Advertisement
The case against Ziegler, who admitted violating the state’s code of judicial ethics while a Washington County circuit judge, is a first for Wisconsin. The Supreme Court has never disciplined one of its own members, and a sitting justice has never been the subject of an investigation that could end with members of the court meting out punishment.
A special panel of three state Appeals Court judges heard arguments from Ziegler’s lawyers and the Judicial Commission on Monday. They will recommend a penalty to Ziegler’s colleagues on the Supreme Court, who will make the final decision. Ziegler could face suspension or removal from the bench, but that is considered unlikely.
Presiding Judge Ralph Adam Fine did not say when a decision was expected. But he suggested Ziegler’s punishment would not be harsh, saying her misconduct did not compare with cases involving other judges who were reprimanded.
“It seems to me, Justice Ziegler’s case is not even, forgive me, a blip on the screen compared to those cases,” he said.
Her case is making other judges aware of the ethics code, he said.
All sides agreed that Ziegler did not know she was breaking the state’s code of judicial ethics while a circuit court judge in Washington County.
Ziegler appeared in court Monday, though she did not speak and declined to comment after leaving the court room.
Her attorney, James Troupis, said she did not know she had been violating the code and has already been punished.
“A penalty has been paid. A very severe price has been paid,” he said. “Don’t discount how incredibly hard the last six, eight, 10 months have been on her and her family.”
Ziegler began her 10-year term on the court Aug. 1 while the investigation continued. A little over a month later, in September, she admitted to breaking the state’s judicial code of ethics by making an “inadvertent error” when she heard cases involving a bank in which her husband was a paid board member.
Troupis said a reprimand would be appropriate, given she did not gain from the decisions, the rulings were correct, and the mistakes were not intentional.
He questioned the timing of the allegations, which surfaced during Ziegler’s successful campaign to defeat Madison attorney Linda Clifford in the April election. The contest was the most expensive ever for the state Supreme Court.
Troupis said the judges should consider this in deciding the punishment as well.
“Had there not have been a political campaign, there would not have been this scouring of everything and this finding in the first place,” he said.
The state Judicial Commission, which investigated the complaints against Ziegler, likewise recommended a reprimand. Jim Alexander, the commission’s executive director, told the panel she may not have followed the law, but it wasn’t on purpose.
“The code is clear. It’s the law. She needed to follow it. There is no excuse for her not following it,” he said. “We are saying this is utter indifference, inexcusable neglect.”
In its investigation, the Judicial Commission found that Ziegler presided over 11 cases involving the West Bend Savings Bank without disclosing her husband, J.J. Ziegler, was one of the bank’s paid directors. He’s held that position, which pays $20,000 a year, since March 1, 2001.
The state’s judicial code requires judges to withdraw from cases in which they have a significant financial interest that could raise questions about their impartiality.
The code encourages judges to recuse themselves when family members are “an officer, director or trustee of a party.” At the least, judges are supposed to disclose such potential conflicts to the parties who can decide whether to ask for a new judge.
Ziegler admitted violating conflict-of-interest standards in a settlement earlier this year with the state Ethics Board.
Troupis assured the panel she would not make such mistakes again.
Mike McCabe, director of the nonpartisan government watchdog group the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, called Monday’s hearing a “sorry spectacle.” His group brought the complaint against Ziegler to the Judicial Commission.
He said the panel seemed reluctant to punish one of its own, but the judges’ decision will affect the entire judicial system.
“What the court does in this case to a member of the highest court in the land will send an unmistakable message to the other judges,” McCabe said.
