Title: Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. Annette K. Ziegler
Citation: 2008 WI 47
Docket Number: 2007AP002066-J
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: May 28, 2008

2008 WI 47 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP2066-J 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against the Honorable Annette K. 
Ziegler. 
 
Wisconsin Judicial Commission, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
The Honorable Annette K. Ziegler, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST 
ZIEGLER 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
May 28, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
BUTLER, Jr., J., dissents (opinion filed).   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: ZIEGLER, J., did not participate.   
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 47
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
 
 
No.  2007AP2066-J  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against the Honorable Annette K. 
Ziegler. 
 
 
 
Wisconsin Judicial Commission, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
The Honorable Annette K. Ziegler, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 28, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDICIAL 
disciplinary 
proceeding. 
 
Public 
reprimand 
imposed.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The court is called upon to determine 
whether a judge's conduct in presiding at 11 cases in which the 
judge's spouse was a director of one of the parties constitutes 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
2 
 
misconduct under SCR 60.04(4)(e)1. of the Code of Judicial 
Conduct and Wis. Stat. § 757.81(4)(a).1    
¶2 
Washington County Circuit Judge Annette K. Ziegler 
presided in 11 cases in which the West Bend Savings Bank was a 
party when the Judge's spouse was a director of the Bank.  The 
applicable Code rule, SCR 60.04(4)(e)1., requires a judge to 
recuse herself from presiding in a case in which the judge's 
spouse is a director of a party to the proceeding. 
¶3 
Judge Ziegler's conduct in presiding in the 11 cases 
falls within the plain meaning of the mandatory rule of the Code 
and constitutes misconduct as defined by the legislature. 
Accordingly, we conclude as a matter of law that the Judge 
violated the Code as charged. 
¶4 
Having made this determination, we are required to 
determine the discipline to be imposed upon Judge Ziegler, who 
is now a member of this court.2  Article VII, Section 11 of the 
Wisconsin Constitution provides that judges shall be subject to 
reprimand, 
censure, 
suspension, 
or 
removal 
for 
cause 
in 
disciplinary proceedings.3  To determine the discipline to be 
                                                 
1 Misconduct includes "willful violation of a rule of the 
Code of Judicial Ethics."  Wis. Stat. § 757.81(4)(a). 
2 In April 2007 Judge Ziegler was elected to a ten-year term 
on this court in a contested election.  Judge Ziegler began her 
service on this court on August 1, 2007. 
3 Article VII, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution 
provides:  
Each justice or judge shall be subject to reprimand, 
censure, 
suspension, 
removal 
for 
cause 
or 
for 
disability, 
by 
the 
supreme 
court 
pursuant 
to 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
3 
 
imposed, the court considers the purposes of discipline, the 
mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and the discipline 
imposed in similar cases.   
¶5 
A prime purpose of judicial discipline is to foster 
public trust and confidence in the judicial system.  The purpose 
of SCR 60.04(4)(e)1. is to promote the public's confidence that 
judicial decisions are free from favoritism.  The essence of SCR 
60.04(4)(e)1. in absolutely prohibiting a judge from sitting on 
a case in which the judge's spouse is a director of a party is 
to avoid the perception that the judge is unfair and partial.  
If a judge complies with SCR 60.04(4)(e)1., no question will 
ever arise about a judge's favoritism toward a party to the 
litigation when the judge's spouse is a director.   
¶6 
The harm caused by a violation of this Code provision 
exists even though the judge reaches the correct decision in the 
particular case and the judge does not receive any personal 
benefit from the decision in the case.  All judges are obliged 
to adhere to SCR 60.04(4)(e)1.  Willful, though inadvertent, 
lapses violate the Code.  Inadvertent failure to recognize a 
violation is far different from open defiance of a rule, and it 
affects 
the 
discipline 
to 
be 
imposed. 
 
After 
careful 
consideration of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, 
                                                                                                                                                             
procedures established by the legislature by law.  No 
justice or judge removed for cause shall be eligible 
for reappointment or temporary service.  This section 
is alternative to, and cumulative with, the methods of 
removal provided in sections l and 13 of this article 
and section 12 of article XIII. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
4 
 
