Skip to content
  • Media Downloads
Donate
  • Donate
  • logo
  • logo
  • About the Center
    • About us
    • What we do
    • The Trust Project
    • Staff
    • Former interns and fellows: Where they are now
    • Board of Directors
    • Awards and honors
    • Funding
    • Public engagement and opinion
    • Republishing guidelines
    • Be your own watchdog
    • Subscribe to our email newsletters
    • Donate
    • Contact us
  • Contact
  • Subscribe to newsletters
  • Become a member
    • Learn more about membership
    • Join the Watchdog Club
  • Coverage areas
    • Economy
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Government
    • Justice System
    • Health
    • Opinion
  • Projects
    • Seeking a Cure: The Quest to Save Rural Hospitals
    • The Cannabis Question
    • Beyond Bail
    • Undemocratic: Secrecy and Power vs. The People
    • Countering Concussions
    • Broken Whistle
    • Failure at the Faucet
    • Documenting Hate
    • Flawed Forensics
    • State of Change
    • Cruel and Unusual?
    • Precious Lives
    • Children Left Behind
    • Scott Walker’s Wisconsin
    • Frac Sand Rush
    • Murky Waters
    • Water Watch Wisconsin
    • Losing Track
    • Groundwater Supply
    • A Frail System
    • Endocrine Disruptors
    • Rethinking Sex Offenders
    • Rural Slide
  • Be your own watchdog
  • Donate
  • Media Downloads
    • Media Downloads

WisconsinWatch.org - Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

WisconsinWatch.org (https://www.wisconsinwatch.org/2012/01/attorney-conduct-at-issue-in-gableman-dust-up/)

  • About the Center
    • About us
    • What we do
    • The Trust Project
    • Staff
    • Former interns and fellows: Where they are now
    • Board of Directors
    • Awards and honors
    • Funding
    • Public engagement and opinion
    • Republishing guidelines
    • Be your own watchdog
    • Subscribe to our email newsletters
    • Donate
    • Contact us
  • Contact
  • Subscribe to newsletters
  • Become a member
    • Learn more about membership
    • Join the Watchdog Club
  • Coverage areas
    • Economy
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Government
    • Justice System
    • Health
    • Opinion
  • Projects
    • Seeking a Cure: The Quest to Save Rural Hospitals
    • The Cannabis Question
    • Beyond Bail
    • Undemocratic: Secrecy and Power vs. The People
    • Countering Concussions
    • Broken Whistle
    • Failure at the Faucet
    • Documenting Hate
    • Flawed Forensics
    • State of Change
    • Cruel and Unusual?
    • Precious Lives
    • Children Left Behind
    • Scott Walker’s Wisconsin
    • Frac Sand Rush
    • Murky Waters
    • Water Watch Wisconsin
    • Losing Track
    • Groundwater Supply
    • A Frail System
    • Endocrine Disruptors
    • Rethinking Sex Offenders
    • Rural Slide
  • Be your own watchdog
Ethics

Attorney conduct at issue in Gableman dust-up

By Bill Lueders Bill Lueders | January 4, 2012

Bill Lueders on Money & Politics


Bill Lueders, director of the Center's Money & Politics Project, writes a weekly column.

See his archive of past columns.

Michael Gableman, the Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, has been drawing flak over revelations that he received free legal help in an ethics case from a law firm representing clients with past and pending cases before the court.

The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a nonpartisan watchdog group, has filed ethics complaints against Gableman with the Wisconsin Judicial Commission and state Government Accountability Board.

Participants in ongoing redistricting cases involving the law firm, Michael Best & Friedrich, are asking that Gableman recuse himself or be disqualified. And Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne has asked the court to revisit its decision to uphold Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s collective bargaining law, a case in which Gableman sided with Michael Best.

Critics say Gableman’s fee arrangement, under which Michael Best would get paid only if Gableman won his case (he didn’t), violates a judicial rule against accepting gifts from lawyers or firms that “have come or are likely to come before the judge.” A separate state ethics rule bars public officials from accepting “anything of value” for free because of their position.

The value of legal services provided to Gableman by Michael Best between 2008 and 2010, when the justice was charged with an ethics violation for running misleading campaign ads, has been estimated in the tens of thousands of dollars.

But, as the saying goes, it takes two to tango. If Gableman’s receipt of legal services from Michael Best violated state ethics rules, what can be said about Eric McLeod, the Michael Best lawyer who entered into this agreement?

Plenty, as it turns out.

Monroe Freedman, a nationally recognized expert on legal ethics at Hofstra Law School in New York, says in an interview that he believes McLeod is in violation of an ethics rule against “knowingly assist(ing) a judge or judicial officer” in improper conduct. He also feels the attorney may have run afoul of the rule requiring competent representation.

In addition, Freedman suggests that McLeod violated the rule against attorneys engaging in “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”

According to a Nov. 28 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article by veteran reporter Patrick Marley, “McLeod said Gableman had a standard billing agreement with the law firm and has paid that bill.” Michael Best general counsel Jonathan Margolies subsequently wrote the court to set the record straight — that, aside from Gableman’s paying for out-of-pocket legal costs, “no bill for attorneys’ fees was sent and none were paid.”

