2023 WI 77

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2022AP745-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings

Against Gary King, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Gary King,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KING

OPINION FILED: December 15, 2023 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT: 

COUNTY: 

JUDGE: 

JUSTICES:

Per curiam. 

ATTORNEYS:
2023 WI 77

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2022AP745-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Gary King, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Gary King,

 Respondent.

FILED

DEC 15, 2023

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

suspended. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review the report of referee David A. 

Piehler recommending that this court suspend Attorney Gary 

King's license to practice law in Wisconsin for one year and 

require him to pay the full costs of this disciplinary 

proceeding, which are $5,927.83 as of September 20, 2023. 

Because no appeal has been filed, we review the referee's report 

and recommendation pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 
No. 2022AP745-D 

2

22.17(2).1 Upon careful review of the matter, we agree with the 

referee's recommendations in all respects.

¶2 Attorney King was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 1998. He has no prior disciplinary history. The 

most recent address he furnished to the State Bar of Wisconsin 

is in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.

¶3 In 2012, Attorney King ran for and was elected Eau 

Claire County District Attorney. He was re-elected in 2016 and 

2020.

¶4 On May 5, 2022, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) 

filed a complaint against Attorney King alleging two counts of 

misconduct, both arising out of his conduct as the Eau Claire 

County District Attorney.

¶5 Attorney King filed an answer to the complaint on May 

31, 2022. Referee Piehler was appointed on July 14, 2022. On 

June 27, 2023, the parties entered into a stipulation whereby 

Attorney King withdrew his answer, entered a plea of no contest 

to the two counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint, and 

agreed that the referee could use the allegations of the 

complaint as an adequate factual basis in the record for a 

determination of violations of supreme court rules as to both 

counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint. The parties 

 

1 SCR 22.17(2) provides: "If no appeal is filed timely, the 

supreme court shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject 

or modify the referee's findings and conclusions or remand the 

matter to the referee for additional findings; and determine and 

impose appropriate discipline. The court, on its own motion, may 

order the parties to file briefs in the matter."
No. 2022AP745-D 

3

agreed that the appropriate level of discipline for Attorney 

King's misconduct was a nine-month suspension of his license to 

practice law. The parties filed a supplemental stipulation on 

July 28, 2023 in which Attorney King identified some potentially 

mitigating factors relating to the appropriate level of 

discipline. Specifically, Attorney King stated that he 

attributes his misconduct to personal or emotional problems he 

was experiencing at the time, and he described the two-year 

period detailed in the complaint as a particularly difficult 

time in his life, which included the deaths of family and 

friends and the isolation of the COVID quarantine. Attorney 

King stated that he has sought comprehensive treatment to deal 

with those personal or emotional problems. He also noted that 

he expressed remorse in his letter resigning as Eau Claire 

County District Attorney, saying "To the extent that any conduct 

fell short of the level expected of me, I sincerely apologize."

¶6 The referee issued his report and recommendation on 

September 1, 2023. The referee found that Attorney King 

committed the misconduct alleged in OLR's complaint. Rather 

than the nine-month suspension advocated by the parties, the 

referee concluded that a one-year suspension of Attorney King's 

law license was an appropriate sanction for his misconduct.

¶7 The allegations in OLR's complaint, which Attorney 

King admitted by virtue of his entry into the stipulation, 

detail problems concerning his behavior at work that began in 

2018. E.H., the Office Manager for the Eau Claire County 

District Attorney's Office, reported to OLR that Attorney King 
No. 2022AP745-D 

4

regularly appeared at the office in an "altered state." E.H. 

said he saw Attorney King slumped and sleeping in the office 

chairs of various attorneys and office staff, including during a 

discussion in E.H.'s office in which Attorney King fell asleep 

and remained sleeping for 10 to 15 minutes.

¶8 An Assistant District Attorney (ADA) reported that 

Attorney King would frequently come into attorneys' offices and 

interrupt their work, sometimes falling asleep in the attorney's 

office. A former ADA wrote a letter to Wisconsin Governor Tony 

Evers saying that she had witnessed Attorney King sleeping and 

snoring in meetings and court proceedings. In a 

contemporaneously written memo dated December 20, 2019, the 

former ADA wrote that Attorney King's "speech was slurred, his 

breathing labored, face red and he had a faint odor about him 

that I could not determine if it was hand sanitizer or an 

intoxicant." The memo went on to say that a few minutes later 

the former ADA heard loud snoring and observed Attorney King 

sleeping and asked two other people in the office to wake him.

