Title: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Brett R. Blomme

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2022 WI 80 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2022AP998-D 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Brett R. Blomme, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
Brett R. Blomme, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BLOMME 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 25, 2022   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per Curiam. ZIEGLER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion, in which 
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, HAGEDORN, and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined. 
ROGGENSACK, J., filed a concurring opinion in which REBECCA 
GRASSL BRADLEY and KAROFSKY, JJ., joined.  
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2022 WI 80
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2022AP998-D 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Brett R. Blomme, Attorney at Law: 
 
Office of Lawyer Regulation, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
Brett R. Blomme, 
 
          Respondent. 
FILED 
 
NOV 25, 2022 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY 
disciplinary 
proceeding.   Attorney's 
license 
revoked.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.  Attorney Brett R. Blomme has filed a 
petition for the consensual revocation of his license to 
practice law in Wisconsin pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 
22.19.  Attorney Blomme's petition states that he cannot 
successfully defend against an Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 
investigation 
of 
professional 
misconduct 
related 
to 
his 
conviction, entered following a guilty plea, of two federal 
felonies; 
namely, 
two 
counts 
of 
distribution 
of 
child 
pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2).  Attorney 
No. 
2022AP998-D   
 
2 
 
Blomme's petition attaches the OLR's summary of misconduct being 
investigated.  The OLR's misconduct summary attaches a number of 
documents, including a copy of Attorney Blomme's federal 
sentencing transcript.   
¶2 
Attorney Blomme was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 2010.  He has not previously been the subject of 
professional discipline.  However, his law license is currently 
administratively suspended for failure to pay state bar dues and 
failure to comply with trust account certification requirements.  
The OLR also sought and obtained a summary suspension of 
Attorney Blomme's law license in early 2022, as described in 
more detail below. 
¶3 
According to information obtained from the court's 
file of the proceedings in this matter, the CCAP and WSCCA 
websites,1 and the materials attached to the OLR's misconduct 
summary, in March 2021, the State filed a criminal complaint 
against Attorney Blomme alleging that he possessed child 
pornography during a time period in which he served as a judge 
in the Children's Division of Milwaukee County Circuit Court 
("Children's Court").  On the same day the State filed the 
criminal complaint, this court issued an order temporarily 
prohibiting Attorney Blomme from exercising the powers of a 
circuit court judge and temporarily withholding his judicial 
salary, effective the date of the order and until further order 
                                                 
1 CCAP is an acronym for Wisconsin's Consolidated Court 
Automation Programs.  WSCCA is an acronym for Wisconsin Supreme 
Court and Court of Appeals Access.  These government websites 
reflect information entered by court staff. 
No. 
2022AP998-D   
 
3 
 
of the court.   See Wis. Const. art. VII, § 3(1) (conferring 
this court with superintending and administrative authority over 
all courts in the state). 
¶4 
In May 2021, Attorney Blomme was charged in federal 
court with two counts of distributing child pornography.  He 
later pled guilty to both counts.  In December 2021, Attorney 
Blomme was convicted and sentenced in federal court to 108 
months in prison on each count, to be served concurrently, 
followed by 20 years of supervised release.  According to CCAP 
records, shortly after Attorney Blomme's federal conviction and 
sentencing, the state charges against Attorney Blomme were 
dismissed.   
¶5 
In January 2022, the OLR moved under SCR 22.20 for a 
summary suspension of Attorney Blomme's Wisconsin law license 
based on his federal conviction.  On February 16, 2022, this 
court granted the motion and suspended Attorney Blomme's law 
license until further order of the court.  In May 2022, this 
court found good cause to continue this summary suspension.  See 
SCR 22.20(6) (providing that, within two months of the effective 
date of a summary suspension, the OLR is required to either file 
a 
disciplinary 
complaint 
or 
show 
cause 
why 
the 
summary 
suspension should continue).  Attorney Blomme's law license 
remains suspended. 
¶6 
According to the OLR's misconduct summary, the OLR has 
concluded that Attorney Blomme's conduct leading to his federal 
conviction 
for 
distributing 
child 
pornography 
violated 
SCR 20:8.4(b).  See id. (providing that "[i]t is professional 
No. 
2022AP998-D   
 