we conclude that Judge Ziegler's failure to recuse herself from 
these 11 cases or obtain a waiver diminishes public confidence 
in the legal system. 
¶7 
Not every transgression of the Code, however, will 
result in disciplinary action.  Whether disciplinary action is 
appropriate, and if so, the degree of discipline to be imposed, 
is determined through a reasonable and reasoned application of 
the text of the Code and depends on such factors as the 
seriousness of the transgression, whether a pattern of improper 
activity exists, and the effect of the improper activity on 
others or on the judicial system.4  The question becomes what 
discipline should be imposed.       
¶8 
The appropriate sanction to be imposed here is a 
public reprimand.  Any discipline less severe than a public 
reprimand would not adequately convey the gravity with which 
this court views Judge Ziegler's violation of a bright-line rule 
of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Any discipline less severe 
would not comport with fostering public trust and confidence in 
the judicial system. 
¶9 
"Censure" appears in the Wisconsin constitution as the 
second possible sanction after reprimand.  "Censure" has not 
previously been discussed in a judicial disciplinary proceeding 
in this state.  No one has raised censure as a possible 
discipline in the instant case.  We therefore do not address 
censure except to say that "censure" seems to be a form of 
                                                 
4 Code of Judicial Conduct, SCR 60 Preamble.  
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
5 
 
discipline in the constitution more severe than "reprimand" and 
less severe than "suspension." 
¶10 Suspension 
and removal from office are "drastic 
measures," 
generally 
reserved 
for 
serious, 
repeated 
or 
persistent violations of the judicial code.5  Although the 
violations in the instant case are serious and were willful as 
defined in the statute, the violations were, as we explain 
below, 
also 
inadvertent. 
 
The 
Judicial 
Commission 
has 
characterized the violations as resulting from neglect and as 
serious.      
¶11 Furthermore, a discipline of suspension or removal is 
not necessarily consistent with our past judicial and attorney 
discipline cases.  Prior judicial misconduct cases in which 
judges received a sanction more severe than a reprimand all 
involved some degree of moral culpability that is not present 
here. 
¶12 The instant case presents a troublesome question about 
the level of discipline.  As in all disciplinary cases, the 
court must be fair to the respondent judge and must also protect 
the public.  We conclude, however, that neither suspension nor 
removal is an appropriate sanction and that the appropriate 
discipline to be imposed here is a public reprimand. 
¶13 We begin with a brief summary of the procedure 
followed in this disciplinary matter.  We then discuss the 
                                                 
5 In re Complaint Against the Honorable Christ T. Seraphim, 
97 Wis. 2d 485, 513, 294 N.W.2d 485 (1980). 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
6 
 
misconduct and the rule violated.  Finally, we discuss the 
discipline to be imposed.  
¶14 The allegations of misconduct arose in March 2007 
during Judge Ziegler's election campaign to become a member of 
this court.  Judge Ziegler has repeatedly (directly and 
indirectly) asked the Judicial Conduct Panel and this court to 
discount the allegations and the level of discipline to be 
imposed because the allegations were raised by political 
opponents in the judicial election campaign.6  We agree with the 
Judicial Commission that the fact that the allegations of 
misconduct were made during an election does not mean that the 
allegations may be given short shrift by the Commission or the 
court in determining whether the conduct alleged violated SCR 
60.04(4)(e)1. of the Code of Judicial Conduct or in determining 
the level of discipline.   
¶15 In response to a question by Judge Dykman, a member of 
the Judicial Conduct Panel, about the significance of the fact 
that "the brouhaha" about Judge Ziegler's conduct occurred in 
the midst of a contested political election, James Alexander, 
Executive Director of the Judicial Commission, replied that "in 
the sense of making findings of fact, conclusions of law and 
recommended discipline, the public brouhaha must, in fact, be 
ignored.  The Commission worked very hard to do just that very 
thing."  Mr. Alexander explained that an allegation during an 
                                                 
6 See, e.g., Transcript of the Hearing of the Judicial 
Conduct Panel at 27-29. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
7 
 
election cycle of a violation of the Code that occurred prior to 
the election should be treated the same as one that was not made 
in an election cycle, namely, the Commission is to treat each 
allegation on the merits of the allegation regardless of the 
source of the complaint.  What "we're trying to protect is the 
integrity and impartiality and independence of the judicial 
system."7  We agree with Mr. Alexander.  
I 
¶16 On March 19, 2007, the Judicial Commission issued a 
press release acknowledging receipt of the Wisconsin Democracy 
Campaign's request for an investigation of Judge Ziegler, 
stating that it would be reviewing the request to determine 
whether to authorize an investigation, and advising that its 
proceedings are confidential.8  On April 3, 2007, Judge Ziegler 
was elected as justice of this court.  On April 20, 2007, the 
Judicial Commission publicly confirmed that at its meeting held 
on that day the Judicial Commission authorized an investigation 
of allegations of misconduct filed against Judge Ziegler and 
that 
the 
"Commission 
proceedings 
in 
this 
matter 
remain 
                                                 
