Title: Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. David T. Prosser, Jr.
Citation: 2012 WI 104
Docket Number: 2012AP000566-J
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: August 10, 2012

2012 WI 104 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2012AP566-J 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against the Honorable David T. 
Prosser, Jr. 
 
Wisconsin Judicial Commission, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
The Honorable David T. Prosser, Jr., 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM DECISION OF JUSTICE MICHAEL J. 
GABLEMAN 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 10, 2012   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
  2012 WI 104 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2012AP566-J 
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against the Honorable David T. 
Prosser, Jr. 
 
Wisconsin Judicial Commission, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
The Honorable David T. Prosser, Jr., 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
AUG 10, 2012 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM DECISION OF 
JUSTICE MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN 
 
 
Before Michael J. Gableman, J. 
 
 
¶1 
On May 8, 2012, I received a letter from Kevin P. 
Reak, counsel for Justice David T. Prosser, Jr., filed with the 
court, requesting that I recuse myself from participation in the 
captioned matter.  Justices Roggensack and Ziegler have issued 
orders, 
construing 
similar 
letters 
addressed 
to 
them 
individually as motions for disqualification, and granting those 
 
 
 
2
motions.  In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Prosser, 2012 
WI 43, 340 Wis. 2d 292, 813 N.W.2d 208 (Roggensack, J.); In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Prosser, 2012 WI 103, __ 
Wis. 2d __, __ N.W.2d __ (Ziegler, J.).  I wholly agree with the 
reasoning 
set 
forth 
in 
Justice 
Roggensack's 
and 
Justice 
Ziegler's orders and for the same reasons I interpret the May 8, 
2012 letter as a motion for disqualification and grant the 
motion.   
 
¶2 
As Justice Ziegler correctly notes, Wisconsin "Supreme 
[C]ourt justices follow a longstanding practice of recusing 
themselves without providing an explanation for the recusal."  
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Prosser, 2012 WI 103, ¶1 
n.1 (Ziegler, J.).  Justices on the United States Supreme Court 
typically follow the same practice.  Sande L. Buhai, Federal 
Judicial 
Disqualification: 
A 
Behavioral 
and 
Quantitative 
Analysis, 90 Or. L. Rev. 69, 82 (2011).  
 
¶3 
 Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in Justice 
Roggensack's and Justice Ziegler's orders, the motion is 
granted, and I disqualify myself from participation in the 
matter.