Wisconsin residents have little reason for hope in the integrity of the state's judicial system when one of the State Supreme Court justices is allowed to continue to serve in spite of "serious and significant" ethical lapses as a judge.
Justice Annette Ziegler, elected to a 10-year term to the court in 2007, was given a public reprimand last week by her peers on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. It was a first for the court. But Ziegler's penalty for repeated conflicts of interest while serving as a circuit judge in Washington County could have been worse. She could have been suspended or removed from the court.
Ziegler ruled in favor of West Bend Savings Bank in several cases she heard between 2001 and last year, while her husband was a paid director. Though Ziegler did not gain financially from any of the rulings, the conflict of interest is incredibly clear. That Ziegler did not recognize it, or simply chose to ignore it, brings into serious question her credibility as a judge.
The Supreme Court acknowledged as much when it said Ziegler's "serious and significant" offense diminished public confidence in the legal system.
In the judicial system, there should be no room for "serious and significant" ethical lapses by those charged with administering justice. They should be dealt with swiftly and severely.
A public reprimand, while embarrassing, is not severe punishment.
"The discipline will be seen by the public as nothing more than a slap on the wrist," said Mike McCabe, director of the watchdog group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which filed the complaint against Ziegler. McCabe argued that suspension or removal from office would have been more appropriate.
He's right. The State Supreme Court is no place for a public servant to work to regain her credibility.
The Supreme Court did not make the decision to simply reprimand Ziegler alone. The punishment was recommended by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission and a three-judge Judicial Conduct Panel.
Which makes the outcome of the case against Ziegler even more troubling. While their "slap on the wrist" doesn't endorse ethical wrongdoing, it does signal that justices can do "serious and significant" damage to the public's confidence in the court and still keep their jobs.
That's a slap in the face to the public that must trust in fair and unbiased justice.
Justice Annette Ziegler, elected to a 10-year term to the court in 2007, was given a public reprimand last week by her peers on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. It was a first for the court. But Ziegler's penalty for repeated conflicts of interest while serving as a circuit judge in Washington County could have been worse. She could have been suspended or removed from the court.
Ziegler ruled in favor of West Bend Savings Bank in several cases she heard between 2001 and last year, while her husband was a paid director. Though Ziegler did not gain financially from any of the rulings, the conflict of interest is incredibly clear. That Ziegler did not recognize it, or simply chose to ignore it, brings into serious question her credibility as a judge.
The Supreme Court acknowledged as much when it said Ziegler's "serious and significant" offense diminished public confidence in the legal system.
In the judicial system, there should be no room for "serious and significant" ethical lapses by those charged with administering justice. They should be dealt with swiftly and severely.
A public reprimand, while embarrassing, is not severe punishment.
"The discipline will be seen by the public as nothing more than a slap on the wrist," said Mike McCabe, director of the watchdog group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which filed the complaint against Ziegler. McCabe argued that suspension or removal from office would have been more appropriate.
He's right. The State Supreme Court is no place for a public servant to work to regain her credibility.
The Supreme Court did not make the decision to simply reprimand Ziegler alone. The punishment was recommended by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission and a three-judge Judicial Conduct Panel.
Which makes the outcome of the case against Ziegler even more troubling. While their "slap on the wrist" doesn't endorse ethical wrongdoing, it does signal that justices can do "serious and significant" damage to the public's confidence in the court and still keep their jobs.
That's a slap in the face to the public that must trust in fair and unbiased justice.