7 Transcript of the Hearing of the Judicial Conduct Panel at 
55-57. 
8 The press release is filed as part of Judge Ziegler's 
Petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court To Take Jurisdiction of 
an Original Action, Supreme Court File 2007AP947-OA, State ex 
rel. Ziegler v. State of Wisconsin Ethics Board at A18.  This 
original action is discussed later.     
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
8 
 
confidential.  The Commission will have no other comment on the 
investigation"9   
¶17 On September 6, 2007, the Judicial Commission filed a 
complaint against Judge Ziegler asserting that it had found 
probable cause to believe she had violated a rule in SCR Chapter 
60, Code of Judicial Conduct.  Contemporaneous with the filing 
of the complaint, Judge Ziegler filed a response in which she 
admitted, with explanations, the allegations of the complaint.  
The Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler also filed on 
September 6, 2007, a Stipulation and Joint Recommendation, 
agreeing that Judge Ziegler admitted the allegations in the 
complaint, including that she presided in 11 cases in which a 
Bank was a party to the proceeding at the same time that the 
Judge's spouse was a director of the Bank,10 and that the Judge's 
presiding in these 11 cases was a willful violation of SCR 
60.04(4)(e)1. of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  The Commission 
and the Judge agreed that the discipline should be a public 
reprimand.   
                                                 
9 The press release is filed as part of Judge Ziegler's 
Petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court To Take Jurisdiction of 
an Original Action, Supreme Court File 2007AP947-OA, State ex 
rel. Ziegler v. State of Wisconsin Ethics Board at A19.  This 
original action is discussed later. 
10 From March 1, 2001, and at all times relevant to the 
facts set forth in this opinion, Judge Ziegler's husband, J.J. 
Ziegler, was a paid member of the board of directors of the West 
Bend Savings Bank, located in the City of West Bend, Washington 
County, Wisconsin.  J.J. Ziegler's compensation for his service 
as a director was a flat fee of $20,000 per year, the same as 
that paid to other outside directors. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
9 
 
¶18 On September 10, 2007, this court referred the matter 
to the chief judge of the court of appeals for the appointment 
of a Judicial Conduct Panel composed of three judges of the 
court of appeals.11  The Judicial Conduct Panel is charged with 
making "findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations 
regarding appropriate discipline for misconduct" and filing its 
findings, conclusions and recommendations with the supreme 
court.12  "The allegations of the complaint or petition must be 
proven to a reasonable certainty by evidence that is clear, 
satisfactory and convincing."13  A stipulation does not bind the 
Judicial Conduct Panel as to either the facts or proposed 
appropriate discipline.14  
¶19 The Judicial Conduct Panel posed written questions to 
the Judge and the Judicial Commission for their briefing.  It 
acted within its discretion in posing written questions to the 
parties, not to broaden the scope of the allegations against 
Judge Ziegler, but rather to insure that it had sufficient 
information to determine whether all the allegations in the 
                                                 
11 On September 14, 2007, the Honorable Richard S. Brown, 
chief judge of the court of appeals, appointed the Honorable 
Ralph Adam Fine and the Honorable Ted E. Wedemeyer, Jr., 
District I Court of Appeals judges, and the Honorable Charles P. 
Dykman, District IV Court of Appeals judge, to serve as members 
of the Judicial Conduct Panel to hear the Judicial Commission's 
allegations against Judge Ziegler. 
12 Wis. Stat. § 757.89.   
13 Id. 
14 In 
re 
Judicial 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Breitenbach, 167 Wis. 2d 102, 120, 482 N.W.2d (1992). 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
10 
 
Judicial Commission's complaint had in fact been proven to a 
reasonable certainty by evidence that is clear, satisfactory and 
convincing and also, importantly, to assist it in determining an 
appropriate level of discipline.   
¶20 The Judicial Conduct Panel held a hearing on November 
19, 2007.  Although Judge Ziegler appeared in person at the 
hearing, the panel did not hear testimony from her or any other 
witnesses.  Instead the Judicial Conduct Panel decided to hear 
only argument by James Alexander, representing the Judicial 
Commission, and Attorney James R. Troupis, representing Judge 
Ziegler.  The Judicial Conduct Panel decided to rely on the 
assertions of fact in the documents before it, the pleadings, 
and the stipulation, as well as the assertions of fact made by 
counsel in the briefs and in argument.  Some of the Judicial 
Conduct Panel's Findings of Fact are based on assertions made in 
the brief filed by counsel on behalf of Judge Ziegler, on the 
brief of the Judicial Commission, and on counsels' assertions at 
oral argument before the Panel. 
¶21 This court is now faced with having to rely upon the 
assertions of fact made by counsel in the briefs and in argument 
even though statements of counsel ordinarily do not constitute 
evidence supporting a finding of fact.  The general rule is 
stated in the Wisconsin civil jury instruction 110, instructing 
jurors to "consider carefully the closing arguments of the 
attorneys, but their arguments, conclusions, and opinions are 
not evidence." 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
11 
 
¶22 The Judicial Conduct Panel delivered a written Report 
to this court on January 3, 2008,15 concluding that the 
stipulation correctly set forth the facts of the 11 cases at 
issue and correctly concluded that the Judge violated SCR 
60.04(4)(e)1. 
of 
the 
Code. 
 
