2020 WI 5

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 19AP199-J

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against The Honorable Kenneth W. 

Gorski:

Wisconsin Judicial Commission,

 Complainant,

 v.

the Honorable Kenneth W. Gorski,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GORSKI 

OPINION FILED: January 30, 2020 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: 

COUNTY: 

JUDGE: 

JUSTICES:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

HAGEDORN, J. 

ATTORNEYS:
2020 WI 5

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2019AP199-J

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against the Honorable

Kenneth W. Gorski:

Wisconsin Judicial Commission,

 Complainant,

 v.

The Honorable Kenneth W. Gorski,

 Respondent.

FILED

JAN 30, 2020

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Supreme Court

JUDICIAL disciplinary proceeding. Public reprimand 

imposed. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 757.911

 

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 applicable 

to civil cases in the supreme court govern the review 

proceedings under this section.
No. 2019AP199-J 

2

(2017-18),2 a Judicial Conduct Panel's3 findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and recommendation for discipline for the 

Honorable Kenneth W. Gorski, a part-time court commissioner for 

the Wood County circuit court. Based on Commissioner Gorski's 

answer, the Judicial Conduct Panel found that the facts alleged in 

the complaint filed by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission were 

established as true and determined that those facts supported the 

legal conclusion that Commissioner Gorski had willfully violated 

several rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which constitutes 

judicial misconduct under Wis. Stat. § 757.81(4)(a).4 The Judicial 

Conduct Panel recommends that Commissioner Gorski be publicly 

reprimanded for his judicial misconduct. We adopt the Judicial 

Conduct Panel's findings of fact, we agree that those facts 

demonstrate that Commissioner Gorski committed judicial 

misconduct, and we publicly reprimand him for that misconduct. 

¶2 Commissioner Gorski has been a part-time circuit court 

commissioner in Wood County since 2014. In that role, he works 

approximately two afternoons per month. As a circuit court 

commissioner, Commissioner Gorski was subject to the Code of 

 

2 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 

the 2017-18 version unless otherwise indicated. 

3 Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 757.87(3), Judges Paul F. Reilly, 

Kitty K. Brennan, and Thomas M. Hruz of the court of appeals were 

appointed to serve as the Judicial Conduct Panel, with Judge Reilly 

acting as the presiding judge.

4 Wisconsin Stat. § 757.81(4)(a) states that judicial 

misconduct includes "[w]illful violation of a rule of the code of 

judicial ethics."
No. 2019AP199-J 

3

Judicial Conduct found in Chapter 60 of the Supreme Court Rules 

(SCRs) and subject to the imposition of discipline for judicial 

misconduct, as provided in Wis. Stat. §§ 757.001, 757.81-757.99. 

¶3 The Judicial Commission's complaint alleged that 

Commissioner Gorski had violated five subsections of the Code of 

Judicial Conduct based on allegations that he had presided over a 

small claims case when he should have recused himself and that he 

had made inappropriate comments to a self-represented defendant in 

the trial of that same small claims case. The facts will be set 

forth in more detail below. In his answer, Commissioner Gorski 

admitted all of the factual allegations and alleged judicial 

conduct violations set forth in the Judicial Commission's 

complaint. As there were no disputed factual issues that required 

an evidentiary hearing, the Judicial Conduct Panel subsequently 

ordered the parties to file memoranda regarding the appropriate 

level of discipline that should be recommended. The Judicial 

Commission filed a brief stating that the most appropriate sanction 

for the misconduct in this matter would be a public reprimand. 

Commissioner Gorski subsequently submitted a letter stating that 

he would not be filing a responsive memorandum, indicating his 

acquiescence to the Judicial Commission's request for a public 

reprimand. 

¶4 Given Commissioner Gorski's admissions in his answer, 

the Judicial Conduct Panel found the following facts. 

¶5 At all times relevant to this proceeding, Commissioner 

Gorski has had a close personal friendship with Attorney Timothy 

Gebert. Commissioner Gorski has known Attorney Gebert for 
No. 2019AP199-J 

4

approximately 20 years, and the two men socialize at least once a 

month. Between 2015 and 2018, Commissioner Gorski and Attorney 

Gebert, along with other individuals, went on four overseas 

vacation trips together. They also have taken frequent overnight 

golfing trips together, both locally in northern Wisconsin and in 

other parts of the United States. 

¶6 In September 2015 Commissioner Gorski presided over a 

pretrial conference in a small claims case, Accurate Remodeling 

LLC v. Meyer, Wood County Case No. 2015SC630 ("the Meyer case"). 

A small claims trial was scheduled to occur in the case on November 

18, 2015. Attorney Gebert represented the plaintiff in the case. 

The defendant, Mr. Meyer, a non-lawyer, represented himself. 

