Title: Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. Kachinsky

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2019 WI 82 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2018AP628-J 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against the Honorable Leonard D. 
Kachinsky 
 
Wisconsin Judicial Commission, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
the Honorable Leonard D. Kachinsky, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KACHINSKY 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 9, 2019 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
      
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
      
 
COUNTY: 
      
 
JUDGE: 
      
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the complainant, there were briefs filed by Jeremiah 
Van Hecke and The Wisconsin Judicial Commission, Madison.  
 
 For the respondent, there were a briefs filed by Leonard 
D. Kachinksy, Neenah.  
 
 
 
2019 WI 82
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2018AP628-J 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against the Honorable Leonard D. 
Kachinsky: 
 
Wisconsin Judicial Commission, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
The Honorable Leonard D. Kachinsky, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 9, 2019 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
JUDICIAL disciplinary proceeding.  Judge suspended from 
eligibility for reserve judge status with condition.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   We review, pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 757.91 (2017-18),1 a judicial conduct panel's findings of fact, 
                                                 
1 Wisconsin Statute § 757.91 (2017-18) provides: 
The supreme court shall review the findings of 
fact, conclusions of law and recommendations under s. 
757.89 and determine  appropriate discipline in cases 
of misconduct and appropriate action in cases of 
permanent disability.  The rules of the supreme court 
(continued) 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
2 
 
conclusions of law, and recommendation for discipline for the 
Honorable Leonard D. Kachinsky, a former municipal judge for the 
Village of Fox Crossing Municipal Court.  We conclude that Judge 
Kachinsky's judicial misconduct warrants a three-year suspension 
of eligibility for the position of reserve municipal judge, 
commencing July 3, 2018, with the condition that before 
requesting an appointment by the chief judge to serve as a 
reserve municipal judge, Judge Kachinsky must successfully 
petition this court to establish his fitness to serve in that 
capacity.   
¶2 
Beginning in 1997, Judge Kachinsky served as a 
municipal judge for 21 years, first for the Town of Menasha 
Municipal Court and then for the Village of Fox Crossing 
Municipal Court.  On July 3, 2018, this court, in the exercise 
of its superintending and administrative authority over the 
courts of this state, issued an order prohibiting Judge 
Kachinsky from exercising the powers of a municipal judge until 
further order of this court.  Judge Kachinsky did not seek 
reelection in the 2019 spring election.  Consequently, his term 
as the Village of Fox Crossing Municipal Judge expired on April 
30, 2019.  Judge Kachinsky's years of service would ordinarily 
render him eligible to serve as a reserve municipal judge 
pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 800.065.   
                                                                                                                                                             
applicable to civil cases in the supreme court govern 
the review proceedings under this section. 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
3 
 
¶3 
The Wisconsin Judicial Commission originally received 
an ethics complaint concerning Judge Kachinsky in June 2017.  
When the Commission notified Judge Kachinsky that it was 
investigating allegations of possible misconduct a few weeks 
later, it advised him that he should "scrupulously avoid 
retaliatory conduct or witness intimidation."   
¶4 
On April 4, 2018, the Judicial Commission filed a 
formal complaint against Judge Kachinsky in this court.  The 
Judicial Commission's complaint alleged multiple violations of 
the Code of Judicial Conduct (Chapter 60 of the Supreme Court 
Rules (SCR)).  Judge Kachinsky's answer admitted many of the 
factual allegations in the complaint, but denied others or 
offered explanations for his conduct.  The Judicial Commission 
filed an amended complaint in September 2018, in response to 
which Judge Kachinsky filed an amended answer.   
¶5 
After the initial complaint had been filed, this court 
referred the matter to the chief judge of the court of appeals, 
who appointed three members of the court of appeals to serve as 
the Judicial Conduct Panel.2  See Wis. Stat. § 757.87(3).  The 
Panel conducted an evidentiary hearing on February 7-8, 2019.  
The Judicial Commission called a number of employees of the 
Village 
of 
Fox 
Crossing 
as 
witnesses. 
 
Judge 
Kachinsky 
represented himself and testified at the hearing.   
                                                 
2 Judges Joan F. Kessler, Mark D. Gundrum, and William W. 
Brash, III were appointed to serve as the Judicial Conduct 
Panel, with Judge Kessler acting as the presiding judge. 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
4 
 
¶6 
Following the hearing, the Panel issued its Findings 
of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation.  This court 
ordered the parties to file simultaneous opening briefs and 
response briefs regarding the Panel's findings and conclusions.  
The parties did so.   
¶7 
The allegations of judicial misconduct in this matter 
fall under three headings.  Most of the allegations of 
misconduct relate to Judge Kachinsky's interactions with M.B., 
the full-time manager for the Village of Fox Crossing Municipal 
Court.  The second category of allegations are related to an 
email that Judge Kachinsky sent to a member of the village board 
regarding 
his 
interactions 
with 
members 
of 
the 
village 
administration and the village's filing of a complaint with the 
Judicial Commission.  The third category of allegations relates 
to an email that Judge Kachinsky sent to the village's police 
chief regarding a case that was pending before him.  Judge 
Kachinsky sent copies of that email to the village's attorney 
and a police records clerk, but did not send a copy to the 
defendant or defense counsel or otherwise notify the defendant 
that he had sent the email.   
Interactions with M.B. 
¶8 
The Village of Fox Crossing Municipal Court holds 
court 
sessions 
lasting 
approximately 
90-120 
minutes 
approximately three times per month on Thursday evenings.  There 
are only two individuals who worked at the municipal court 
during the relevant time period.  Judge Kachinsky held the part-
time elected position as municipal court judge.  M.B. was the 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
5 
 
full-time court manager, whose position was supervised by Judge 
Kachinsky.  The municipal court judge and the court manager 
shared a small office in the Village of Fox Crossing municipal 
building.   
¶9 
Prior to the events at issue in this proceeding, when 
a different person was the court manager, Judge Kachinsky was 
physically in the municipal court offices on a very limited 
basis, usually only arriving shortly before court sessions were 
to begin and leaving shortly after the court sessions had ended.   
¶10 Following the retirement of the prior court manager, 
Judge Kachinsky hired M.B. as the court manager in the spring of 
2016.  At the beginning of M.B.'s employment, she and Judge 
Kachinsky would have occasional conversations about their 
personal lives and developed a friendship.  They also engaged in 
occasional joint activities outside of work, such as going on a 
few runs in September and October 2016 that Judge Kachinsky 
labelled "Judge K Challenge Runs."   
¶11 Even before M.B. was hired as the municipal court 
manager, she and Judge Kachinsky had been "friends" on the 
Facebook social media website.  Each had hundreds of "friends" 
on that website, including a number of mutual "friends."   
¶12 Judge Kachinsky experienced serious medical problems 
from May 2016 to February 2017, which caused him at times to be 
hospitalized.  During this time period, Judge Kachinsky and M.B. 
communicated about both work issues and other personal matters 
in what the Judicial Conduct Panel describes as "a mutually 
friendly and supportive fashion."  In January 2017, M.B.'s 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
6 
 
mother, B.S., sent Judge Kachinsky a get well card.  Judge 
Kachinsky subsequently became Facebook "friends" with B.S.  
¶13 The interactions between Judge Kachinsky and M.B. 
became strained beginning in March 2017 due to a couple of 
incidents that M.B. found concerning.  First, in a public 
comment to a post on M.B.'s Facebook page, Judge Kachinsky 
stated that M.B. was "on her second honeymoon" at "an 
undisclosed location."  M.B. informed Judge Kachinsky that his 
comment had been incorrect, and he apologized.  When M.B. was 
back at work a few days later, Judge Kachinsky and a friend 
arrived at the municipal court office while M.B. was out of the 
office.  Judge Kachinsky then hid behind a counter.  When M.B. 
returned to the office, he popped up and shouted "roar," which 
startled 
M.B. 
 