4 
 
misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects 
adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as 
a lawyer in other respects").   
¶7 
In his petition for consensual revocation, Attorney 
Blomme asserts that he is seeking the consensual revocation of 
his license freely, voluntarily, and knowingly.  He states that 
he cannot successfully defend himself against the allegations of 
misconduct set forth above and more fully described in the OLR's 
summary.  He understands that he is giving up his right to 
contest the allegations referenced in the OLR's misconduct 
summary.   He acknowledges that if the court grants the petition 
and revokes his license, he will be subject to the requirements 
of SCR 22.26 and, should he ever wish to seek the reinstatement 
of his license, the reinstatement procedure set forth in SCRs 
22.29-22.33.  He acknowledges that he is represented by counsel 
in this disciplinary matter. 
¶8 
The OLR has filed a recommendation on Attorney 
Blomme's petition for consensual license revocation.  The OLR 
notes that Attorney Blomme was serving as a Milwaukee County 
Children's Court judge at the time of the misconduct; that his 
crimes were "extraordinarily serious, by their nature and by 
virtue of the position Blomme held"; and that "his misconduct 
brought tremendous disrepute to the legal profession and the 
courts."  The OLR states that revocation is warranted and 
necessary. 
¶9 
Having 
reviewed 
Attorney 
Blomme's 
petition 
for 
consensual revocation, the OLR's misconduct summary, and the 
No. 
2022AP998-D   
 
5 
 
OLR's recommendation on Attorney Blomme's petition, we accept 
Attorney Blomme's petition for the consensual revocation of his 
Wisconsin law license.  We note that, according to the federal 
sentencing transcript attached to the OLR's misconduct summary, 
the sentencing judge described some of the child pornography 
involved in Attorney Blomme's case as "the worst of the worst."  
The judge also noted that Attorney Blomme's wrongdoing "wasn't 
just the possession" but also "the selection and distribution of 
particularly virulent child pornography."  The judge also voiced 
concern that Attorney Blomme "committed [his] crimes in part at 
the courthouse" where he was responsible for cases involving 
children who had been abused.  The judge described Attorney 
Blomme's behavior as "a huge stain on the reputation of the 
judiciary." 
¶10 This is clearly the type of criminal conduct that "is 
so revealing of character defects, and so undermines public 
confidence in the legal profession, that it necessarily reflects 
adversely on an attorney's fitness as a lawyer."  See In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Johns, 2014 WI 32, ¶38, 353 
Wis. 2d 746, 
847 
N.W.2d 179, 
citing 
In 
re 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Inglimo, 2007 WI 126, ¶51, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 
740 N.W.2d 125 (attorney's illegal drug use with clients showed 
"a disregard for the law" that "reflect[ed] adversely not only 
on the lawyer's fitness, but on the profession as a whole").  
The seriousness of Attorney Blomme's criminal conduct in 
distributing child pornography is magnified by the fact that it 
occurred during a time in which he served as a circuit court 
No. 
2022AP998-D   
 
6 
 
judge——a Children's Court judge, no less.  Public trust in our 
court system depends upon public trust in the integrity of its 
judges.  Attorney Blomme's blatant disregard for the law during 
the time he sat on the judicial bench jeopardizes public 
confidence in the courts and reflects adversely on the entire 
bar.  See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Penn, 201 
Wis. 2d 405, 406, 548 N.W.2d 526 (1996) (noting that the 
seriousness of a district attorney's illegal drug use was 
"exacerbated by the fact that it occurred in the context of his 
official position as district attorney, a position of public 
trust in the legal system to which the people of his county 
elected him," and thereby "caused significant and unjustified 
damage to the public's perception of the integrity of law 
enforcement personnel throughout the county.")   
¶11 Given the egregious nature of Attorney Blomme's 
misconduct, anything less than a revocation of his law license 
would unduly depreciate the seriousness of his misconduct, fail 
to protect the public and the court system from further 
misconduct, and inadequately deter similar misbehavior by other 
attorneys.  Revocation is clearly deserved.2 
¶12 Because this matter is being resolved via a petition 
for consensual revocation without the need to appoint a referee 
or hold an extensive hearing, we do not impose costs on Attorney 
Blomme.  No restitution was sought and none is ordered. 
                                                 
2 Although three justices join the concurrence authored by 
Chief Justice Ziegler, that fact does not effect a change to our 
current rule governing license revocation.  See SCR 22.29(2). 
No. 
2022AP998-D   
 
7 
 
¶13 IT IS ORDERED that the petition for consensual license 
revocation is granted. 
¶14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license of Brett R. 
Blomme to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the 
date of this order. 
¶15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 
already done so, Brett R. Blomme shall comply with the 
provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose 
license to practice law in Wisconsin has been revoked. 
¶16 IT 
IS 
FURTHER 
ORDERED 
that 
the 
administrative 
suspension of Brett R. Blomme's license to practice law in 
Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay state bar dues and failure 
to comply with trust account certification requirements, will 
remain in effect until each reason for the administrative 
suspension has been rectified pursuant to SCR 22.28(1).  
 
