County Judge John Markson and Burnett County Judge Kenneth Kutz
I have had the privilege of appearing in front of both Judge Markson and Judge Kutz numerous times. Although they are different judges in many ways, they share common traits that I admire as an individual and as an advocate.
 
Both judges treated every individual in the courtroom with respect. Regardless of your role in the case, when either judge spoke to you, you felt valued and heard. Both judges had a calm demeanor, no matter how litigious the case. This set the tone for their courtrooms, impacting how court staff and attorneys treated each other. Both Judge Markson and Judge Kutz had the ability to impose lengthy prison sentences on defendants convicted of committing serious crimes while still treating them with dignity. They acknowledged that defendants could commit terrible offenses and still not inherently be bad people. I have never heard either Judge Markson or Judge Kutz raise their voice, or say anything to humiliate or degrade a defendant. Among the dozens of judges I have practiced in front of over fifteen years, Judge Markson and Judge Kutz distinguish themselves as judges who embody the qualities of an excellent judge.
 
The proper role of a judge:
Fundamentally, a judge’s role is as a neutral and impartial decision maker. All judges make decisions, but how a judge conducts hearings, reviews filings, and comes to a decision can vary wildly as anyone who has practiced in front of different judges can attest to. The proper role of a judge is as a patient listener. Parties deserve the opportunity to be heard. The best judges listen, ask thoughtful questions, are transparent with their concerns, and communicate their decisions clearly. They are aware of their own gaps in knowledge, and bridge those gaps with hard work and intelligence.
 
The proper role of a judge is to treat all parties with dignity and respect. I know firsthand that parties that leave the courtroom feeling like they were heard, and treated respectfully, are more willing to accept a decision even if a judge rules against them. Maintaining this culture within a courtroom also encourages all parties to treat each other accordingly.
 
A judge should also be open-minded in making their decisions. Judges earn their role as a decision maker because of their education and experience. Unfortunately, judges sometimes presume that because they have been chosen to be the decision maker, they must have all the right answers. The proper role of a judge is to continue to educate themselves about the areas in which they preside, and be open to being educated by the parties about the case in front of them.
 
A judge’s role is also to make decisions in a timely matter. Unquestionably, cases have an enormous impact on the named parties. What is often less visible, but equally important, is how those decisions impact the family of those parties, their employers, the community, and so on. Even if a decision is not in an individual’s favor, deciding in a timely manner allows the parties to cope with the outcome, and move on with their lives. Ultimately, the proper role of a judge is to strive to achieve justice with each case they preside over.

---