The 
Judicial 
Conduct 
Panel 
recommended that Judge Ziegler be publicly reprimanded. 
¶23 After the Judicial Conduct Panel issued its report, 
this court invited the parties to file briefs.  Both parties 
informed 
the 
court 
that 
the 
record 
contained 
sufficient 
materials for the court to take the matter under advisement and 
that neither party would be filing a brief. 
¶24 This court reviews the findings of fact, conclusions 
of law and recommendation for discipline of the Judicial Conduct 
Panel.16  This court accepts the findings of fact of the Judicial 
Conduct Panel unless they are clearly erroneous.17  We decide 
                                                 
15 Wisconsin Stat. § 757.89 provides that "the panel shall 
make findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations 
regarding appropriate discipline for misconduct or appropriate 
action 
for 
permanent 
disability 
and 
file 
the 
findings, 
conclusions and recommendations with the supreme court." 
16 Section 757.91 provides: 
 
Supreme court; disposition.  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. 
17 In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crawford, 
2001 WI 96, ¶10 n.5, 245 Wis. 2d 373, 629 N.W.2d 1.   
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
12 
 
questions of law (such as the interpretation and application of 
the Code) and the appropriate discipline independently of the 
Panel, benefiting from its reasoning and analysis.   
¶25 The 
ultimate 
responsibility 
for 
reviewing 
the 
determination of the facts, for interpreting the Code of 
Judicial Conduct and applying the Code to the facts, and for 
deciding the appropriate discipline is this court's, adhering to 
the established standard of review. 
II 
¶26 The Judge, the Judicial Commission, and the Judicial 
Conduct Panel agree on the following facts that are the basis 
for the discipline proceeding:  The Judge failed to recuse 
herself from presiding over 11 cases in which the West Bend 
Savings Bank was a party to the proceeding when her husband was 
a paid director of the Bank.18  The Judge did not disclose her 
husband's relationship with the Bank or obtain a waiver of 
recusal in any of the 11 cases.19   
                                                 
18 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 22.  See also 
Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler's Stipulation and Joint 
Recommendation 
for 
Reprimand 
No. 
1; 
Judicial 
Commission 
Complaint No. 5. 
19 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 22.  See also 
Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler's Stipulation and Joint 
Recommendation 
for 
Reprimand 
No. 
1; 
Judicial 
Commission 
Complaint No. 6.   
Supreme Court Rule 60.04(6) provides:   
 
A judge required to recuse himself or herself 
under sub. (4) may disclose on the record the basis of 
the judge's recusal and may ask the parties and their 
lawyers to consider, out of the presence of the judge, 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
13 
 
¶27 The record supports these findings of fact of the 
Judicial Conduct Panel.  Nothing in the record casts any doubt 
about the findings with respect to the 11 cases.  We accept the 
Panel's findings of fact describing the 11 cases; they are not 
clearly erroneous.     
¶28 The 11 cases at issue were filed in the circuit court 
from 2001 to 2006.  The 11 cases were randomly assigned in 
Washington County to Judge Ziegler.  In each of the 11 cases, 
she took some action as a judge.20   
¶29 The following summary of the cases in chronological 
order is taken from the findings of fact of the Judicial Conduct 
                                                                                                                                                             
whether to waive recusal.  If, following disclosure of 
any basis for recusal other than personal bias or 
prejudice concerning a party, the parties and lawyers, 
without participation by the judge, all agree that the 
judge should not be required to recuse himself or 
herself and the judge is then willing to participate, 
the judge may participate in the proceeding.  The 
agreement shall be incorporated in the record of the 
proceeding. 
20 In addition to presiding over the 11 cases, 40 additional 
cases involving the West Bend Savings Bank were also randomly 
assigned to Judge Ziegler by the clerk of the circuit court over 
a period of six years.  In those 40 cases, a default judgment 
was entered by staff in the clerk of circuit court's office, 
using Judge Ziegler's signature stamp.  The Judge did not see 
the files of those cases or take any personal action in them. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
14 
 