During 
this 
visit, 
Judge 
Kachinsky 
was 
sufficiently loud and boisterous that his conduct disturbed 
nearby village employees.  In addition, a "selfie" picture was 
taken during the visit.  Following the visit, Judge Kachinsky 
sent M.B. an email, in which he stated that he hoped his visit 
had made her day and that the visit was something he was "more 
than happy to do for my best friends."  M.B. was disturbed by 
Judge Kachinsky's conduct. 
¶14 Approximately two weeks later, Judge Kachinsky asked 
M.B. 
to 
be 
in 
additional 
pictures 
of 
them 
and 
the 
office/courtroom.  M.B. declined the request.   
¶15 Having become concerned with Judge Kachinsky's conduct 
toward her, M.B. sent an email to Judge Kachinsky on April 18, 
2017, in which she stated that it would help her focus on her 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
7 
 
job if they kept their relationship work-related.  Judge 
Kachinsky, however, did not want to limit their relationship to 
matters concerning M.B.'s job.  In an April 20, 2017 email, he 
agreed to minimize discussion of non-business matters during 
business hours.  He indicated that he wanted to continue having 
discussions about matters in their everyday personal lives.  
That same day Judge Kachinsky sent two additional emails to M.B.  
The first stated, among other things, that he really liked to 
stop by the office at least once a week.  The second email, sent 
later in the afternoon, indicated that Judge Kachinsky had 
stopped by the municipal court office that day and stated that 
"[i]t was nice to talk with you in person today."  The very next 
day Judge Kachinsky sent yet another email.  In that email Judge 
Kachinsky expressed that he had been upset because he sensed a 
problem in their relationship, but that when he had stopped by 
the office the day before, it had been "like old times."  He 
continued that "[i]t is complicated because I am both the boss 
and a close friend."   
¶16 On Saturday, April 22, 2017, Judge Kachinsky sent M.B. 
an email stating that he would not bring in treats to the office 
except on birthdays because M.B. had expressed concern about 
having recently gained some weight while on a trip. 
¶17 Three days later Judge Kachinsky told M.B. that he 
knew her mother had visited her house the preceding weekend 
because he had seen her mother's location on a "Nearby Friends" 
application on Facebook.  Judge Kachinsky testified at the 
evidentiary hearing that he had not intentionally sought this 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
8 
 
information, which had automatically appeared on his cell phone, 
and that he had told M.B. about it so that she could make her 
mother aware that her cell phone was broadcasting information 
about her location to others on the Facebook website.  The 
disclosure of this information, however, was upsetting to M.B.  
The Judicial Conduct Panel noted that M.B. became visibly upset 
when describing this event during the evidentiary hearing.   
¶18 That same day Judge Kachinsky sent M.B. another email 
stating that he was "always open to resuming the Judge K 
Challenge [Runs] if it fits in your schedule once a month or 
so."  He continued that "[t]he exercise is good but the personal 
rapport aspect of it is actually more important."   
¶19 Judge Kachinsky's emails and his disclosure about 
knowing the location of M.B.'s mother upset M.B. sufficiently 
that they led her to lodge a complaint against Judge Kachinsky 
with the village's Human Resources Manager, Lisa Malone.  After 
the complaint, the Village Manager, Jeffrey Sturgell, had a 
telephone conversation with Judge Kachinsky in which he advised 
Judge Kachinsky that M.B. was overwhelmed by Judge Kachinsky's 
non-work communications.  Sturgell believed that Judge Kachinsky 
agreed to change his behavior because he did not want to lose 
M.B. as an employee.   
¶20 On May 4, 2017, the day after Sturgell spoke with 
Judge Kachinsky, Malone met with Judge Kachinsky and M.B.  
Malone explained to Judge Kachinsky the concerns with his 
behavior.  During the meeting the participants developed a 
number of guidelines, including that no personal information 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
9 
 
about colleagues would be shared on social media, that all phone 
and email communications would be related to business matters, 
and that Judge Kachinsky would limit his visits to the office to 
one time per week.   
¶21 The 
Judicial 
Conduct 
Panel 
found 
that 
at 
the 
conclusion of this meeting it should have been clear to Judge 
Kachinsky that he was expected to limit his communications with 
M.B. to work-related matters.  Judge Kachinsky, however, ignored 
the guidelines that had been developed.  Indeed, his subsequent 
conduct indicated that he was upset as a result of the meeting 
and was determined to express his displeasure to M.B. and to 
reject any limitation on communications to work-related matters.  
¶22 On the following Monday, just three days after the 
meeting, Judge Kachinsky sent M.B. an email that began with 
personal information about what Judge Kachinsky had done over 
the weekend.   
¶23 On three occasions during that week, Judge Kachinsky 
came to the municipal court offices.  He sat close to M.B.'s 
desk, facing her.  He did nothing except tap his pen and make 
"cat noises."  On one visit, Judge Kachinsky continued this 
extremely odd behavior for 45 minutes.  During one of the 
visits, Judge Kachinsky also told M.B. a story about a dog being 
raped and then repeated the story a second time.   
¶24 On Thursday of that week, Judge Kachinsky sent an 
email to M.B. discussing their personal relationship that made 
it clear he would not abide by any work-related limitations.  He 
claimed 
that 
"some 
short 
general 
conversation 
about 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
10 
 
interpersonal difficulties is really work related as we have to 
get along well as personal and professional friends to do our 
best."  He also referenced an evaluation of M.B. that he would 
be completing in the next week.     
¶25 On Thursday, May 24, 2017, Judge Kachinsky sent 
another email to M.B., in which he inquired about having a party 
to celebrate his overcoming a medical problem that the two of 
them had discussed at the end of 2016.  M.B. replied that they 
did not need to have a meeting about such a party, but Judge 
Kachinsky continued to ask for her input about such a party, 
including through an email sent to her home email account.  In 
that same email, Judge Kachinsky again brought up their personal 
relationship, 
acknowledging 
that 
it 
was 
strained, 
which 
concerned him.  He asked if there was something either of them 
could do that would "bring back the happy relationship that 
existed from May 2016-March 2017."  
¶26 M.B. sent a response email that having Judge Kachinsky 
come into the office to discuss plans for this party "puts me on 
the spot," which she did not want.  This prompted a reply from 
Judge Kachinsky.  In the reply, Judge Kachinsky acknowledged 
that he had made her uncomfortable and lamented the loss of 
their discussions of personal matters:  "I miss the short 
discussions we had on how our households functioned and other 
things that friends talk about.  I hope I have not blown that 
forever."  Early the next day, which was the Friday prior to 
Memorial Day, Judge Kachinsky sent another email stating that he 
had decided not to have the party, but suggesting that they and 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
11 
 
their families could have a "get-together" at some point over 
the summer.   
¶27 That same day, Village Manager Sturgell learned of 
Judge Kachinsky's ongoing attempts to initiate personal, non-
work conversations with M.B.  Sturgell and the village's 
attorney had a telephone conversation with Judge Kachinsky, 
explained 
potential 
violations 
of 
the 
village's 
policy 
prohibiting harassment in the workplace, advised him of the need 
to maintain professional decorum at work, and told him to cease 
communicating with M.B. about personal matters.   
¶28 Judge Kachinsky sent M.B. an email over the ensuing 
weekend, in which he stated that he wanted to "hit the reset 
button."  He claimed that it had not been clear to him that M.B. 
wished to avoid after-hours activities with him.  He stated that 
he now understood, but he chastised M.B. for not telling him 
directly.  He then expressed that he still believed discussion 
of personal matters was necessary: 
My main concern is that a "work only" discussion 
policy should not preclude normal "water cooler" 
discussion of things like the Packers, Badgers, child 
graduations, children having children, recent vacation 
adventures, etc.  I need to know what you consider to 
be "over the line." . . . Walking on eggshells during 
what should be relaxed casual conversations is not 
good for productivity or mental health.  Your ideas on 
this are welcome. 
Judge Kachinsky also complained about the fact that M.B. had 
"defriended" him on Facebook, encouraged her to reverse that 
decision, and stated that he wanted to "start over" with "new 
rules."  He claimed that being able to view her personal 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
12 
 