Freedman calls McLeod’s initial statement, if accurately reported, “at best misrepresentation and therefore a serious violation.”

The Office of Lawyer Regulation, an arm of the Supreme Court, can initiate an investigation into attorney misconduct on its own accord or in response to a filed grievance, director Keith Sellen says. The office won’t say if an investigation is under way.

McLeod did not respond to requests for comment. Margolies sent a brief reply to an email outlining the alleged violations: “Michael Best believes that in filing the letter with the Supreme Court, the firm has met its ethical obligations to the bar and the court. We have no further comment.”

According to Margolies’ letter, Michael Best’s arrangement with Gableman provided that payment for services “would be contingent upon the recovery of fees pursuant to Wis. Stat. 757.99.” The wording of this statute seems to require the judge to incur expenses, which are then repaid; Gableman’s arrangement meant he would not in any case have to foot his legal bill.

Contingency agreements are common in personal injury cases, where the percentage payoff may greatly exceed a firm’s actual investment, but not in cases where it can, at most, get its usual rate.

Walker’s office is reviewing whether it wants McLeod involved in ongoing cases. McLeod has already resigned from a committee that advises the governor — on judicial selections.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
X

Republish this article

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You are welcome to republish our articles for free using the following ground rules.

  • Credit should be given, in this format: “By Dee J. Hall, Wisconsin Watch”
  • If published online, you must include the links from the Wisconsin Watch story, and a link to wisconsinwatch.org
  • If you share the story on social media, please mention @wisconsinwatch (Twitter, Facebook and Instagram)
  • Don’t sell the story — that is, the story may not be marketed as an individual product.
  • Don’t sell ads against the story. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
  • Any website our stories appear on must include a prominent and effective way to contact you.
  • If we send you a request to change or remove Wisconsin Watch content from your site, you must agree to do so immediately.
  • Sources of any additional elements that are packaged with Wisconsin Watch content must be clearly labeled.
  • When possible, include the following: Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative reporting organization that focuses on government integrity and quality of life issues in Wisconsin.
  • Users can republish our photos, illustrations, graphics and other multimedia elements ONLY with the stories with which they originally appeared. You may not separate any multimedia element from the story for standalone use. 

For questions regarding republishing rules please contact Andy Hall, executive director, at ahall@wisconsinwatch.org

Attorney conduct at issue in Gableman dust-up

by Bill Lueders, WisconsinWatch.org
January 4, 2012

1

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

About Bill Lueders

Bill Lueders

Bill Lueders was reporter, editor and Money and Politics Project director for the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism from 2011 to 2015.

  • More by Bill

Support WisconsinWatch.org

The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism is a nonprofit organization. If you value our work, please help support it.

Donate
The nonprofit Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism (www.WisconsinWatch.org) collaborates with Wisconsin Public Radio, Wisconsin Public Television, other news media and the UW-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication. All works created, published, posted or disseminated by the Center do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates.

Read This Next

  • Locals lose their tower power

    A provision passed in last year’s state budget bill greatly restricts the ability of local communities in Wisconsin to reject broadcast towers. Any denial must now be based solely on public health or safety concerns, backed with “substantial written evidence.”

    Share this:

    • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
    • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism is a nonprofit organization.

If you value our work, please help support it.

Donate
  • Topics
    • Economy
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Government
    • Health
    • Justice System
  • Projects
    • Seeking a Cure
    • The Cannabis Question
    • Beyond Bail
    • Undemocratic
    • Countering Concussions
    • Failure at the Faucet
    • Broken Whistle
    • Flawed Forensics
    • Losing Track
    • Cruel and Unusual?
    • Children Left Behind
    • Precious Lives
    • Frac Sand Rush
    • A Frail System
    • Endocrine Disruptors
    • Rethinking Sex Offenders
    • Rural Slide
    • Dairyland Diversity
  • About the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism
    • What we do
    • Awards and honors
    • Republishing guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Diversity
    • Funding
    • Pitch guidelines for freelancers
    • Corrections and clarifications
    • Media downloads
    • Newsletter archives
  • Our People
    • Staff
    • Board of Directors
    • Journalism Advisory Board

Our Mission

To increase the quality, quantity and understanding of investigative journalism to foster an informed citizenry and strengthen democracy.

  • Our Impact
    • Track our stories
    • Stories making a difference
Contact

Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism
Fifth Floor, Vilas Hall
821 University Ave
Madison, WI 53706

608-262-3642

info@wisconsinwatch.org

Send Us A Tip

Search This Site

Browse Archives

© Copyright 2019, Wisconsin Watch from WisconsinWatch.org

WisconsinWatch.org is a member of the Institute for Nonprofit News

Built with the Largo WordPress Theme from the Institute for Nonprofit News.

Back to top ↑

Cancel