Panel.21  In each of the following cases Judge Ziegler was the 
presiding judge, the West Bend Savings Bank was a party to the 
proceeding, and the Judge's spouse was a director of the Bank:  
1. 
West Bend Savings Bank v. McBride, 2001CV645.  
This was a foreclosure action in which the property 
had been abandoned.  The principal defendant did not 
appear.  The attorney for a subordinate defendant 
filed a notice of appearance, but did not appear at 
any hearing.  The bank moved for default judgment.  
Only the bank appeared at the hearing, and Judge 
Ziegler granted the motion and entered judgment for 
the bank.  The property was subsequently sold, and 
Judge Ziegler confirmed the sale.  Only the bank 
appeared at the confirmation hearing, and no party 
objected to the confirmation of the sale. 
2. 
West Bend Savings Bank v. Wright, 2001SC1468.  
This was a replevin action.  At the hearing, the 
defendant appeared  without counsel and informed the 
court that he had not made the payments under the loan 
and that he did not have a defense to the action. 
Judge 
Ziegler 
signed 
an 
order 
for 
judgment 
of 
replevin.  
3. 
West Bend Savings Bank v. S.H. Friedenheim, 
2002CV373.  This was a foreclosure action.  The 
principal defendant did not appear. The bank moved for 
default judgment and, following a hearing at which 
only the bank appeared, Judge Ziegler granted the 
motion and entered a default judgment in favor of the 
bank.  During the litigation, Judge Ziegler appointed 
a senior vice-president of the bank as receiver for 
the property.  The property was subsequently sold, and 
                                                 
21 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 22.  The 
description of the cases is verbatim from the Judicial Conduct 
Panel, except that the court has substituted "Judge" for 
"Justice" to accurately reflect historical events.  The cases 
are also described in the Judicial Commission's complaint at ¶5, 
the allegations of which the Judge admitted in her stipulation 
with the Commission.  See also Judicial Commission and Judge 
Ziegler's Stipulation and Joint Recommendation for Reprimand, 
¶1. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
15 
 
Judge Ziegler confirmed the sale.  Only the bank 
appeared at the confirmation hearing and no one 
objected to the confirmation of the sale.  
4. 
West Bend Savings Bank v. Volgmann, 2002CV602.  
This was a foreclosure action.  The defendant appeared 
by counsel, but did not file an answer or otherwise 
contest the complaint.  The bank moved for summary 
judgment. 
 The defendant's attorney objected in 
writing, but did not appear at the hearing, and did 
not otherwise pursue the objection.  Judge Ziegler 
granted summary judgment to the bank, and entered a 
judgment of foreclosure.  The defendant redeemed the 
property 
prior 
to 
the 
foreclosure 
sale. 
 
Four 
attorneys appeared in the course of this case, and the 
bank's request for an adjournment was granted by the 
clerk of courts.  
5. 
West Bend Savings Bank v. Oberdas, 2003SC172.  
Prior to the scheduling of any court proceedings, the 
parties settled the case.  The parties filed a signed 
stipulation with the clerk of circuit court.  The 
clerk routed the stipulation to Judge  Ziegler who 
signed the stipulation.  The stipulation provided that 
judgment for the bank could be automatically entered 
if the defendant did not keep current on loan 
payments.  The bank later filed an affidavit averring 
that the defendant had not kept current on the loan, 
and pursuant to the stipulation, Judge Ziegler signed 
an order for judgment. 
6. 
West Bend Savings Bank v. Meyer, 2003SC1360.  The 
bank filed an action for replevin.  At a hearing at 
which the defendants appeared without counsel, the 
parties informed Judge Ziegler that a settlement had 
been 
reached 
before 
the 
hearing 
and 
that 
the 
defendants had made arrangements to pay the debt.  
Upon agreement of the parties, Judge Ziegler signed an 
order for judgment of replevin, and judgment was 
entered.  The bank agreed not to execute the judgment 
so long as the defendants continued to make payments 
on the loan.  The settlement was reached before the 
hearing and Judge Ziegler was not involved in any 
settlement discussions.  
7. 
West Bend Savings Bank v. Haugen, 2005SC089.  The 
bank sought to recover a vehicle that served as 
collateral to a loan.  A defendant, Eric Haugen, 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
16 
 