Facebook page allowed him to know what was going on in her life 
that might impact her job performance and avoided the need for 
him to ask her "the usual question about how vacation or the 
weekend went."   
¶29 When 
Village 
Manager 
Sturgell 
learned 
of 
Judge 
Kachinsky's email over the Memorial Day weekend, he sent a 
letter to Judge Kachinsky pointing out that he had violated the 
village's direction not to discuss the personal relationship 
with M.B. and reminding him that he was not to engage in any 
communications with her that went beyond work matters. 
¶30 Approximately two weeks later Judge Kachinsky sent an 
email to M.B. entitled "Rule Violation."  Judge Kachinsky 
acknowledged that the email "violate[d] every principle we have 
talked about regarding office conduct the last few weeks," but 
that he was sending it despite that fact.  The email continued, 
"Feel free to report me to HR.  I feel spunky this morning." 
¶31 Judge Kachinsky's focus on his relationship with M.B. 
continued.  On June 22, 2017, he sent another email to her 
suggesting that they "have a beer or wine summit . . . to 
discuss the relationship issue."  He suggested this "summit" 
would be an occasion to "end the strict restrictions on no non-
work related discussions and replace it with use of respect and 
common sense."   
¶32 Two days later Judge Kachinsky sent yet another email 
to M.B.  This time, however, he sent it to her personal email 
account because it involved some personal items and he wanted to 
"keep it off a government computer."  He sent another email 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
13 
 
later that same day, which was entitled "[M.B.] and Judge K 
Relationship Rules effective 6-26-2017."  Included in that email 
were a set of "rules" that Judge Kachinsky was imposing for 
specific categories of "activities."  For example, under the 
activity 
"In-chambers 
conversations," 
the 
rule 
stated 
as 
followed:  "To be work-related.  However, can briefly discuss 
outside activities (weekend and vacation plans, etc.) when does 
not interfere with work activities.  [']Treats' to be brought in 
only on birthdays."  Under "Out of office and after hours 
activities," the rule stated, "Christmas only for exchange of 
gifts etc.  Initiation of any other activities by [M.B.] only 
(Judge K Challenge Runs, wine at Holidays, etc.)."  The chart 
also had rules for activities labeled "Professional friendship" 
and "Personal friendship."  For the latter, the rule stated, 
"Yes but not 'besties' and subject to limits above."   
¶33 On June 26, 2017, Judge Kachinsky sent an email to 
Human Resources Manager Malone, in which he claimed that the 
seven incidents about which M.B. had complained were "minor" and 
that her unwillingness to accept his view of how their 
relationship should work would be detrimental to the municipal 
court office.  His email stated that he preferred not to work 
with "such a person any longer than possible."  He suggested 
that Malone should advise M.B. to "give a little bit on the 
work-only thing."  If M.B. did not do so, he stated that "[t]he 
alternative for me is to exercise my authority under Sec. 
755.10(1) to terminate employment."  The email stated that Judge 
Kachinsky had communicated with other individuals about the 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
14 
 
municipal 
court 
manager 
position, 
discussed 
a 
possible 
termination date for M.B., and stated that Judge Kachinsky had a 
plan for obtaining resumes and quickly hiring a replacement 
manager.  On June 29, 2017, Judge Kachinsky sent another email 
to Malone stating that while he had not made a final decision on 
whether to fire M.B., she had until 5:00 p.m. that day to decide 
if she accepted his list of "rules" regarding their professional 
and personal relationship.  The Judicial Conduct Panel found 
that by these emails, Judge Kachinsky demonstrated that he 
believed he could terminate M.B.'s employment for declining to 
have a low-level personal relationship with him.   
¶34 Later on June 29, 2017, the village's attorney sent a 
letter to Judge Kachinsky via email, in which the attorney 
informed Judge Kachinsky that his conduct toward M.B. was a 
continued pattern of violating the village's policy against 
harassment and that his threats to terminate M.B. constituted 
retaliatory conduct, which if carried out would be a violation 
of law.  The letter once again directed Judge Kachinsky to cease 
personal communications with M.B. and to cease making threats to 
terminate her employment.  The Judicial Conduct Panel found that 
"[i]t is hard to imagine how the message could have been more 
clear; Judge Kachinsky was putting the village at risk of a 
potential lawsuit for his own personal reasons."   
¶35 Rather than take the village attorney's letter to 
heart, Judge Kachinsky elevated his conduct.  After receiving 
the letter, he posted to his Facebook page that "[t]he sh— is 
not over.  I might have an employee termination today.  Not 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
15 
 
mine."  The Judicial Conduct Panel found that while the post did 
not explicitly name M.B., the only conclusion a reader could 
draw was that M.B. was about to be fired because she was the 
only employee he supervised either at the municipal court or in 
his private law practice.   
¶36 At 12:50 a.m. on Saturday, July 8, 2017, Judge 
Kachinsky sent an email to Human Resources Manager Malone, with 
a blind copy to M.B.  The email stated that Judge Kachinsky was 
"unfriending" Malone on Facebook.  The email stated, "At least I 
told you directly.  Some cowards don't."  The Judicial Conduct 
Panel found that the "coward" reference was directed toward M.B.  
Judge 
Kachinsky 
admitted 
in 
his 
answer 
to 
the 
Judicial 
Commission's complaint that this email had been spiteful in tone 
and that his conduct in sending the email had not exhibited 
patience, dignity, or courtesy.   
¶37 A particularly disturbing event occurred on July 17, 
2017.  While alone with M.B. in the municipal court office, 
Judge Kachinsky lunged over M.B.'s desk, knocking some items off 
of it.  While he did so, Judge Kachinsky whispered to M.B., "Are 
you afraid of me now?"  This conduct frightened M.B.  The 
Judicial Conduct Panel found that this action by Judge Kachinsky 
"was an attempt to intimidate M.B. into acquiescing in his 
fixation on a personal relationship with her."   
¶38 On July 20, 2017, while the municipal court was in 
session, Judge Kachinsky told M.B. to "cool your jets" in a 
voice loud enough for Malone to hear it in the back of the 
courtroom.  The Judicial Conduct Panel found, however, that 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
16 
 
there was not clear and convincing evidence that the comment had 
been made in an aggressive or disrespectful manner.   
¶39 At the conclusion of the court session that evening, 
Judge Kachinsky ran into something on his way out of the 
courtroom, causing his arm to bleed.  Rather than find a paper 
towel to stop the bleeding, Judge Kachinsky used his pay stub 
envelope.  He then left the blood-stained envelope on his desk 
in the municipal court office, where it would be readily 
observed by M.B.  The Judicial Conduct Panel found Judge 
Kachinsky's explanation that this was simply a way to remind 
himself to buy some bandages to place in his desk to be 
unconvincing.  It determined that this was an attempt either to 
intimidate M.B. or to elicit sympathy from her.  In either 
event, it was an intentional non-verbal communication that had 
nothing to do with work.   
¶40 Later that same evening Judge Kachinsky sent M.B. an 
email once again bringing up their relationship.  The email 
contained the following statements: 
In short, if you want to restore a happy workplace, 
the first step is to stand up on your own and not use 
the Administration as a crutch. . . .   I can overlook 
what I consider poor judgment in handling a situation.  
I cannot tolerate a weakling unwilling to have free 
and 
open 
discussions 
with 
the 
boss 
(or 
insubordination). (Emphasis added.)   
¶41 As a result of Judge Kachinsky's ongoing actions, 
Village Manager Sturgell held another meeting with him on July 
26, 2017, regarding the need to keep the relationship between 
Judge Kachinsky and M.B. work-related.  After that meeting, 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
17 
 