¶9 T.G., the Eau Claire County Criminal Justice Director, 

told OLR about a meeting on October 21, 2019 with 

representatives of the Chicago Police Department in which 

Attorney King fell asleep for most of the meeting. Current and 

former District Attorney's Office employees told OLR that, 

around this time, Attorney King's temperament changed, with his 

temper becoming explosive and his behavior erratic and abusive. 

These individuals told OLR of instances in which Attorney King 
No. 2022AP745-D 

5

yelled, swore, and shouted at his staff, leaving them feeling 

intimidated and afraid they would be fired.

¶10 On January 11, 2021, Attorney King missed a status 

conference. E.H. was contacted by a court staff member saying 

the court was waiting for Attorney King to appear. E.H. 

discovered Attorney King "slumped in his office chair at his 

computer, snoring and obviously asleep." E.H. was unable to 

awaken Attorney King, so he found an ADA to cover for Attorney 

King's failure to appear for the proceeding.

¶11 On February 16, 2021, Attorney King appeared in court. 

According to Deputy M.S., Attorney King could barely walk down 

the hall and had to brace against the wall to get to court. In 

her report to the Eau Claire County Sheriff, Deputy M.S. 

reported that Attorney King was not wearing a mask, which was 

unusual given that he had imposed strict mask policies for his 

staff. J.B., the Coordinator of the Office of Victim Services, 

was monitoring the hearing on Zoom and told OLR that Attorney 

King could not even say the word "Wisconsin" as he was 

"completely intoxicated."

¶12 Attorney King went to J.B.'s office after the hearing. 

J.P. told OLR that Attorney King "was slouched in his chair," 

with only "one eye open and his speech was heavily slurred." 

Attorney King stood up from his chair and was "unstable and ran 

into [J.B.'s] open door."

¶13 Sheriff Ron Cramer was advised about Attorney King's 

condition. Sheriff Cramer met with Attorney King and confronted 

him about his behavior and his appearing in court under the 
No. 2022AP745-D 

6

influence of an intoxicant. Attorney King started to cry, rant, 

yell and scream, at which point J.B. and other office employees 

were evacuated to a safe location and sent home for the 

remainder of the day. Sheriff Cramer asked Attorney King to 

submit to a Preliminary Breath Test (PBT). Attorney King 

refused.

¶14 On June 1, 2021, Attorney King came to work appearing 

to be under the influence of an intoxicant. In a grievance 

filed with OLR, Judge Michael Schumacher said he observed 

Attorney King "nod off, jerk his head, and lose his balance for 

the next forty minutes." Judge Schumacher reported that 

Attorney King "appeared to be either suffering a serious medical 

incident or was severely intoxicated." Two Sheriff's Department 

personnel went to Attorney King's office on June 1, 2021 to 

perform a welfare check. They also asked Attorney King to 

submit to a PBT. He refused.

¶15 Judge Sarah Harless, apprised by Judge Schumacher that 

Attorney King appeared to be either ill or intoxicated, met with 

Attorney King prior to a sentencing hearing. Judge Harless 

asked Attorney King to submit to a PBT. An officer performed 

the PBT and obtained a "weak breath sample." The test showed a 

reading of .047. Judge Harless adjourned the sentencing hearing 

and filed a grievance with OLR. In the grievance, Judge Harless 

reported that "[Attorney] King's eyes were red and bloodshot and 

I also observed a faint odor of intoxicants."

¶16 OLR's complaint alleged the following count of 

misconduct with respect to Attorney King's behavior at work:
No. 2022AP745-D 

7

 Count One: By sleeping through a January 2021 court 

hearing, appearing in a February 2021 court hearing 

while under the influence of intoxicants or otherwise 

impaired, and appearing in a June 2021 court hearing 

while under the influence of intoxicants or otherwise 

impaired, Attorney King violated SCR 20:1.1.2

¶17 The complaint also detailed incidents of sexual 

harassment by Attorney King directed toward J.B. The Office of 

Victim Services is a special unit within the Eau Claire County 

District Attorney's Office that is designed to provide 

information, support, and advocacy to all crime victims, 

witnesses, and family members of adult and juvenile offenders. 

J.B. is the Coordinator of the Office of Victim Services and 

supervises the department, which includes five employees. J.B. 

was also part of Attorney King's management team. She reported 

directly to the Office Manager, E.H., as well as Attorney King.

¶18 From the time J.B. began employment at the District 

Attorney's Office in 2013 until July 2019, J.B.'s interactions 

with Attorney King, although limited, were cordial and 

professional.

