Title: Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. Gorski
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2019AP000199-J
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: January 30, 2020

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 self-
represented.  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, well-
informed 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 part-
time 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