Judge Kachinsky went to the municipal court office, dropped a 
white flag he had fashioned from some office supplies on M.B.'s 
desk, and said, "Here you go, I surrender, you win."   
¶42 Judge Kachinsky, however, was far from ending his 
campaign.  In an August 21, 2017 email to a local attorney, 
Judge Kachinsky falsely stated that M.B. was "looking for new 
employment," that there was a personality conflict between the 
two of them, and that she was not facing "imminent termination."   
¶43 On September 5, 2017, Judge Kachinsky left on his desk 
a mock letter announcing his resignation, on which he wrote 
"refused to sign."  The letter was left in a place were M.B. 
would see it.  The Judicial Conduct Panel found that Judge 
Kachinsky did this as a subtle communication to M.B. about their 
ongoing conflict.   
¶44 On October 27, 2017, Judge Kachinsky wrote a letter to 
M.B. reprimanding her for forwarding to Village Manager Sturgell 
two emails Judge Kachinsky had written to her.  The letter 
stated that she was required to discuss any concerns about the 
emails with him first and that her forwarding of the emails to 
Sturgell had constituted going "outside the chain of command 
without a good reason."   
¶45 On November 2, 2017, in the presence of both M.B. and 
Human Resources Manager Malone, Judge Kachinsky mentioned both 
Harvey Weinstein and Bill O'Reilly.  He then stated loudly, "I 
don't do that crap and you should get that through your thick 
head."  The Judicial Conduct Panel found that the comment was 
directed to both of them. 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
18 
 
¶46 The next day after this outburst, Judge Kachinsky sent 
a letter to M.B. stating that his October 27, 2017 letter of 
reprimand had been intended to be a "teaching tool to catch your 
attention."  The email contained the following statements: 
By this time next week some things are going to happen 
that will cause a lot of fire and fury at the 
Municipal Building.  No, I am not resigning.  Just be 
psychologically prepared.  Have a good weekend. 
The Judicial Conduct Panel found that this was not related to 
the work of the municipal court.  It found that the email, 
including the reference to "fire and fury," was so disturbing to 
M.B. and to village officials that the village police were 
notified.  When the village police chief interviewed Judge 
Kachinsky about the email, he giggled more than once in response 
to the police chief's questions.   
¶47 On Saturday, November 25, 2017, Judge Kachinsky sent 
yet another email to M.B., with this one bearing the subject 
line "Thanksgiving Greeting."  The email referenced a pre-
Thanksgiving email in which Judge Kachinsky had wished M.B. and 
her family a happy holiday.  Although the prior email had not 
requested a reply, Judge Kachinsky scolded M.B. for ignoring 
him.  The email also included the following statements: 
Will not spend the next 1.5 years or 5.5 years working 
with someone who actively despises me.  I have told 
you this many times.  We are approaching the end of 
the line on this. 
In addition, the email discussed the ongoing Judicial Commission 
investigation. 
 
The 
email 
concluded 
with 
the 
following 
statements: 
 
"There 
was 
an 
allegation 
missing 
from 
the 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
19 
 
additional letter from the [Judicial Commission].  Please see 
attached."  The attachment to the email was a picture of a 
kitchen sink.  At the evidentiary hearing in this proceeding, 
Judge Kachinsky admitted that the email had been sarcastic in 
tone.   
¶48 The next day Judge Kachinsky dropped off a second 
reprimand letter to M.B.  The letter reprimanded M.B. for 
allegedly making false statements that Judge Kachinsky was 
stalking or tracking her in her complaint to the human resource 
manager and village manager six months earlier.  Ultimately, 
after reviewing a grievance M.B. filed about the reprimand 
letter, Judge Kachinsky directed that the letter be removed from 
M.B.'s personnel file.   
¶49 On Saturday, December 23, 2017, Judge Kachinsky wrote 
a third letter of reprimand to M.B.  The alleged basis for this 
reprimand was M.B.'s refusal to acknowledge or return Christmas 
greetings by Judge Kachinsky and her failure to respond in a 
positive way to his efforts to improve workplace rapport.  Judge 
Kachinsky also emailed the letter to M.B.'s personal email 
account.  He subsequently prepared a post to his Facebook page, 
in which he used a sad face emoji and made the following 
comment:  "Len Kachinsky was feeling sad.  Few things are sadder 
than a co-worker who refuses to return a Merry Christmas 
greeting out of spite."  The Judicial Conduct Panel found that 
it was clear to readers of this post that it was directed to 
M.B. since she was his only co-worker/employee.   
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
20 
 
¶50 A meeting was held on December 28, 2017, that involved 
Village of Fox Crossing Police Captain Peter DeBoer, Judge 
Kachinsky, and M.B.  During the meeting, Judge Kachinsky 
disclosed detailed information about where M.B., her parents, 
her brother, and her sister lived, as well as who was the 
sister's employer and where that employer was located.  Although 
the disclosure of this personal information was obviously 
upsetting to M.B., Judge Kachinsky continued to discuss the 
detailed information.  The Judicial Conduct Panel found that a 
reasonable person would have understood Judge Kachinsky's 
disclosures to be threatening and offensive and that M.B., in 
fact, perceived them to be an effort to upset and intimidate 
her.   
¶51 In an email sent approximately one week later, Judge 
Kachinsky disclosed additional personal details about the value 
of M.B.'s home and the nature of the financing she had obtained 
to purchase the home.  The Judicial Conduct Panel found that 
there was nothing work-related about such information.   
¶52 On January 14, 2018, Judge Kachinsky sent a letter to 
M.B. that he labeled as a "Letter of Counseling: Failure to Obey 
Lawful Order."  In the letter, Judge Kachinsky recounted that he 
had asked M.B. to forward to him information she might receive 
about a farewell luncheon or party for two departing village 
police officers.  The letter said that this had been a "lawful 
order" and that her failure to forward the requested information 
to him had been "disrespectful."   
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
21 
 
¶53 Judge Kachinsky's continuing conduct toward M.B. about 
what he viewed as a failure to maintain a personal relationship 
led her to file a petition seeking a harassment injunction.  A 
Winnebago County court commissioner considered the petition and 
granted a temporary injunction on February 15, 2018.  The court 
commissioner's oral ruling stated that "All communication moving 
forward should be work-related and essential to the functioning 
of the Village of Fox Crossing Municipal Court."   
¶54 Judge Kachinsky's emails to M.B. continued despite the 
temporary injunction.  On the same day that the temporary 
injunction was issued, which was a Thursday on which a court 
session was to be held in the evening, Judge Kachinsky sent an 
email to M.B. indicating that he wanted her to observe him in a 
closed setting prior to the court session to see if he showed 
any signs of impairment.  Such observation was not part of 
M.B.'s job.  Because she was not trained to make such 
assessments, she refused Judge Kachinsky's directive/request.   
¶55 Two weeks later Judge Kachinsky sent an email to M.B. 
with a link to a newspaper article about a dispute between a 
circuit court judge and a clerk in another county.  Referencing  
that dispute, the email included the comment that "[i]t could be 
worse."  The Judicial Conduct Panel found that this email was 
not necessary or pertinent to the functioning of the municipal 
court.   
¶56 In 
June 
2018 
a 
Winnebago 
County 
circuit 
court 
conducted a de novo review of the temporary injunction.  It 
affirmed the harassment injunction and extended it until May 1, 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
22 
 