¶19 In July 2019, J.B. and her husband attended the 

wedding of an office employee. J.B. told OLR that Attorney King 

also attended the wedding and that he was intoxicated. Attorney 

 

2 SCR 20:1.1 provides: "A lawyer shall provide competent 

representation to a client. Competent representation requires 

the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation 

reasonably necessary for the representation."
No. 2022AP745-D 

8

King made a number of statements to J.B.'s husband complimenting 

J.B. J.B. found the comments odd since she did not often 

interact with Attorney King.

¶20 After the July 2019 wedding, Attorney King began 

paying extra attention to J.B. He would frequent her office, 

whereas in the past he would communicate with her and other 

staff members mostly through email. He would comment on J.B.'s 

hair and clothes and express opinions on how her hair was styled 

or how she dressed. On one occasion, Attorney King told J.B. 

she could not wear a particular dress because it was "too 

distracting." J.B. said Attorney King then "looked me up and 

down." J.B. was confused by the interaction and asked a 

colleague if the comment was sexual or simply "joking." Neither 

J.B. nor her colleague believed J.B.'s dress was inappropriate 

for work or revealing. Attorney King's comments about J.B.'s 

appearance continued, and at some point before the end of 2019, 

J.B. told her supervisor and the Deputy District Attorney that 

the comments were making her uncomfortable.

¶21 As time passed, Attorney King's comments to J.B. 

became more sexual. In March 2020, Attorney King took J.B. to 

breakfast and talked "dirty" with her. He joked that they 

should stop by a local hotel, take a picture outside the hotel 

or inside a room and send it to E.H. J.B. consulted with E.H. 

since she felt the conduct was inappropriate and more than just 

"joking."

¶22 In other incidents during 2020, Attorney King told 

J.B. repeatedly that she was appearing in his dreams and that 
No. 2022AP745-D 

9

she "needed to stay out of his dreams." On another occasion, 

Attorney King hugged J.B. twice, then pulled out her ponytail 

and began playing with her hair. Attorney King mentioned to 

J.B. the possibility of having a "threesome" with someone who 

lived near the District Attorney's Office.

¶23 In another incident, Attorney King suggested to a 

female administrative specialist that they "make out" in her 

office, a comment that stunned her. This comment echoed a 

similar comment Attorney King had made to J.B. after another 

wedding event that J.B. did not attend. Attorney King said J.B. 

"was supposed to be there because he and [J.B.] were going to 

sit in the corner and make out so everybody could start talking 

about us."

¶24 On another occasion, Attorney King approached J.B. in 

her office, took off her shoes, and began rubbing her feet. By 

this time, office employees had initiated an informal safety 

plan because Attorney King was regularly coming into J.B.'s 

office and closing the door. The plan involved employees coming 

to J.B.'s office and interrupting Attorney King's interactions 

with her.

¶25 In January 2021, Attorney King appeared in J.B.'s 

office and started to cry. He pulled J.B. from behind and made 

her sit in his lap, prevented her from leaving, and patted her. 

When J.B. got up and returned to her desk, Attorney King told 

her that he loved her. He then approached her while she was 

sitting in her chair, hugged her from behind, took off her mask, 
No. 2022AP745-D 

10

and tried to kiss her on the lips. J.B. immediately told E.H. 

about the interaction.

¶26 Attorney King's attentions to J.B. continued in

February 2021. He asked J.B. about her sex life with her 

husband and said "if you came to me in a vulnerable state, I 

could not say no to you." Attorney King told J.B. that he "used 

to think she was the kind of girl he could take to the Super 8 

but now knows he has to take her somewhere fancier like the 

Lismore." He told her he wanted "to be with you in your 

lifestyle." He suggested that he send an email to staff 

suggesting that the two of them, both married, were "together."

¶27 On another occasion, Attorney King commented on 

another female employee's shirt and touched her and the shirt in 

a lingering, inappropriate manner. Attorney King told the woman 

that she looked "really saucy" and ran his eyes up and down her 

body.

¶28 On February 10, 2021, J.B. contacted human resources 

to report that Attorney King was sexually harassing her. Eau 

Claire County commenced an investigation into J.B.'s complaint. 

After interviewing multiple witnesses, Attorney Mindy Dale wrote 

a report to the Eau Claire County Human Resources Director 

concluding that Attorney King "did make inappropriate comments 

to women, most notably [J.B.], which made them uncomfortable. 

