Meet the candidates for Washington County Circuit Court

In Washington County, incumbent Branch 2 Judge Gordon Leech is challenged by Grant Scaife. The election is April 7.

Leech was appointed to Washington County Circuit Court by Gov. Tony Evers in July 2025 and took his seat in August. He previously was a prosecutor in the Fond du Lac County District Attorney's Office. Before that he was in private practice and served as an attorney in the U.S. Marine Corps. He graduated from University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1990. His resume is here. WJI's "Evers' judges" post about him is here.

Scaife is a prosecutor in the Washington County District Attorney's Office. According to his campaign website, he previously was an assistant corporation counsel (meaning that he worked for and represented a county). He graduated from University of Wisconsin Law School in 2016.

WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions are patterned after some of those on the application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments.

Leech responded to WJI's questionnaire. Scaife did not. 

Answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.

Gordon Leech

Why do you want to continue as a judge? 

When Judge Muehlbauer announced his retirement, I felt ready for this role based on my 35 years of legal experience and my life experiences. I spoke to each of the sitting and retired judges in the county, and they all supported my decision to apply, which confirmed that I was qualified and ready to assume the responsibilities of this position.

Having now held this office for the majority of the past year, I know I enjoy the position and believe I am making fair and impartial decisions in the important matters brought to me in all the various case types we handle like criminal, civil claims, divorces, child support disputes, mental health commitments, probate and other matters.

I have been out in the community talking to people about my judicial philosophy, which is committed to keeping politics out of the courtroom, and everyone agrees that is important. I don’t see the same commitment from others. So I believe I have something unique and critical to offer the citizens of the county: judicial independence from political parties and special interests that would like to influence the courts.

Describe which U.S. Supreme Court or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion in the past 25 years you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin and explain why.

In 2023, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin decided State v. Johnson. This case has a significant impact on Wisconsin citizens because it appears to add a third plate to the scales of justice for the victims of crime.

Prior to the Johnson decision, it was common practice for criminal defendants to have access to a victim’s healthcare records because of a 1993 decision of the court in State v. Shiffra. This practice discouraged prosecution of crimes and inflicted emotional distress on victims.

The Johnson decision overruled Shiffra, positively protecting victims from incursions into their privately held healthcare records which helps remove some of the pressures on victims that had discouraged them in the past to prosecute their claims. At the same time, the decision negatively affects the rights of the accused to investigate their accusers in ways traditionally done to examine the truthfulness of the accusations.

The Johnson decision is recognized as one of the first cases decided by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin addressing whether victims had a legal status, known as “standing,” to enforce rights granted them under the constitutional amendment and enabling statutes known as Marcy’s Law. The court appeared to recognize that victims may have standing to exert rights under Marcy’s Law, although the court decided the case on other grounds.

The Johnson case is significant because the court overturned almost 30 years of precedent, showing that the court was willing to examine whether the earlier opinion was correctly decided, how workable the decision was when put into practice, and the change in degree of respect our society now gives to victims as demonstrated by the enactment of Marcy’s Law. The opinion essentially says that the Supreme Court believes that being old law alone isn’t enough to justify it and signals that victims may have standing to personally enforce the rights granted to them in Marcy’s Law.

Describe your judicial philosophy.

I follow the rule of law as given by the will of the people through our elected representatives and as interpreted by the higher courts. I recognize it is my duty to refrain from creating law on the bench. I treat parties fairly, without bias or favoritism, and I make decisions based on the law and the facts before me.

Describe one or two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.

As a prosecutor, I handled all levels of felony and misdemeanor cases. One of the last cases I handled was the trial of Timonthy Brown for 1st Degree Murder which I tried with DA Eric Toney to a successful verdict. There were many others too, in particular cases which had victims, that I was honored to be trusted with prosecuting.
​
But one of the most significant cases I handled was not a criminal case, but case involving the termination of parental rights of a parent that was absent, or abandoned, a child but was refusing to let the foster parents adopt the child. The child spent years living in the loving home of the foster parents. The father was absent in his life because he either chose to be absent or due to periods of incarceration. The child experienced psychological trauma when the father had what little contact he exercised. Just before the matter was scheduled to go to trial, the attorney in the DA’s office found he had a conflict and could not handle the trial. I volunteered, though I had no prior experience prosecuting this type of matter and was short on time. But it was a very important matter for the foster parents and the child.

The trial was a week long and had many contested issues both factually and legally. It was jury trial. Along with my co-counsel in the DA’s office, we secured a verdict and subsequent judgment in favor of the foster parents, clearing the way to adoption. However, the father appealed the decision all the way to the supreme court, and I continued to handle the matter through appeal. I was able to prevail in each level of appeal, and the foster parents were finally able to adopt the child.

I am proud to say that I helped this child get into a loving family that provided for him emotionally, spiritually, and financially. He finally found a home where he felt safe, secure and loved by his foster parents, and his greatest wish was for them to adopt him so that he did not need to fear losing them and could finally call them, forever, his parents.

Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

In my more than 35 years of legal experience, I have extensive and diverse experience handling criminal and civil litigation in trial courts, appellate courts, and administrative proceedings. I have handles matters in multiple state courts, federal courts, and military courts. I have also handled matters in federal, state and local administrative courts.