2019.  During the hearing, the circuit court judge advised Judge 
Kachinsky that the court was issuing an injunction "prohibiting 
any conduct or contact between you and [M.B.] other than that 
absolutely necessitated through the course of your employment."  
The written injunction order directed Judge Kachinsky to cease 
harassment of M.B., to have no contact with her outside of work, 
and to have no contact with M.B.'s family members.  The written 
injunction further specified that "[a]ll communications between 
Respondent and Petitioner shall be limited to what is necessary 
to perform the functions of the Village of Fox Crossing 
Municipal Court.  It further explained that "[c]ommunications 
related to the personal relationship or personal rapport between 
Respondent and Petitioner are not included in the operation of 
the court and are prohibited under this section."  (Emphasis 
added.)   
¶57 This 
permanent 
injunction 
did 
not 
cause 
Judge 
Kachinsky to cease his communications with M.B.  Over a weekend 
less than two weeks after the permanent injunction was entered, 
Judge Kachinsky left a color poster on his desk where M.B. would 
see it.  The poster had a picture of the village manager's face, 
with the following accompanying caption:  "I am from the 
government and I am here to help you.  WWRD #notmetoo."  The 
Judicial Conduct Panel found that this was reasonably perceived 
to be a communication directed toward M.B. and that it was not a 
communication related to the operation of the municipal court.   
¶58 At some point over that same weekend, Judge Kachinsky 
posted on his desk facing M.B.'s desk a copy of a page from the 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
23 
 
village's personnel policy manual, entitled "Sexual Harassment."  
On the page Judge Kachinsky had highlighted the word "sexual" 
seven times in yellow marker.  Judge Kachinsky testified at the 
evidentiary hearing that he had posted the policy to educate 
M.B. and to demonstrate to her that his conduct did not meet the  
criteria of sexual harassment.  The Judicial Conduct Panel 
found, however, that M.B. had not accused Judge Kachinsky of 
sexual harassment.  It further found that the posting of the 
policy had no demonstrated connection to the operation of the 
municipal court.   
¶59 When M.B. arrived at work the following Monday, July 
2, 2018, she observed both the poster and the copy of the sexual 
harassment policy.  M.B. believed that the two documents  
violated the terms of the harassment injunction.  Consequently, 
either she or another village employee contacted the police, who 
arrested Judge Kachinsky.3   
¶60 On July 11, 2018, the state filed a criminal complaint 
against Judge Kachinsky.  The complaint charged Judge Kachinsky 
with one count of felony stalking and two misdemeanor counts of 
violating a harassment injunction.  Shortly before the trial in 
the criminal case, the district attorney's office dropped the 
two misdemeanor counts.  The case proceeded to trial solely on 
                                                 
3 As was noted above, on July 3, 2018, this court issued an 
order in its superintending and administrative authority that 
prohibited Judge Kachinsky from exercising the powers of a 
municipal judge. 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
24 
 
the felony charge.  A jury found Judge Kachinsky not guilty of 
that felony charge.   
¶61 Based on these facts, the Judicial Conduct Panel 
concluded that Judge Kachinsky had violated SCRs 60.024 and 
60.03(1)5 in a number of ways.6  Supreme Court Rule 60.02 
requires that a judge, in every aspect of judicial behavior, 
shall "participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing 
                                                 
4 SCR 60.02 provides:  
An 
independent 
and 
honorable 
judiciary 
is 
indispensable to justice in our society. A judge 
should participate in establishing, maintaining and 
enforcing 
high 
standards 
of 
conduct 
and 
shall 
personally 
observe 
those 
standards 
so 
that 
the 
integrity and independence of the judiciary will be 
preserved. This chapter applies to every aspect of 
judicial behavior except purely legal decisions. Legal 
decisions made in the course of judicial duty on the 
record are subject solely to judicial review. 
5 SCR 60.03(1) provides:  "A judge shall respect and comply 
with the law and act at all times in a manner that promotes 
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the 
judiciary." 
6 The 
Judicial 
Commission 
further 
alleged 
that 
Judge 
Kachinsky's conduct toward M.B. also violated SCR 60.04(1)(d), 
which requires judges, in the performance of their "adjudicative 
responsibilities" to be patient, dignified, and courteous to 
litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the 
judge deals in an official capacity.  The Judicial Conduct Panel 
did not reach a decision as to whether Judge Kachinsky's conduct 
had also violated SCR 60.04(1)(d) because it would have required 
briefing 
on 
the 
scope 
of 
a 
judge's 
"adjudicative 
responsibilities" and it did not have time to receive such 
briefing and to render a decision on that issue of law.  
Consequently, we also do not do not decide whether Judge 
Kachinsky's conduct violated SCR 60.04(1)(d).  It is not 
necessary that we decide that issue in this case.   
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
25 
 
high standards of conduct and shall personally observe those 
standards . . . ."  Supreme Court Rule 60.03(1) requires that a 
judge shall "act at all times in a manner that promotes public 
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."  
The comment to that rule recognizes that "[p]ublic confidence in 
the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of 
judges" and that "[a] judge must avoid impropriety and the 
appearance of impropriety."   
¶62 Specifically, the Judicial Conduct Panel ruled that 
Judge Kachinsky had violated these two rules of judicial conduct 
by engaging in the following conduct, which the panel concluded 
had been irresponsible and improper conduct that was unbecoming 
of a judge: 
• After being told on May 4, 2017, by the village's 
human 
resource 
manager 
that 
he 
should 
limit 
communications with M.B. to work matters and should 
limit visits to the municipal court office to one time 
per week, unless otherwise needed, Judge Kachinsky 
sent several emails to M.B. that included personal 
matters; he visited the municipal court office three 
times in one week, during which he made "cat noises" 
while facing M.B.'s desk and told her a story about a 
dog being raped; he insisted that he needed to have a 
personal friendship with M.B.; and he invited her to 
participate in a non-work activity. 
• Following a May 26, 2017 phone call with the village 
manager and the village attorney during which he was 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
26 
 
again told to maintain a professional decorum at work 
and to avoid contacting M.B. regarding personal 
matters, Judge Kachinsky sent M.B. an email asking to 
"hit the reset" button on their relationship and to 
reverse her decision to "unfriend" him on Facebook. 
• Following a May 30, 2017 letter from the village 
manager again informing Judge Kachinsky not to engage 
M.B. in communications regarding non-work matters, he 
sent her emails with personal greetings, invited her 
to meet outside the office, and attempted to negotiate 
work rules that required a personal friendship as a 
condition of her employment.  He also considered 
terminating her employment for her refusal to agree to 
have a personal friendship at work and he publicly 
posted on Facebook that her employment might be 
terminated. 
• Following receipt of a June 29, 2017 letter from the 
village's attorney, Judge Kachinsky copied M.B. on an 
email in which he referred to her as a "coward," 
lunged over her desk and asked if she was now afraid 
of him, left a bloody envelope on his desk for M.B. to 
see, and directly called her a "weakling." 
• After receiving a July 21, 2017 letter from the 
Judicial Commission that cautioned him to avoid 
retaliatory conduct or witness intimidation, Judge 
Kachinsky engaged in several acts of retaliatory 
conduct, including reprimanding M.B. on three separate 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
27 
 
occasions, sent M.B. a separate "counseling letter," 
sent her the "kitchen sink" email, continued to 
threaten to terminate M.B.'s employment, sent an email 
to a local attorney misrepresenting that M.B. was 
seeking other employment, submitted a Facebook post 
that 
denigrated 
M.B. 
for 
refusing 
to 
return 
a 
Christmas greeting, and distressed M.B. by disclosing 
that he knew detailed information about her and her 
family members. 
• In the fall of 2017 Judge Kachinsky continued to 
reject 
any 
work-related 
limitations 
on 
his 
communications with M.B., including dropping a white 
flag on her desk, sending the "fire and fury" email to 
M.B., which was so disturbing to M.B. that the police 
had to become involved, and scolding her for not 
responding to his Thanksgiving greetings. 
• After a temporary harassment injunction had been 
entered against him and the court commissioner had 
told him to limit communication with M.B. to work-
related matters essential to the functioning of the 
municipal court, Judge Kachinsky sent M.B. the email 
asking her to observe him for signs of impairment 
although that was not her job, and sent her the 
February 27, 2018 email that her situation could be 
worse, like the dispute between the circuit court 
judge and the clerk of court in another county. 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
28 
 
