Has Supreme Court signaled an upcoming change to attorney discipline?

Entrance to the Wisconsin Supreme Court hearing room at the Wisconsin Capitol in Madison. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach.

Ziegler

By Alexandria Staubach          
 
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has revoked the licenses of three attorneys this year, and in each case Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler wrote an identical short concurrence highlighting that when the high court revokes a license, it may not have the effect the public thinks.
 
“I write separately to point out that in Wisconsin the ‘revocation’ of an attorney’s law license is not truly revocation because the attorney may petition for reinstatement after a period of five years,” said Ziegler in each concurrence.
 
“I believe that when it comes to lawyer discipline, courts should say what they mean and mean what they say,” she wrote.

The concurrences were joined by Chief Justice Jill Karofsky and Justices Rebecca Grassl Bradley, Brian Hagedorn, and Janet Protasiewicz—thus, a majority of the court.
 
The attorney conduct in question ranged from sexual advances made toward two incarcerated clients, to the sexual assault of a client’s ex-partner in a courthouse, to a repeated pattern of converting client funds into personal funds totaling $671,545 over years.
 
Revocation is the most extreme sanction imposed by the high court. Supreme Court Rule 22.29(2) governs petitions for reinstatement after license suspension or revocation. It provides that an attorney whose license has been revoked can petition for reinstatement after five years.
 
The Court has heard petitions for changes to the rule, most recently in 2019. Then, the Office of Lawyer Regulation petitioned the Supreme Court to permit permanent attorney license revocation.
 
The court denied the petition.
 
Ziegler dissented at that time, joined by Grassl Bradley and Hagedorn, saying there may be cases warranting permanent revocation of an attorney’s license.
 
“For me, the purpose of a permanent revocation is far more about protection of the public, including the public's trust and confidence in the legal system, than it is about punishing the lawyer,” wrote Ziegler then.
 
While it is true a petition for reinstatement can always be denied by the court, Ziegler argued the mechanism wastes the time and resources of everyone involved.
 
“The option of permanent revocation as one of a number of permissible sanctions for lawyer misconduct would enhance the public's confidence in the disciplinary system,” she wrote then.
 
Grassl Bradley’s term ends in less than two months. But the inclusion of Karofsky, Hagedorn and Protasiewicz in Ziegler’s recent dissents suggests that a similar rule petition to create a permanent revocation penalty could succeed with the current court.
 
Ziegler is set to retire at the end of July 2027, after serving 20 years on the court. She has said she will not run for reelection this coming April.

---