 
No.  2022AP998-D.akz 
 
1 
 
¶17 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, C.J.   (concurring).  I 
concur in the court's order revoking Attorney Blomme's license 
to practice law in Wisconsin.  I write separately to point out 
that in Wisconsin the "revocation" of an attorney's law license 
is not truly revocation because the attorney may petition for 
reinstatement after a period of five years.  See SCR 22.29(2).  
The facts of this case demonstrate the kind of lawyer conduct 
that warrants revocation, with no ability to seek reinstatement.  
I believe that when it comes to lawyer discipline, courts should 
say what they mean and mean what they say.  We should not be 
creating false perceptions to both the public and to the lawyer 
seeking to practice law again.  See In re Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Moodie, 2020 WI 39, 391 Wis. 2d 196, 942 
N.W.2d 302 (Ziegler, J., dissenting).  And, as I stated in my 
dissent to this court's order denying Rule Petition 19-10, In 
the Matter of Amending Supreme Court Rules Pertaining to 
Permanent Revocation of a License to Practice Law in Attorney 
Disciplinary Proceedings, I believe there may be rare and 
unusual cases that would warrant the permanent revocation of an 
attorney's license to practice law.  See S. Ct. Order 19-10 
(issued Dec. 18, 2019) (Ziegler, J., dissenting). 
¶18 For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur. 
¶19 I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL 
BRADLEY, BRIAN HAGEDORN, and JILL J. KAROFSKY join this 
concurrence.   
 
No.  2022AP998-D.pdr 
 
1 
 
¶20 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J.   (concurring).  I agree 
with the court's decision today to revoke the law license of 
Brett R. Blomme.  I write separately to address my concern over 
the lack of action taken by the Judicial Commission.   
¶21 In our decision today, the court notes in closing what 
we do and do not decide.  Attorney Blomme is before us only as a 
member of the bar, not as a judicial officer who presided in 
children's court.  He committed criminal misconduct involving 
child pornography while he held judicial office, and acted, in 
part, from within the courthouse itself.  Although today we 
revoke Attorney Blomme's law license, it causes me to pause and 
consider the lack of action by the Judicial Commission.   
¶22 Blomme was arrested on March 16, 2021, and did not 
formally resign his seat on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court 
until much later, on September 1, 2021.  In all that time, the 
Judicial Commission took no public action.   
¶23 Over 600 days have passed since Blomme was arrested at 
his residence and taken into custody on March 16, 2021.  Blomme 
was formally charged in Dane County Circuit Court with seven 
felony counts of possession of child pornography on March 17, 
2021 (Dane County Case No. 2021CF647).  Blomme made his initial 
appearance in Dane County Circuit Court on March 17, when he was 
released on signature bond. 
¶24 Also on March 17, 2021, this court took immediate 
action and issued an order "temporarily prohibit[ing]" Blomme 
from exercising the powers of a circuit court judge in the State 
of Wisconsin and temporarily withholding his judicial salary 
No.  2022AP998-D.pdr 
 
2 
 
"effective [March 17, 2021] and until further order of the 
court."  The Judicial Commission took no public action. 
¶25 About two months later, on May 12, 2021, Blomme was 
indicted on federal charges.  The federal indictment set out two 
felony child pornography distribution charges.  See United 
States v. Blomme, No. 21-cr-49-jdp (W.D. Wis.).  He was 
arraigned in federal court on May 19, 2021, and was ordered to 
be detained and taken into federal custody.  Still, the Judicial 
Commission took no public action. 
¶26 Nearly four months after the federal indictment, and 
nearly six months after the state charges were filed in Dane 
County Circuit Court, on September 1, 2021, Blomme formally 
resigned his seat on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court.  Later 
that month, on September 28, 2021, Blomme (while still in 
federal custody) entered guilty pleas to two counts of felony 
child pornography distribution in the United States District 
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.  On December 22, 
2021, Blomme was sentenced to 108 months in prison on each 
count, to be served concurrently, followed by 20 years of 
supervised release.   
¶27 Under Blomme's plea agreement, the Dane County case 
was dismissed after he was sentenced in federal court.  The 
Judicial Commission took no action.   
¶28 As stated earlier, it appears over 600 days have 
passed from the date Blomme was arrested in March of 2021.  
Notably, no public action was ever taken by the Judicial 
No.  2022AP998-D.pdr 
 
3 
 
Commission.  The Judicial Commission protects the public.  I am 
concerned by their inaction. 
¶29 I am authorized to state that Justices REBECCA GRASSL 
BRADLEY and JILL J. KAROFSKY join this concurrence. 
 
 
No.  2022AP998-D.pdr 
 
 
 
1