• Finally, 
after 
having 
the 
permanent 
harassment 
injunction entered against him, which advised him that 
communication about his personal relationship with 
M.B. was not work-related and was prohibited, Judge 
Kachinsky placed the village manager's picture and 
caption on his desk and posted the village's sexual 
harassment policy, with the word "sexual" highlighted 
throughout.   
¶63 The Judicial Conduct Panel further concluded that the 
judicial code violations described above had been willful.  It 
therefore ruled that those violations constituted judicial 
misconduct pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 757.81(4)(a).     
¶64 On 
the 
other 
hand, 
the 
Judicial 
Conduct 
Panel 
concluded that Judge Kachinsky's comment to M.B. to "cool your 
jets" did not constitute a violation of SCR 60.02 or SCR 
60.03(1) because there was not clear and convincing evidence 
that the remark had been disrespectful courtroom conduct.  It 
also found that some of his other conduct did not rise to the 
level of a judicial code violation.   
Communications with Village Board Member 
¶65 The second category of allegedly improper conduct 
related to a July 14, 2017 email Judge Kachinsky sent to a 
member of the village board.  By the date of the email, Judge 
Kachinsky had been informed that an ethics complaint had been 
lodged against him with the Judicial Commission.  In the email 
to Village Board member Dale McNamee, Judge Kachinsky asked what 
role, if any, the village board had played in lodging the ethics 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
29 
 
complaint and what the board knew about his interactions with 
M.B. and the village management.  In the email, Judge Kachinsky 
stated that "if the Village is the party pursuing the complaint 
to the Judicial Commission, I think the Board should consider 
defunding it in closed session."  In the signature block in the 
email, Judge Kachinsky identified himself as a judge.   
¶66 The Judicial Conduct Panel found that although he 
identified himself as a judge in his email, Judge Kachinsky had 
not used his title to influence any action by the village board.  
Consequently, the Judicial Conduct Panel concluded that Judge 
Kachinsky had not violated SCR 60.03(2), which prohibits a judge 
from using the prestige of a judicial office to advance the 
judge's private interests.7   
Ex Parte Communication with Police Chief 
¶67 On July 24, 2017, Judge Kachinsky sent an email to the 
village's chief of police that referenced a pending municipal 
court case involving a charge of operating a motor vehicle while 
intoxicated (OWI).  Judge Kachinsky sent copies of the email to 
the village's attorney, to M.B., and to a police records clerk, 
                                                 
7 SCR 60.03(2) provides: 
A judge may not allow family, social, political 
or other relationships to influence the judge's 
judicial conduct or judgment. A judge may not lend the 
prestige of judicial office to advance the private 
interests of the judge or of others or convey or 
permit others to convey the impression that they are 
in a special position to influence the judge. A judge 
may not testify voluntarily as a character witness. 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
30 
 
but did not send a copy to the defendant or to any attorney 
representing the defendant.  In the email Judge Kachinsky 
suggested that the police chief or village attorney might want 
to speak with the prosecutor or police in a neighboring 
jurisdiction about the status of two OWI citations issued to the 
defendant in that jurisdiction.  The email explained that the 
number of prior OWI convictions impacts the nature of the 
current OWI charge and the associated penalties, and it further 
indicated that the neighboring municipality may have lost 
jurisdiction over their citations.   
¶68 The Judicial Conduct Panel found that this email had 
been for the purpose of determining whether the citations in the 
other municipality had been converted to criminal OWI offenses 
by operation of law and that the email had not been an ex parte 
communication about the proceeding pending in the Village of Fox 
Crossing Municipal Court.  The Judicial Conduct Panel stated 
that the email had not given any party a procedural or tactical 
advantage.  It therefore concluded that the Judicial Commission 
had failed to prove that Judge Kachinsky had violated SCR 
60.04(1)(g), which prohibits judges from initiating, engaging 
in, or considering ex parte communications about a pending 
action.8  The Judicial Conduct Panel determined that the email 
                                                 
8 SCR 60.04(1)(g) provides: 
A judge may not initiate, permit, engage in or 
consider ex parte communications concerning a pending 
or impending action or proceeding except that: 
(continued) 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
31 
 
had not related to the substance of the citation pending in 
Judge Kachinsky's court and that it had been sent for scheduling 
and administrative purposes.   
Recommendation Regarding Discipline 
¶69 Having determined that Judge Kachinsky had violated 
SCRs 60.02 and 60.03(1) in multiple ways in his interactions 
with M.B., the Judicial Conduct Panel turned to a discussion of 
the nature of Judge Kachinsky's misconduct and the appropriate 
level of discipline.  It noted that, as explained in the 
preamble to the Code of Judicial Conduct, both SCR 60.02 and SCR 
60.03(1) are phrased in general terms that set forth principles 
that their specific provisions are intended to foster, and 
therefore constitute touchstones against which judicial conduct 
is to be measured.  Preamble to SCR ch. 60.  Further the 
Judicial Conduct Panel stated that such code provisions require 
a judge to conduct himself or herself at all times in a manner 
                                                                                                                                                             
1. A judge may initiate, permit, engage in or 
consider 
ex 
parte 
communications 
for 
scheduling, 
administrative purposes or emergencies that do not 
deal with substantive matters or issues on the merits 
if all of the following conditions are met: 
a. The judge reasonably believes that no party 
will gain a procedural or tactical advantage as a 
result of the ex parte communication. 
b. When the ex parte communication may affect the 
substance of the action or proceeding, the judge 
promptly notifies all of the other parties of the 
substance of the ex parte communication and allows 
each party an opportunity to respond. 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
32 
 
that maintains the trust and confidence of the public in the 
judicial system.  See In the Matter of the Complaint Against 
Seraphim, 97 Wis. 2d 485, 510, 294 N.W.2d 485 (1980) ("When a 
judge, either in his official capacity or as a private citizen, 
is guilty of such conduct as to cause others to question his 
character and morals, the people not only lose respect for him 
as a man, but lose respect for the court over which he presides 
as well.").  Consequently, the Judicial Conduct Panel considered 
the degree to which the judge's personal conduct was indicative 
of the judge's lack of respect for the legal system.  Comment to 
SCR 60.03(1). 
¶70 The Judicial Conduct Panel stated that in this case, 
it took "little discussion to conclude that Judge Kachinsky's 
conduct toward [M.B.] was such that it would cause persons to 
question his character and even more so, lose respect for his 
willingness and ability to comply with and enforce restrictions 
that make this a society of laws and justice rather than one of 
selfish indulgence for a person's own desires."  The Judicial 
Conduct Panel stated that despite numerous interventions and 
directives by not only village representatives, the police, a 
circuit court commissioner, and a circuit court judge, Judge 
Kachinsky persisted in engaging in conduct contrary to those 
directives and "was driven solely by his own myopic view of what 
his work relationship with [M.B.] should be."  It further 
explained that Judge Kachinsky was charged with knowledge of the 
ethical code applicable to judges and that his violations of the 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
33 
 
code had been willful because they had been freely done in the 
absence of any duress or coercion.   
¶71 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, 
the Judicial Conduct Panel properly stated that the discipline 
imposed on a judge should be responsive to the gravity of the 
judge's misconduct and sufficient to protect the public from 
unacceptable judicial behavior, given the seriousness of the 
misconduct and the likelihood of its recurrence.  See, e.g., In 
re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gorenstein, 147 
Wis. 2d 861, 
873, 
434 
N.W.2d 603 
(1989); 
In 
re 
Judicial 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Aulik, 146 Wis. 2d 57, 77, 429 
N.W.2d 759 (1988). 
¶72 The Judicial Conduct Panel found Judge Kachinsky's 
misconduct to be aggravated.  It noted that Judge Kachinsky had 
engaged in a pattern of multiple violations of the Code of 
Judicial Conduct that had occurred over an extended period of 
time.  Further, Judge Kachinsky had repeatedly refused to modify 
his conduct, although numerous individuals and even judicial 
officials had told him that he needed to do so.  The Judicial 
Conduct Panel further found that Judge Kachinsky had used his 
position as M.B.'s supervisor to satisfy his own personal 
desires for more than a work relationship with M.B.  Finally, 
although the misconduct had occurred outside of the courtroom, 
it had occurred within the municipal court office, and the 
effect of his misconduct, including his disregard for directives 
given to him, had seeped into the administration of the village 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
34 
 