appeared before the clerk of circuit court at a 
February 14, 2005 hearing. Haugen was not represented 
by an attorney and he admitted owing the money.  Judge 
Ziegler entered an order granting possession of the 
vehicle to the bank. 
8. 
West Bend Savings Bank v. Haugen, 2005SC789.  
This case was related to the previous case, No. 
2005SC789.  On July 5, 2005, Eric Haugen appeared 
before the clerk of circuit court.  The clerk set an 
adjourned date by which Haugen was to file an answer.  
A second defendant did not appear, and a default 
judgment was entered by the clerk, using Judge 
Ziegler's signature stamp.  On July 18, 2005, Eric 
Haugen appeared, and admitted owing money to the bank.  
A judgment for $5,092.57 was entered on July 19, 2005, 
by 
the 
clerk 
of 
courts, 
using 
Judge 
Ziegler's 
signature stamp.  A contempt hearing took place on 
September 12, 2005.  Haugen appeared, and the bank 
advised Judge Ziegler that Haugen was not in contempt 
of court.  The second defendant, however, did not 
appear, and Judge Ziegler found the second defendant 
in contempt of court and ordered that the second 
defendant spend 30 days in jail; alternatively, the 
second defendant could purge the contempt by either 
paying 
$5,092.57 
or 
by 
submitting 
a 
financial 
disclosure statement.  The second defendant submitted 
the financial disclosure statement, and the contempt 
was purged. 
9. 
West Bend Savings Bank v. Kidd, 2006SC844.  The 
nature of this lawsuit is not apparent from this 
record.  The defendant wrote the court on June 19, 
2006, asking that a hearing scheduled for June 26, 
2006, be rescheduled.  By a message left on an 
answering machine, the defendant was told to call the 
court at 1:30 p.m. on June 26, and that she could 
appear at the hearing by telephone.  On the day of the 
hearing, the defendant appeared by telephone but the 
bank did not appear because it had obtained an 
adjournment of the hearing from the clerk's office, 
without Judge Ziegler's involvement.  The defendant 
requested a new hearing date, and Judge Ziegler 
granted that request.  All subsequent proceedings in 
this case were handled by a different judge who 
entered judgment in favor of the bank. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
17 
 
10. West Bend Savings Bank v. Blackhawk Repossession 
Investigation and Towing Services, LLC, 2006CV037.  
The bank brought an action to recover $28,160.33, as 
the unpaid balance on a loan, and to recover two 
vehicles that secured the loan. The defendant, without 
counsel, filed an answer.  The bank moved for summary 
judgment.  The defendant did not appear at the summary 
judgment hearing.  Judge Ziegler told the clerk to 
call the defendant at its provided telephone number, 
but the call was blocked on the receiving end.  Judge 
Ziegler granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, 
and signed an order for replevin. 
11. West Bend Savings Bank v. Lopacinski, 2006CV045.  
The bank filed a complaint against Scott A. Lopacinski 
seeking $45,000.  Lopacinski represented himself and, 
in his answer, claimed he was the victim of a Nigeria-
based computer scam.  Lopacinski alleged that he had 
received a check for $45,000 from an attorney in 
Nigeria who asked Lopacinski to send him a wire 
transfer in that amount.  At Lopacinski's request, the 
Bank sent a wire transfer for $45,000 to the attorney 
in Nigeria; however, the check received by Lopacinski 
was counterfeit and, therefore, it was not honored by 
the bank on which it was drawn.  The bank moved for 
summary judgment.  Judge Ziegler held a hearing on the 
motion on May 22, 2006.  Lopacinski informed Judge 
Ziegler that he had no legal defense to the motion.  
Judge Ziegler granted summary judgment to the bank, 
finding, as a matter of law, that no issue of fact was 
presented.  Judge Ziegler signed an order for summary 
judgment in favor of the bank for $46,425, plus 
attorneys' fees and costs. 
¶30 Apparently Judge Ziegler sat on cases involving the 
Bank before her husband became a director in 2001 and continued 
to sit on cases involving the Bank after her husband became a 
director.  In sitting on these cases from the latter part of 
2001 through the first half of 2006, the Judge was apparently 
following her past practice, instead of changing her practice 
because of changed family circumstances.  The Judge explained in 
her response to the Complaint of the Wisconsin Judicial 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
18 
 
Commission that "[r]egrettably, Judge Ziegler rotely continued 
her past practice of hearing West Bend Savings cases and states 
that she inadvertently overlooked her responsibilities under the 
conflict rules."22  
¶31 Supreme Court Rule 60.04(4)(e)1. of the Judicial 
Conduct Code governs this discipline proceeding.  It provides in 
pertinent part that a judge shall recuse herself in a proceeding 
when the facts and circumstances the judge knows establish that 
the judge's spouse is a director of a party to the litigation. 
The text of SCR 60.04(4)(e)1. is clear and mandatory; it 
contains no exceptions.  The pertinent provisions of SCR 
60.04(4)(e)1. applicable to the instant case set forth a bright-
line test.  In contrast, no bright-line rules apply to a judge's 
need to recuse on the basis of stock ownership.  Without 
question, the 11 cases at issue fall within the bright-line rule 
of SCR 60.04(4)(e)1. 
¶32 The following full text of SCR 60.04(4)(e)1. describes 
the circumstances of the present case as well as numerous 
circumstances not involved in the present matter.  The text is 
quoted in full with the words relevant to the present case 
italicized and in bold. 
SCR 60.04  A judge shall perform the duties of 
judicial 
office 
impartially 
and 
diligently. 
The 
judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all 
the judge's other activities.  The judge's judicial 
                                                 