Further, he should not have kissed [J.B.] on the cheek or pulled 

her on to [his] lap, regardless of the emotions he was feeling 

at the time." Attorney Dale recommended that a copy of her 
No. 2022AP745-D 

11

letter and related reports be forwarded to the Department of 

Administration for "further consideration and disposition." 

¶29 Attorney King resigned as Eau Claire County District 

Attorney in August 2021.

¶30 OLR's complaint alleged the following count of 

misconduct with respect to Attorney King's sexual harassment of 

female employees at work:

 Count Two: By making multiple inappropriate sexual 

comments to female employees in his office, and 

engaging in unwanted sexual contact with J.B., 

Attorney King violated SCRs 20:8.4(g),3 20:8.4(i),4 and 

40.15.5

¶31 The referee found the factual statements contained in 

the complaint, the comprehensive stipulation, and the 

supplemental stipulation to be true. The referee also found, 

based on the facts in the record, that Attorney King violated 

the Supreme Court Rules as alleged in the complaint. The 

referee noted that in determining the appropriate sanction for 

 

3 SCR 20:8.4(g) provides: "It is professional misconduct 

for a lawyer to violate the attorney's oath."

4 SCR 20:8.4(i) provides: "It is professional misconduct 

for a lawyer to harass a person on the basis of sex, race, age, 

creed, religion, color, national origin, disability, sexual 

preference or marital status in connection with the lawyer's 

professional activities. Legitimate advocacy respecting the 

foregoing factors does not violate par. (i)."

5 SCR 40.15 states, in pertinent part: "I will abstain from 

all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the 

honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by 

the justice of the cause with which I am charged."
No. 2022AP745-D 

12

Attorney King's misconduct he must consider the seriousness, 

nature and extent of the misconduct; the level of discipline 

needed to protect the public; the need to impress on the 

attorney the seriousness of the misconduct; and the need to 

deter other attorneys from similar misconduct. In concluding 

that a one-year suspension, rather than the nine months proposed 

by the parties, was the appropriate level of discipline for 

Attorney King's transgressions, the referee said:

The aggravating factors of selfish motive, pattern of 

misconduct, substantial experience in the law, and 

vulnerable victim carry far more weight . . . than the 

mitigating factors of absence of prior discipline, 

personal or emotional problems, other consequences, 

and expression of remorse. This is particularly so 

where the respondent was the District Attorney, 

responsible for overseeing law enforcement in his 

county. As such, he should have upheld the highest 

standards of behavior, of which he fell short in his 

treatment of his staff. In addition, when he was 

incapacitated (apparently due to his own choices), he 

was possessed of a staff to whom he could delegate 

duties which he could not personally carry out, yet 

did not do so.

Turning to the factors relevant to assessing 

discipline, the seriousness, nature, and extent of 

misconduct and the level of discipline required to 

protect the public both militate for significant 

discipline. Although the respondent's behavior never 

crossed the line into the realm of criminal activity, 

it was nonetheless substantial and prolonged. 

Further, the respondent's job was to competently 

represent the public, a task where he fell short. . . 

. I believe the need to impress on the respondent the 

seriousness of his misconduct is of lesser concern 

here. His resignation from office made this point 

already. The need for deterrence is, however, an 

important consideration. Attorneys must understand 

that sexual misconduct, whether directed toward 

clients, employees, or the public, will not be 
No. 2022AP745-D 

13

tolerated. It undermines the mission of the bar to be 

an instrument of justice, it degrades the profession, 

and it harms its victims.

Considering the entirety of the facts of this matter, 

I deem a 9-month suspension inadequate and believe a 

one-year suspension is appropriate.

¶32 We will affirm a referee's findings of fact unless 

they are clearly erroneous. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 

747. The court may impose whatever sanction it sees fit, 

regardless of the referee's recommendation. See In re 

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 

Wis. 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. There is no showing that any of the 

referee's findings of fact are clearly erroneous, and we adopt 

them. We are also in accord with the referee's legal 

conclusions that Attorney King violated the Supreme Court Rules 

noted above.

¶33 As to the appropriate level of discipline, after 

careful consideration we agree with the referee that a one-year 

suspension of Attorney King's license to practice law in 

Wisconsin is appropriate.

¶34 Although we often say that no two disciplinary matters 

are identical, we strive to identify cases that are somewhat 

analogous and impose a similar level of discipline. As the 

referee aptly points out, it is particularly difficult to 

compare cases involving sexual misbehavior by attorneys, 

especially since this court has recently stated that it is 

"applying increasing scrutiny to attorneys' sexual misconduct." 