and had created a public dispute, which had damaged the public's 
respect for the judiciary.   
¶73 The Judicial Conduct Panel determined that Judge 
Kachinsky's misconduct was similar in nature and degree to that 
found in In the Matter of the Complaint Against Van Susteren, 
118 Wis. 2d 806, 815, 348 N.W.2d 579 (1984).  In that case Judge 
Van Susteren had engaged in personal conduct (refusing to comply 
with a court order to probate his brother's estate) that had 
showed a "disdain, if not outright contempt, for the very system 
which he, as a judge, has sworn to administer."  Id.  This court 
ultimately suspended Judge Van Susteren for a period of two 
years as discipline for his misconduct.  Similarly, Judge 
Kachinsky had disregarded directives and showed a disdain for 
systems put into place to avoid harassment in the workplace.   
¶74 The Judicial Conduct Panel further compared Judge 
Kachinsky's persistence in engaging in his misconduct to the 
Gorenstein case.  In that matter, Judge Gorenstein was found to 
have repeatedly made insulting and offensive comments from the 
bench to litigants, witnesses, and attorneys, as well as to have 
made false statements about a state mental health facility and 
its staff.  147 Wis. 2d at 862-63.  The judicial conduct panel 
in that case determined that Judge Gorenstein had committed 
judicial misconduct on an "aggravated and persistent basis" by 
"permitting his personal concept of justice to override the law, 
administering his office without due regard to the integrity of 
the legal system, [and] being intemperate and impatient."  Id. 
at 863.  Although Judge Gorenstein had retired from his judicial 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
35 
 
office before the commencement of the judicial disciplinary 
proceeding, this court suspended him from serving as a judge for 
a period of two years.  Id. at 863, 875. 
¶75 The Judicial Conduct Panel found that Judge Kachinsky, 
like Judge Gorenstein, had repeatedly allowed his personal 
perceptions (about the nature of his relationship with the 
municipal court manager) to interfere with his responsibilities 
as a judge, although not to the same degree that Judge 
Gorenstein had.   
¶76 Ultimately, 
although 
it 
recognized 
that 
Judge 
Kachinsky's term as the Village of Fox Crossing Municipal Judge 
was about to expire on April 30, 2019, the Judicial Conduct 
Panel stated that his removal from active judicial service did 
not insulate him from discipline.  See In the Matter of the 
Complaint 
Against 
Sterlinske, 
123 
Wis. 2d 245, 
258, 
365 
N.W.2d 876 (1985).  Given that Judge Kachinsky's years of 
service as a municipal judge would make him eligible to be 
appointed as a reserve municipal judge under Wis. Stat. 
§ 800.065, the Judicial Conduct Panel recommended that this 
court suspend him from eligibility for service as a reserve 
municipal judge for a period of at least one year and not more 
than three years.  It also recommended, in light of Judge 
Kachinsky's persistent and aggravated conduct toward M.B., that 
he be ineligible to serve as a reserve municipal judge in the 
Village of Fox Crossing Municipal Court for as long as M.B. was 
employed as the manager for that court.   
 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
36 
 
Judge Kachinsky's Response to the Judicial Conduct Panel's 
Report 
¶77 In light of the fact that Judge Kachinsky had already 
been prohibited from exercising the powers of a municipal judge, 
we modified the review process generally applicable to judicial 
conduct 
proceedings 
to 
require 
the 
parties 
to 
submit 
simultaneous opening and response briefs.   
¶78 As the Judicial Commission objected only to the level 
of discipline recommended by the Judicial Conduct Panel, we 
focus on the arguments made in Judge Kachinsky's briefs. 
¶79 Judge 
Kachinsky's 
primary 
argument 
is 
that 
the 
Judicial Conduct Panel based its report on the erroneous 
assumption that the village's Manager, Human Resources Manager, 
and attorney had authority to regulate his interaction with the 
municipal court manager.  He asserts that those individuals had 
no authority to interfere with his supervision of his clerk.  He 
points to Wis. Stat. § 755.10(1), which provides that a 
municipal judge is to appoint the clerk and other personnel 
authorized by the municipal counsel or board and that the 
hiring, 
termination, 
hours 
of 
employment, 
and 
work 
responsibilities of the court personnel are to be subject to the 
municipal judge's authority.  Judge Kachinsky asserts that 
although the statute does not explicitly state that a municipal 
judge is the supervisor of the municipal court clerk, the 
statutory designation of the municipal judge as having authority 
over hiring, termination, and work responsibilities gives the 
municipal judge the usual responsibilities of a supervisor to 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
37 
 
oversee, motivate, evaluate, and correct the performance of the 
municipal court clerk.  As further support for this proposition, 
Judge 
Kachinsky 
cites 
the 
Legislative 
Reference 
Bureau's 
analysis of 2009 Senate Bill 383 (ultimately enacted as 2009 
Wisconsin Act 402), which referenced a municipal judge's 
"supervisory authority" in the context of stating that such 
authority was a prohibited subject of collective bargaining.   
¶80 In light of his supervisory authority as the municipal 
judge, Judge Kachinsky argues that no other authority (except 
for a higher court) could interject itself into his supervision 
of court personnel.  He frames this essentially as a separation 
of powers problem, stating that having created the municipal 
court as a co-equal branch of government, the village was 
obligated to recognize the independence of the municipal court 
as a co-equal branch of government.  Thus, he asserts that the 
village had no authority to monitor his in-person conversations 
with M.B. to "protect" her from the possibility of physical or 
emotional abuse, which he says, in any event, never occurred or 
was likely to occur.  Because the village lacked any authority 
to interfere with his supervision of M.B., Judge Kachinsky 
contends that he had no obligation to follow the directives of 
the village's representatives and cannot be disciplined for 
having  failed to do so.   
¶81 Judge Kachinsky makes clear in his opening brief that 
he viewed his conduct toward M.B. as mere supervision of a 
resistant employee in an effort to "restore a level of personal 
rapport," which he continues to believe was a legitimate and 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
38 
 
laudable objective that is necessary for a workplace to perform 
effectively.  While he acknowledges that not everyone may agree 
with how he tried to accomplish that goal, he argues that he was 
free to accept or reject any "directives" issued by village 
representatives.  Indeed, he contends that he was also free to 
accept or reject M.B.'s request to avoid any communications that 
might be construed as personal by her.   
¶82 We need not decide the separation of powers issue 
raised by Judge Kachinsky.  Whether or not he was legally 
obligated to abide by the directives given by representatives of 
the village, he was obligated by the relevant provisions of the 
Code of Judicial Conduct to maintain high standards of personal 
conduct and to act in a manner that promotes the integrity of 
the judiciary.  We fail to see how staring at a court employee 
for 45 minutes while tapping a pencil and making cat noises 
constitutes the maintenance of high standards of personal 
conduct or promotes the integrity of the judiciary.  Indeed, it 
does just the opposite.  Serving the people as a judicial 
officer does not allow a judge to impose his/her every opinion 
about personal interactions on subordinate court personnel or to 
force those subordinates to be the judge's personal friends.  
Judges are entitled to ensure that their subordinate employees 
perform their work responsibilities in appropriate manners.  
Judge Kachinsky's pattern of obsessive conduct about whether 
M.B. liked him as a friend clearly passed well over the line and 
brought 
the 
municipal 
court 
he 
administered 
into 
public 
disrepute.  His repeated conduct led not only to the public 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
39 
 
entry of both temporary and permanent harassment injunctions 
against him, but ultimately resulted in his arrest and the 
lodging of criminal charges against him.  While he was acquitted 
of the single felony charge that the district attorney chose to 
take to trial, the lack of a criminal conviction on that single 
charge does not mean that he is innocent of any ethical 
violations.  The notoriety that resulted from his insistence 
that M.B. had to be not only his court clerk, but also his 
friend, certainly caused the residents of the Village of Fox 
Crossing who appeared in his court to question whether he had 
the temperament and stability to preside over their cases in a 
proper manner.  Ultimately, we need not review every action in 
the lengthy summary of Judge Kachinsky's interactions with M.B.  
We agree with the Judicial Conduct Panel that Judge Kachinsky's 
interactions with M.B., as found by the Judicial Conduct Panel, 
apart from his comment to her to "cool your jets," constituted 
violations of SCRs 60.02 and 60.03(1). 
¶83 Judge Kachinsky also objects to the Judicial Conduct 
Panel's findings that certain of his actions were meant to 
intimidate M.B. or to retaliate against her for reporting his 
conduct.  He argues that the Judicial Conduct Panel's findings 
in this regard were erroneous because his actions did not meet 
the definition of "retaliation" under federal employment law.  
We do not read the Judicial Conduct Panel's findings, however, 
as constituting legal conclusions that Judge Kachinsky had 
violated federal employment statutes or case law.  We read the 
Judicial Conduct Panel's comments about Judge Kachinsky's 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
40 
 