22 Judge Ziegler's Response to Complaint of Wisconsin 
Judicial Commission at 2. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
19 
 
duties include all the duties of the judge's office 
prescribed by law. 
. . . . 
(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 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:   
. . . . 
(e) The judge or the judge's spouse, or a person 
within the third degree of kinship to either of them, 
or the spouse of such a person meets one of the 
following criteria: 
1. Is a party to the proceeding or an officer, 
director or trustee of a party. 
¶33 Judge Ziegler did not recuse herself, as required by 
SCR 60.04(4)(e)1., in the 11 proceedings when she knew that her 
spouse was a director of a party to the proceeding.  It is clear 
that Judge Ziegler's conduct violated the Code, as she so 
stipulated.  We so hold.   
III 
¶34 We turn now to the appropriate discipline.  We examine 
the purpose of discipline, mitigating and aggravating factors, 
and our precedent. 
¶35 Purpose of Discipline.  Discipline is not imposed to 
punish the individual judge.23  Rather, the purpose of judicial 
                                                 
23 In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Aulik, 
146 Wis. 2d 57, 77, 429 N.W.2d 759 (1988). 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
20 
 
discipline, like the purpose of the Code of Judicial Conduct, is 
to protect our court system and the public from misconduct. 
Discipline is designed to restore and maintain the dignity, 
honor, and impartiality of the judicial office.24  
¶36 "A fair and impartial judge is the cornerstone of the 
integrity of the judicial system."25  As James Alexander stated, 
"conflict of interest is a serious aspect of the Code of 
                                                 
24 In re Inquiry Concerning Patrick C. McCormick, 639 
N.W.2d 12, 16 (Iowa 2002). 
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently discussed the 
importance of this factor in In re Mathesius, 910 A.2d 594, 608 
(2006): 
 
 
The single overriding rationale behind our system 
of judicial discipline is the preservation of public 
confidence in the integrity and the independence of 
the judiciary.  As we have noted before, "This Court 
cannot allow the integrity of the judicial process to 
be compromised in any way by a member of either the 
Bench 
or 
the 
Bar." 
 
Accordingly, 
institutional 
concerns 
figure 
prominently 
in 
cases 
involving 
judicial 
discipline. 
 
As 
the 
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Minnesota has observed, the standard of judicial 
conduct is a high one precisely "so that the integrity 
and independence of the judiciary may be preserved."  
Judicial misconduct "brings the judicial office into 
disrepute and thereby prejudices the administration of 
justice . . . and diminishes public respect for the 
judiciary."  Because public confidence in judges is 
essential to maintaining the legal system, "misconduct 
by a judge brings the office into disrepute and 
thereby prejudices the administration of justice."  
[In re Seaman, 133 N.J. 67, 96-97, 627 A.2d 106 (1993) 
(citations omitted).] 
25 In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Laatsch, 
2007 WI 20, ¶13, 299 Wis. 2d 144, 727 N.W.2d 488.   
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
21 
 
Judicial Conduct."26  To maintain public confidence in the legal 
system, the appearance of impartiality is often as important as 
impartiality itself.  The Alaska Supreme Court explained the 
importance of the role of an impartial judiciary in maintaining 
public confidence as follows: 
Our legal system is based on the principle that an 
independent, 
fair 
and 
competent 
judiciary 
will 
interpret and apply the laws that govern us.  The role 
of the judiciary is central to American concepts of 
justice and the rule of law.  Intrinsic to all 
Sections of this Code are the precepts that judges, 
individually and collectively, must respect and honor 
the judicial office as a public trust and strive to 
enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system.27  
¶37 Reasonable people would question the impartiality of a 
judge who presides over a case in which the judge's spouse is a 
director of a party to the proceedings.   
¶38 "Public confidence in the integrity of the judicial 
system is essential.  It is our responsibility, and the 
responsibility of every judge, to merit and maintain that 
confidence."28  The discipline imposed must be commensurate with 
the conduct involved and must be "designed to foster confidence 
in the integrity the public has every right to expect and demand 
of its judicial system."29      
                                                 