I started my career in the U.S. Marine Corps as a Judge Advocate. I was a military prosecutor, and our cases were tried in military courts. I also counseled and defended the Marine Corps in personnel matters that included discrimination and wrongful termination claims held in administrative forums like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Merit Systems Protection Board.

After my active duty in the Marine Corps, I entered the civil practice of law, counseling and representing employers and employees in various employment matters in state and federal courts. I also handled commercial litigation between businesses. I later represented people in consumer protection matters, which were litigated in state and federal courts, where I represented victims of financial schemes and prosecuted those that took advantage of them. I returned to criminal law more recently where initially I represented criminal defendants in state courts, which included taking on indigent clients on behalf of the State Public Defenders Office. Just before taking the bench in my current role, I was hired by District Attorney Eric Tony in Fond du Lac as an Assistant District Attorney prosecuting criminal offenses on behalf of the citizens of Wisconsin.

Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation.

Most recently, applying for the appointment to the bench and running to retain my position is an instance where I am challenged and face opposition. Although this position is nonpartisan, partisan politics and politicians are attempting to influence the election with political overtones. I believe that partisan politics have no place in the election of a judge at any level and should not influence a judge’s decisions on the bench where the rule of law is to be applied.

When applying for this judicial position, I knew that I would likely face opposition just because I was appointed by a governor that is not popular with a significant population in this county. Knowing this would be a significant challenge, I chose to apply anyway because I wanted this position, felt I was well qualified and ready for it, and I didn’t want someone else to fill the position or worse, that it would be vacant for a year.

To overcome the opposition based on my appointment, I am talking to everyone of every political persuasion. I am consistently communicating my qualifications and judicial philosophy with the same message regardless of who I talk to. I emphasize my professional and life experiences and my commitment to keep politics out of the courtroom. I am not a member of a political party, I don’t campaign with a political party, and I don’t seek the endorsements of political parties or special interest groups.

Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors of money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?

Whether judges should be required to recuse him or herself from cases involving donors of money or other resources to the judge’s election is a policy decision that is best left to will of the people through elected representatives. In my position as judge of the circuit court, I don’t take positions on political policies.

I do think that judges must be mindful of their own biases based on any type of contribution received as a candidate either in the form of money or intangible compensation like supporting endorsements which can be as beneficial as monetary donations. Judges and judicial candidates should not accept any contribution or support that will either compromise his or her ability to be fair and impartial or give the appearance that he or she cannot be fair or impartial. Significant financial donations or endorsements from political parties or special interest groups may be particularly troublesome to judicial integrity. It is a matter of maintaining the public’s confidence in our decisions. Everyone has the right to expect that their judge will apply the law without favor to anyone.

Our rules of judicial conduct already prohibit judges, among other things, from being a member of a political party, from campaigning with a political party, and require recusal where a judge has a conflict of interest or circumstances are such that it appears there is a conflict of interest. It is a rule that applies to me as a judge, and as such I fully honor it. If defined limits are placed on campaign contributions or other restrictions, I will also fully honor them as well.

What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? [Define “true justice” as you see fit.]

True justice for me as a trial court judge means following the law as written and interpreted by the higher courts and exercising any discretion within those bounds to find a fair and just result given the law and circumstances. It would not be true justice for me to impose as law my own belief of what the law ought to be rather than what it is. Otherwise, people would have no confidence in the courts because each court would have its own version of justice. We can’t keep the integrity of the courts in that manner.

If a law is undesireable, the people need to know about it and need to decide to change or eliminate it.

The obstacles to achieving true justice is our own limitations in recognizing our own biases and our own limitations on understanding. Political pressures on courts to decide cases consistent with a political agenda are also significant obstacles to any notion of true justice. To overcome these obstacles, we need judges with professional and life experience to guide them and judges committed to keeping politics and other special interests out of the decisions made in the courtroom and out of their campaigns.

Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

Life experiences are another important factor for voters to consider when electing a judge.

When you need advice about an important decision, do you turn to someone who has no or little experience? No, we don’t. We turn to people who have relatable experiences to help us understand our situation and the pros and cons of the possible choices and outcomes. We generally correlate time and experience with wisdom. Having presided in many cases now, including civil, criminal, family and others, I can say that I value every gray hair I earned on my head to find what I believe is the right decision based on the law and within the boundaries of discretion we have as judges when making our decisions. We must strive for what is right under the law and what is right morally within the Judeo-Christian values in our community.

I have represented and stood with victims of crime, injured workers, people scammed for someone else’s profit, and for the State as well as defendants in criminal cases. I have lived a full life already having served our country in the Marines during the Gulf War and its aftermath, was married and divorced, happily remarried, raised 3 successful children, am helping my wife raise 3 teenagers, I’ve been a public servant, I’ve worked for businesses, and I’ve owned my own business. I lived in more than four states before moving to Washington County in 2004 to raise my 3 children here. I have remained in Wisconsin and in Washington County most of the years since.

These are just some of the experiences I bring with me to the courtroom. These life experiences along with my decades of legal experience give me the confidence to make fair, unbiased and just decisions for Washington County.

---