retaliatory actions in the vernacular sense.  Whether or not a 
judge's retaliatory conduct would be actionable under federal 
employment law, a judge should not engage in retaliation against 
subordinates 
who 
simply 
wish 
to 
limit 
their 
workplace 
interactions to work-related topics.  Reprimanding a subordinate 
employee for not returning a Christmas greeting does not 
demonstrate the maintenance and promotion of high standards of 
conduct or create public confidence in the integrity of the 
judge issuing such a petty reprimand.9  M.B. was required to 
process case files and deal with the public as a manager of the 
municipal court, not to satisfy Judge Kachinsky's personal 
opinion that employees must also be personal friends. 
¶84 Judge Kachinsky's brief also asserts that some of the 
Judicial 
Conduct 
Panel's 
findings 
of 
fact 
were 
clearly 
erroneous.  The brief then goes through the numbered findings as 
if it were an answer to a complaint.  Most of the paragraphs 
state either that Judge Kachinsky agrees with the particular 
finding or that there was sufficient support for the finding in 
the record.  Judge Kachinsky does offer comments that attempt to 
                                                 
9 In his opening brief, Judge Kachinsky acknowledges that 
his public Facebook post criticizing M.B. for not returning his 
Christmas greeting "could be regarded as public venting that was 
conduct below the high standards of a judge," but he asserts 
that it was not retaliatory or intimidating.  [Kachinsky opening 
br. at 24]  The rule at issue in this case, however, did not 
require that the conduct be retaliatory or intimidating to be a 
violation. 
 
Judge 
Kachinsky's 
focus 
on 
the 
elements 
of 
retaliatory conduct under federal employment law is therefore 
misplaced in this proceeding. 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
41 
 
explain his actions, but that does not render the Judicial 
Conduct Panel's findings of fact clearly erroneous.  We have 
reviewed Judge Kachinsky's comments and find that he has failed 
to prove that the findings of fact are clearly erroneous.   
¶85 Next Judge Kachinsky contends that his email to M.B. 
about the dispute in a circuit court in another county and his 
posting of a copy of the village's sexual harassment policy did 
not violate the harassment injunction against him, which he 
contends was not as clear as the Judicial Conduct Panel 
believed.  Again, we need not decide whether or not those 
actions 
legally 
constituted 
violations 
of 
the 
harassment 
injunction, as we are not reviewing an appeal from the 
harassment injunction proceeding.  In this matter we are 
reviewing 
whether 
Judge 
Kachinsky's 
actions 
constituted 
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Even if, arguendo, 
those actions would not be determined to be violations of the 
specific terms of the harassment injunction, we have no problem 
in concluding that they constituted violations of the relevant 
supreme court rules.   
¶86 Finally, we turn to the matter of the appropriate 
level of discipline.  Judge Kachinsky argues that the Judicial 
Conduct Panel's reliance on other precedents is flawed.  He 
asserts that his misconduct did not involve flouting clear-cut 
legal obligations, making direct threats, or belittling M.B.  He 
contends that there were incidents in which the tension he felt 
due to the conflict with village representatives boiled over 
into inappropriate comments, emails, or Facebook posts, which he 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
42 
 
categorizes as demeanor violations.  He suggests that an 
appropriate level of discipline for the relatively minor 
demeanor violations that he admitted would be a nine-month 
suspension, following which he would be eligible for appointment 
as a reserve municipal judge in the discretion of the chief 
judge of the judicial administrative district.   
¶87 On the other hand, the Judicial Commission also 
factually distinguishes the cases cited by the Judicial Conduct 
Panel, but from the opposite perspective.  It contends that 
there really has not been a comparable judicial disciplinary 
case in this state.  It argues that Judge Kachinsky's violations 
were so numerous and so serious that he should be permanently 
barred from eligibility for reserve municipal judge status. 
¶88 As 
is 
the 
case 
in 
most 
attorney 
and 
judicial 
disciplinary proceedings, there is no case with identical facts 
and rule violations.  We view this matter, however, as involving 
serious misconduct.  While his misconduct did not involve the 
performance of his judicial duties in the courtroom, it did 
occur in the context of the operation of the court over which he 
had been elected to preside.  Although he claims that he was 
merely attempting to foster an environment that would be best 
for the operation of the municipal court, it is clear from his 
actions that he was intent on forcing M.B., his subordinate, to 
comply with his personal desire that M.B. should also be his 
personal friend—someone who would discuss life experiences with 
him, engage in activities that he favored, and conform to what 
he viewed as proper friend etiquette, such as exchanging holiday 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
43 
 
greetings.  Even if his intentions had been to benefit the 
municipal court, the effect of his behavior was the opposite.  
His actions, which cannot be dismissed as merely odd or quirky, 
caused real harm both to the particular staff member (by causing 
her fear, discomfort, and considerable stress) and to the 
effective operation and public standing of the municipal court.  
His actions also negatively affected the village as a whole, 
which had to mediate between him and M.B., a village employee.   
¶89 In the end, we agree with the Judicial Conduct Panel 
that, in light of the fact that Judge Kachinsky is no longer an 
active municipal court judge, an appropriate form of discipline 
for his misconduct would be to suspend his eligibility to serve 
as a reserve municipal judge.  While we recognize that there are 
factual differences with both Van Susteren and Gorenstein, we 
conclude that Judge Kachinsky's misconduct has some similarities 
to the misconduct in those cases and warrants a substantial 
period of suspension.  We therefore suspend Judge Kachinsky's 
eligibility for appointment as a reserve municipal judge for a 
period of three years.  In light of our July 3, 2018 
superintending order prohibiting Judge Kachinsky from exercising 
the powers of a municipal judge, we make the suspension 
retroactive to the date of that order.  In addition, because 
Judge Kachinsky's misconduct demonstrates that he currently 
lacks the judicial temperament and the insight into his actions 
that are required for a judge to preside over and manage a 
court, we also require him to petition this court and 
successfully demonstrate to us that he is fit to serve as a 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
44 
 
reserve municipal judge before he may request an appointment to 
serve as a reserve municipal judge from the chief judge of the 
applicable judicial district.10   
¶90 IT IS ORDERED that Leonard D. Kachinsky is suspended 
from eligibility for appointment as a reserve municipal court 
judge for a period of three years, commencing July 3, 2018.11  
¶91 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that before Leonard D. Kachinsky 
may request appointment as a reserve municipal court judge by 
the chief judge of the applicable judicial administrative 
district under Wis. Stat. § 800.065, he must first file a 
petition with this court and demonstrate through appropriate 
evidence his fitness to serve as a reserve municipal court 
judge.   
 
                                                 
10 Judge Kachinsky may not file such a petition in this 
court until the three-year period of suspension has expired.  We 
also note that even if this court would find at that time that 
Judge Kachinsky had demonstrated his fitness to serve once more 
as a reserve municipal judge and would therefore grant his 
petition, 
the 
chief 
judge 
of 
the 
applicable 
judicial 
administrative district would still have discretion under Wis. 
Stat. § 800.065 regarding whether to appoint him as a reserve 
municipal judge. 
11 In light of the resolution of this judicial disciplinary 
proceeding, we terminate the prohibition that we placed on Judge 
Kachinsky's exercise of the powers of a municipal judge in our 
July 
3, 
2018 
order 
issued 
under 
our 
superintending 
and 
administrative authority over the courts of this state. 
No. 
2018AP628-J   
 
 
 
1