Mr. Murphy,
I appreciate your analysis of the interplay between the jurisdictions of the State Ethics Board and the Judicial Commission.
I am a former member of the Judicial Commission, appointed by the Supreme Court to one of the two designated “attorney” seats.
One sentence of the column is inaccurate as written (or misleading, at best), and I take exception to its conclusion.
You wrote: “Thirdly, lawyers who dominate the Judicial Commission and Office of Lawyer Regulation often tend to be kinder in judging their peers.”
Actually, lawyers do not dominate the Judicial Commission. Of the nine members, only two lawyers serve on the Commission; five non-lawyer citizens are appointed by the Governor and two judges are appointed by the Supreme Court. Indeed, all three branches of government are involved in the selection of members: five gubernatorial appointees confirmed by the Senate and four Supreme Court appointees are recommended by a committee to the whole Court for consideration and approval.
I think your conclusion that lawyers on the Commission “tend to be kinder in judging their peers” is overreaching and wholly unfair. First, as a lawyer I am not one of the judges’ “peers.” Secondly, my oath required me to be fair and responsible to the Code’s provisions and the public’s expectation that due process be honored. I did not “tend to be kinder;” I applied the facts of the case presented in a complaint to the Code provision being considered as being violated.
The initial proceedings are carried out in private as your column implies. This process allows for commissioners to investigate and discuss the cases candidly with each other, free from public interpretations or accusations of such judgments as being “kinder in judging” any particular judicial officer.
Wisconsin can be proud that, overall, the judges in this state comport and conduct themselves in the manner that the citizenry expects. And the Wisconsin citizenry can be proud that this state has a judicial commission process that works well when the rare but necessary investigation of a member of the judiciary is required.
Best regards,
Hannah C. Dugan
