November
2007
Cashing in on Conflicts of Interest: Justice Annette Ziegler
Todays Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel points out that State Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler is recusing herself from some of the cases that come before her.
Key word “some”.
Ziegler doesn’t deserve a medal. Before being elected to her current position on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Ziegler heard cases where she had a direct financial conflict of interest and ruled against the parties who were before her asking for justice.
Here’s how the Journal-Sentinel described the case:
On Monday, the panel of three appeals judges will hold a hearing in West Bend on Ziegler’s handling of cases as a Washington County circuit judge. Ziegler handled 11 cases involving West Bend Savings Bank, where her husband, J.J., earns $20,000 a year as a director. Judicial rules say judges must step aside in such cases unless they disclose the matter and all the parties involved say they approve of their hearing the matter.
After Ziegler was elected, she admitted wrongdoing in a settlement with the state Ethics Board and agreed to pay a $5,000 forfeiture and about $12,000 in attorney fees for the state.
In a separate investigation covering some of the same cases, the Judicial Commission concluded Ziegler should be publicly reprimanded. Ziegler has agreed that punishment would be appropriate. The panel of appeals judges will make its own recommendation to the Supreme Court.
By cashing in, Ziegler permanently sullied herself as a judge and showed she has a problem understanding the basic concepts of both fairness and justice.
Ziegler brought these problems on all by herself. Her partisan proponents have been claiming she’s some sort of victim but even in her political campaign she showed poor judgement. It started out when she took a picture in front of the Washington county courthouse and her campaign used Adobe Photoshop to show her in front of the signs of several counties. The problem was it was the same picture. The building behind her was the same and the shape of the sign was the same — the only thing that was changed was the words. I’ll admit, I had a little fun with this on Watchdog Milwaukee. One good piece of photoshop creativity deserves another right?
Fast forward to the present and Ziegler has taken $8625 from the Wisconsin Realtors Association‘s political action committee. She’s recused herself in one case, yet another hasn’t stated whether she’ll recuse herself in the other.
For Ziegler, this has the scent of West Bend Savings Bank all over it. Despite the fact that she’s still under scrutiny for her past wrongdoing, she’s not automatically recusing herself where she has a present conflict. It is unfortunate for Ziegler, but even more unfortunate for the public when someone entrusted with such a high profile seat in the judicial system cannot grasp the basic concepts of justice.
Ziegler should step aside in those cases where she’s bellying up to the bar for a shot of campaign cash. Justice isn’t a game and the Supreme Court isn’t a playground. It’s not her place to stand in judgement in a case where she’s been accepting handouts from one of those in front of her.
Imagine if you had a case in front of her and the opposing side was her pal. And what if you, like others who have had their cases before her, didn’t know about her conflicts. If she’ll stand in judgement of you on that day, who’s to say she didn’t make a call the previous day to her pals telling them not to worry — that since they’ve covered her back, she’ll cover theirs. After all, that would be a simple case of loyalty right? Helping the person who helped you, on the surface at least, seems like the right thing to do.
Well the realtors are upset. They don’t want her to recuse herself on cases involving realtors and Ziegler. They shelled out their money, now they want their payday.
It’s a simple fact in a capitalistic society — you don’t get something for nothing.
Jim McGuigan
Best post yet. Keep up the good work Jim!
Not to mention that her husband is a “real estate developer”…she should recuse on all real estate cases.
If you lie on your application and you later get caught, the company can and does fire people. How is this different with Ziegler?
Great “Anonymous” post. Are you living in a bubble? The only reason Ziegler was elected is she was the stronger of the two candidates. Clifford was an unqualified political hack. Talk about donations? How about donations of Clifford: Democratic Party, Bill Clinton, Doyle, Falk, Feingold, Baldwin, Chvala, etc. Not bad for someone who “resigned” from the Democratic party. Bring a strong, qualified, candidate, that won’t legislate from the bench….And you would need to cry in your beer.
sorry typo…
And you would NOT need try cry in your beer.
e_man262:
So you think its alright for judges to break the rules? Her campaign also broke the rules…see One Wisconsin Now.
If judges don’t have to follow the rules then no one does.
You may want a crooked judge to handle your case, but I don’t.
E_man does have a point: Clifford was a terrible candidate who Doyle left standing in line when he appointed Louis Butler, the kind of judge everyone can be proud of. She and her husband were (and remained) bigtime contributors to the Doyle campaign, which gave all appearances of Clifford, a fine Madison lawyer otherwise, of attempting to buy a supreme court seat. Democrats had expended an awful lot of time and resources reelecting Doyle, winning the state Senate back and closing the gap in the Assembly, and the party powers that be (Doyle for one) just let Clifford have her go. She was never able to build enough of support to win against an elected Washington County judge who could at least say she had some experience, however compromised Ziegler was.
Ziegler misled voters about these conflicts throughout the campaign, however, and it probably seems like the thing to do to limit her cases, given that there really isn’t much political pressure that can be levied on a judge with a ten-year term. Is it really too much to trust a hope that she might turn out to be independent-minded? David Prosser has transformed on the bench.
We can only hope that in the madness of the 2008 elections, Dems don’t lose sight of the 2009 spring elections, when Louis Bulter will be asking for votes from voters outside of Milwaukee for the first time. No African American has ever won a statewide election, to state the obvious, but that shouldn’t be a problem for Butler if his race gets some dedicated, smart (read non negative) focus from the various election resources.
Ziegler’s a Supreme Court judge now, not a creature of party politics. Letting it be wouldn’t do any damage to the common law, would keep some mud out of the high court and might help dignify the atmosphere around judicial campaigns when it comes time for Butler’s race. A clean judicial race – it could happen here!
Annette Ziegler’s dirty campaign, funded by sleazy business organizations and large law firms will haunt her and Wisconsin until she leaves. It’s already a problem with her recusing herself in cases where her big donors are parties to matters before the court.
Likewise, what of all the fund-raising parties thrown for Ziegler by big law firms. And what of the current big firm lawyers representing her in court? All these groups should be banned from appearing before her because of the gross conflicts of interest. She is a judicial tar-baby and that will not change until she resigns or is booted off the court. Let’s hope that day comes soon.
Mary Claire: What do you mean by tar-baby? That is quite a derogatory term these days. Please explain without the racial epithet.
No good can come of further politicizing the high court. Charlie Sykes has already begun to counter One Wisconsin Now’s misguided Ziegler focus by raising questions about other judges, Butler included, insisting that their teachers’ union support disqualifies them from education-related cases. Does anyone remember the 1990′s? Justice Anne Walsh Bradley recused herself in 1995 from the parental school choice case because (or so she claimed) she had accepted contributions from WEAC when winning the seat earlier in the year. The result was the 3-3 deadlock on the legality of choice that led to a 1997 revote and the 4-2 ruling that legalized the program. Yes, she recused herself that time too. If Justice Bradley rules in 1995, the program is radically different today, if it would exist at all.
There are more than enough legislative and other elections out there, including some interesting local ones coming up, to keep campaign consultant types and soft money-funded politicos busy through spring 2009. There is no currency to be had in muddying up an elected supreme court judge or in inviting politicization to the high court. The Left threatens its own justices ability to rule on cases by pressing the point, and the public can’t stomach a politicized judiciary. Once the robes are on, the politics die, and the cynics and politicos have to find other work. Our system is based on this reality.
The Left would serve itself well by letting Ziegler be and finding other things to do. The progressive gang in Madison that gave us Clifford might also ask itself whether anybody in Eau Claire, LaCrosse, Kenosha, Racine or Milwaukee cares about this stuff. Ziegler won quite handily, after all.