See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against DeLadurantey, 2023 WI 
No. 2022AP745-D 

14

17, ¶ 53, 406 Wis. 2d 62, 985 N.W.2d 788; In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Ritland, 2021 WI 36, ¶¶ 37, 39, 396 Wis. 2d 

509, 957 N.W.2d 540. As a result, as the referee notes, and as 

OLR also recognized in its memorandum in support of the parties' 

comprehensive stipulation, if disciplinary decisions involving 

sexual misbehavior issued in years past were to come before the 

court today, the sanctions would likely be greater than the ones 

imposed. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against 

Kratz, 2014 WI 31, 353 Wis. 2d 696, 851 N.W.2d 219. (District 

Attorney's law license suspended for four months for six counts 

of misconduct that included sending sexually suggestive text 

messages to a domestic abuse crime victim and making sexually 

suggestive comments to social workers.) 

¶35 This court described then-District Attorney Kratz's 

conduct as "appalling," "exploitive," "crass," and "sanctionably 

sophomoric." Id. at ¶ 47. It discounted Attorney Kratz's claim 

that his misconduct resulted from various addictions. Id, ¶ 48. 

Here, the referee noted that this court used the Kratz case as a 

measuring stick when deciding the appropriate sanction to impose 

in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Baratki, 2017 WI 89, 

378 Wis. 2d 1, 902 N.W.2d 250. Attorney Baratki faced nine 

counts of misconduct, including sending a client flirtatious, 

sexual text messages and, during a meeting, lifting the client's 

shirt and kissing her abdominal area. This court suspended 

Attorney Baratki's license for six months, saying, "Given his 

course of conduct, we deem it imperative that, to resume the 

practice of law in Wisconsin, Attorney Baratki show this court 
No. 2022AP745-D 

15

that he has taken steps to avoid similar misdeeds in the 

future." Id., ¶ 34. 

¶36 In DeLadurantey, we made clear that, going forward, we 

would be more critically evaluating the appropriate sanction to 

impose in cases involving attorneys' sexual misconduct. We 

explained:

We do so because sexual harassment comes at a heavy 

price for victims who can suffer significant 

psychological effects as well as job-related costs, 

including job loss, reputational harm, impairment of 

professional opportunities, and irreparable damage to 

interpersonal relationships at work. Attorneys should 

be on notice that sexual misconduct by attorneys, 

whether directed toward fellow lawyers, clients, or 

others, is not taken lightly. 

Id. ¶ 53.

¶37 While he was serving as District Attorney, Attorney 

King harassed multiple women over whom he had supervisory 

authority. His misconduct included not only verbal harassment 

but also unwelcome physical contact. His harassment in the 

workplace created a hostile working environment that persisted 

over the course of two years. Attorney King's behavior warrants 

a significant sanction.

¶38 In addition to the sexual misbehavior, Attorney King, 

while serving as District Attorney, appeared in the office, as 

well as in court, while either intoxicated or otherwise 

impaired. His coworkers reported that he was erratic and 

abusive. Two judges reported Attorney King's erratic behavior. 

On one occasion the Sheriff was advised of the situation and

confronted Attorney King. That confrontation led to Attorney 
No. 2022AP745-D 

16

King becoming so upset and unbalanced that employees had to be 

evacuated to a safe location and sent home for the rest of that 

work day. As OLR noted in its memorandum in support of the 

comprehensive stipulation:

The fact that [Attorney] King was the top law 

enforcement official in the county heightens the 

concern that he was showing up in court and at work 

incapacitated——his constituents and his coworkers 

deserved more. These allegations buttress OLR's 

conclusion that [Attorney] King's misconduct merits 

significant discipline.

¶39 After careful review of this matter, we conclude that 

Attorney King's misconduct warrants a more severe sanction than 

was imposed in Kratz and Baratki. We agree with the referee 

that a one-year suspension of Attorney King's license to 

practice law is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct. 

¶40 We now turn to the issue of costs. Our general 

practice is to impose the full costs of a disciplinary 

proceeding on attorneys who are found to have committed 

misconduct. See SCR 22.24(1m). There is no reason to depart 

from that general practice here. We therefore impose full 

costs.

¶41 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Gary King to 

practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, 

effective January 19, 2024.

¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date 

of this order, Gary King shall pay to the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $5,927.83.
No. 2022AP745-D 

17

¶43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gary King shall comply with 

the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney 

whose license to practice law has been suspended.

¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 

conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. See SCR 

22.29(4)(c). 
No. 2022AP745-D 

1