¶7 In October 2015, between the date of the pretrial 

conference and the trial, while the case was still pending before 

him, Commissioner Gorski went on one of the four overseas trips 

with Attorney Gebert. They, Commissioner Gorski's son, and a 

fourth individual went on a week-long golfing trip to Ireland. 

¶8 Commissioner Gorski continued to preside over the Meyer

case. He did not disclose to Mr. Meyer the trip to Ireland or his 

friendship with Attorney Gebert. 

¶9 Commissioner Gorski presided over the small claims trial 

on November 18, 2015. During that trial, he lost his temper with 

the self-represented Mr. Meyer on two occasions. On the first 

occasion, he said, "Stop, now, just stop with that! Jesus . . . 

Come on. That's getting old, that's getting really old." On the 

second occasion, Commissioner Gorski audibly groaned in response 
No. 2019AP199-J 

5

to something Mr. Meyer said and then asked, "Why can't you just be 

quiet when other people are talking?" 

¶10 At another point after the verdict had been rendered by 

Commissioner Gorski, Mr. Meyer made an assertion that the verdict 

was an example of corruption. Commissioner Gorski again audibly 

groaned and then responded, "That's my middle name . . . 

corruption." Commissioner Gorski admitted that his comments to 

Mr. Meyer had been said in anger and with sarcasm. 

¶11 When Commissioner Gorski appeared before the Judicial 

Commission in October 2018 during its investigation of this matter, 

he stated that Attorney Gebert had appeared before him on six or 

seven occasions. Indeed, just prior to that meeting with the 

Judicial Commission and after having been notified that it was 

investigating his failure to recuse himself in a case in which 

Attorney Gebert had appeared before him, Commissioner Gorski had 

presided over a pretrial conference in another case in which 

Attorney Gebert represented one party and the other party was selfrepresented. While this other case was pending before Commissioner 

Gorski, he took a trip with Attorney Gebert and others to Vietnam. 

¶12 Based on these findings of fact, the Judicial Conduct 

Panel concluded that Commissioner Gorski had violated the 

following provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct:

 By failing to recuse himself in the Meyer case when he 

had a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or 

a party's lawyer, he violated SCR 60.04(4)(a);5

 

5 SCR 60.04(4)(a) provides:
No. 2019AP199-J 

6

 By failing to recuse himself in the Meyer case or to 

disclose his close friendship with Attorney Gebert to

the self-represented defendant when reasonable, wellinformed persons knowledgeable about judicial ethics and 

the judicial system and aware of the facts that 

Commissioner Gorski knew or reasonably should have known 

would have reasonably questioned his ability to be 

impartial and when the recusal was not waived by the 

parties after full disclosure, he violated SCR 60.04(4);

 By making comments to Mr. Meyer that failed to treat 

those with whom he dealt in performing his adjudicative 

duties with patience, dignity, and courtesy, he violated 

SCR 60.04(1)(d);6

 

(4) Except as provided in sub. (6) for waiver, a 

judge shall recuse himself or herself in a proceeding 

when the facts and circumstances the judge knows or 

reasonably should know establish one of the following or 

when reasonable, well-informed persons knowledgeable 

about 241 judicial ethics standards and the justice 

system and aware of the facts and circumstances the judge 

knows or reasonably should know would reasonably 

question the judge's ability to be impartial:

(a) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice 

concerning a party or a party's lawyer or personal 

knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the 

proceeding.

6 SCR 60.04(1)(d) provides:

(1) In the performance of the duties under this 

section, the following apply to adjudicative 

responsibilities: 

(footnote continued)

(d) A judge shall be patient, dignified and 

courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and 

others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity 

and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, staff, 

court officials and others subject to the judge's 

direction and control. During trials and hearings, a 
No. 2019AP199-J 

7

 By failing to recuse himself and by the comments he made 

during the November 18, 2015 trial in the Meyer case, 

thereby failing to comply with the law and to act at all 

times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the 

integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, he violated 

SCR 60.03(1);7 and

 By failing to recuse himself and by the comments he made 

during the November 18, 2015 trial in the Meyer case, 

thereby failing to participate in establishing, 

maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct and 

failing to personally observe those standards in order 

to preserve the integrity and independence of the 

judiciary, he violated SCR 60.02.8

¶13 Violations of mandatory provisions of the Code of 

Judicial Conduct constitute judicial misconduct under Wis. Stat. 

§ 757.81(4)(a) when those violations are determined to be 

"willful." Violations are "willful" when the judicial officer's 

 

judge shall act so that the judge's attitude, manner or 

tone toward counsel or witnesses does not prevent the 

proper presentation of the cause or the ascertainment of 

the truth. A judge may properly intervene if the judge 

considers it necessary to clarify a point or expedite 

the proceedings.

7 SCR 60.03(1) provides: "A judge shall respect and comply 

with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes 

public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the 

judiciary.

8 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. 
No. 2019AP199-J 

8

conduct was not the result of duress and when the judicial officer 

knew or should have known that the conduct was prohibited by the 

Code of Judicial Conduct. In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Tesmer, 219 Wis. 2d 708, 729, 580 N.W.2d 307 (1998). Here, 

the Judicial Conduct Panel concluded that Commissioner Gorski had 

committed these violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct 

willfully.

¶14 The Judicial Conduct Panel concluded that a public 

reprimand was a necessary and sufficient level of discipline, given 

the violations set forth above. It noted that all of Commissioner 

Gorski's misconduct had occurred while he was acting in his 

official capacity. 

¶15 The Judicial Conduct Panel pointed to the fact that 

Commissioner Gorski had admitted having presided over six or seven 

proceedings in which Attorney Gebert had appeared, including a 

pretrial conference after he had learned of the misconduct 

allegations in this case, which suggested that Commissioner Gorski 

had not recognized or acknowledged the misconduct related to 

Attorney Gebert's appearances before him. The panel acknowledged, 

however, that there was no suggestion that Commissioner Gorski's 

failure to recuse himself had affected the outcome of the case or 

that it had occurred in order to advance his personal desires. 

¶16 With respect to the second type of misconduct, 

Commissioner Gorski's improper comments to Mr. Meyer during the 

small claims trial, the Judicial Conduct Panel found that those 

comments appeared to have been an isolated incident, and that the 
No. 2019AP199-J 

9

comments had not been made to advance his personal objectives or 

to achieve personal gain. 

¶17 Ultimately, the Judicial Conduct Panel stated that 

Commissioner Gorski's failure to recuse himself or to disclose his 

close friendship with Attorney Gebert and his impertinent comments 

during the small claims trial in the Meyer case had caused a 

substantial negative impact on the integrity of the judiciary and 

on the public's perception of the independence of the judiciary. 

Weighing the factors described above, it concluded that a public 

reprimand would be sufficient to impress upon Commissioner Gorski 

the need to recuse himself or to obtain a waiver in future cases 

in which a good friend would appear as counsel and to be 

circumspect in his comments to and dealings with self-represented 

individuals. 

¶18 Given Commissioner Gorski's admission of the allegations 

against him in his answer to the Judicial Commission's complaint, 

there is no dispute about the Judicial Conduct Panel's findings of 

fact. Accordingly, we adopt the panel's findings of fact based on 

the allegations in the complaint. We also agree with the panel's 

conclusion that those factual findings demonstrate that 

Commissioner Gorski willfully violated the specified provisions of 

the Code of Judicial Conduct, thereby committing judicial 

misconduct as defined in Wis. Stat. § 757.81(4)(a). 

¶19 We now turn to the issue of the appropriate level of 

discipline. We agree that Commissioner Gorski's failure to recuse 

himself or even to disclose his close friendship with Attorney 

Gebert and his angry and sarcastic comments to a pro se litigant 
No. 2019AP199-J 

10

appearing before him undermined, rather than promoted, the 

public's confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the 

judiciary. A sanction is necessary to impress upon him the damage 

that such conduct does to the judicial system and the rule of law 

and to ensure that he does not repeat such conduct.

¶20 In its sanction memorandum, the Judicial Commission 

stated that the prior judicial disciplinary case that is most 

similar to the facts of this case is In re Judicial Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Laatsch, 2007 WI 20, 299 Wis. 2d 144, 727 

N.W.2d 488. Like Commissioner Gorski, Judge Laatsch was a parttime judicial official (a municipal judge), who presided over three 

cases in which he should have recused himself because one of the 

parties appearing before him was a relative or a current client of 

his law practice. Also like Commissioner Gorski, Judge Laatsch 

was found to have engaged in another type of misconduct in addition 

to the failure to recuse (in that case misusing the prestige of 

his judicial office in an advertisement for his law firm). This 

court concluded that the proper level of discipline for Judge 

Laatsch was a public reprimand, and we agree that the same level 

of discipline should be imposed on Commissioner Gorski. 

¶21 Our comment in the Laatsch decision is equally 

applicable to Commissioner Gorski and the resolution of this 

disciplinary proceeding:

A fair and impartial judge is the cornerstone of the 

integrity of the judicial system. Even the appearance 

of partiality can erode the public's confidence in the 

integrity of the judiciary.
No. 2019AP199-J 

11

Laatsch, 299 Wis. 2d 144, ¶13. We trust that the reprimand we 

impose today will cause Commissioner Gorski to avoid any future 

conduct that gives even the appearance of partiality and to treat 

those who come before him with patience, dignity, and courtesy. 

¶22 IT IS ORDERED that the Honorable Kenneth W. Gorski is 

reprimanded for judicial misconduct established in this 

proceeding.

¶23 BRIAN HAGEDORN, J., did not participate.
No. 2019AP199-J 

1