26 Transcript of Judicial Conduct Panel Hearing at 44. 
27 In re Proceeding under AS 22.300.070(c)_ in Relation to 
Karl S. Johnstone, 2 P.3d 1226 (Alaska 2000) (quoting preamble 
to ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct and preamble to Alaska 
Code of Judicial Conduct). 
28 Aulik, 146 Wis. 2d at 78. 
29 Id. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
22 
 
¶39 We explained the purpose of discipline in In re 
Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crawford, 2001 WI 96, 
245 Wis. 2d 373, 629 N.W.2d 1, as follows: 
The sanction that we impose must convey to the public 
the gravity with which this court views judicial 
misconduct.  Those who sit in judgment in both civil 
and 
criminal 
matters, 
in 
which 
the 
lives 
and 
livelihood of the citizens of this state are involved, 
must be above reproach.  When a judge fails to live up 
to the demanding, but necessary, standards that are 
imposed upon the elected judiciary, the integrity of 
the entire judicial process can be only reaffirmed by 
a sanction commensurate with the conduct.30 
¶40 The Judicial Conduct Panel described the criteria that 
must be considered and weighed in imposing discipline as 
follows:  
 
First, "[t]he purpose of judicial discipline is 
to protect the court system and the public it serves 
from unacceptable judicial behavior."  In re Judicial 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Gorenstein, 
147 
Wis. 2d 861, 873, 434 N.W.2d 603 (1989). 
 
Second, the supreme court has made it clear that 
punishment is not a permissible consideration.  In re 
Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Crawford, 
2001 WI 96, ¶38, 245 Wis. 2d 373, 629 N.W.2d 1 
("Discipline is not intended to punish the judge.") 
 
Third, the supreme court has identified the 
following 
material 
discipline-considerations: 
"The 
discipline imposed should be determined by the extent 
that the public needs protection from unacceptable 
judicial behavior, based upon the seriousness of the 
judge's misconduct and the likelihood that it would 
recur."  In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Dreyfus, 182 Wis. 2d 121, 129, 513 N.W.2d 604 
(1994).   
                                                 
30 Crawford, 245 Wis. 2d 373, ¶¶39-40. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
23 
 
Fourth, the discipline must be proportional: 
"Discipline imposed for judicial misconduct is to be 
responsive to the gravity of the misconduct——the 
actual harm or threat of harm it posed to those using 
our court system and to the system itself."  In re 
Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Aulik, 146 
Wis. 2d 57, 77, 429 N.W.2d 759 (1988). 
¶41 Judge Ziegler's conduct violated not only the plain 
language of the Code but also a principle underlying the Code: 
Judges should avoid partiality and even the appearance of 
partiality.  Judge Ziegler's failure to recuse herself from 
these 11 cases or obtain a waiver raised the question of her 
ability to decide the cases impartially.  Public confidence in 
the integrity of the judicial system was adversely affected when 
the Judge presided over cases in which her spouse was a director 
of a party. 
¶42 The sanction imposed in this case must be sufficient 
to inform the public and the judiciary of the need for judges to 
adhere to the rules regarding recusal.  Adherence to the rules 
of recusal is essential to the integrity of the judicial system 
on which the people of this state have the right to rely. 
¶43 Considering the Circumstances of the Case.  Each case 
must 
be 
carefully 
analyzed 
according 
to 
the 
particular 
circumstances of that case.  Nevertheless, the following is a 
helpful, non-exclusive list of factors to guide the decision of 
the appropriate discipline in a discipline case:  
(1) whether the misconduct is an isolated instance or 
evidenced a pattern of misconduct;  
(2) the nature, extent and frequency of occurrence of the 
acts of misconduct;  
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
24 
 
(3) whether the misconduct occurred inside or outside the 
courtroom or courthouse;  
(4) whether the misconduct occurred in the judge's official 
capacity or in his or her private life; 
 (5) whether the judge has acknowledged or recognized that 
the acts occurred;  
(6) whether the judge has demonstrated an effort to change 
or modify his or her conduct;  
(7) the extent to which the judge exploited his or her 
position to satisfy personal desires; 
(8) the length of the judge's service on the bench;  
(9) whether prior complaints were filed against the judge; 
and 
(10) the effect the misconduct has upon the integrity of 
and respect for the judiciary.31 
¶44 We explore these and other factors in determining the 
discipline to be imposed in the instant case, separating those 
factors we view in the instant case as mitigating factors and 
those we view as aggravating factors. 
¶45 Mitigating 
Factors. 
 
We 
begin 
by 
considering 
mitigating circumstances, that is, circumstances that tend 
toward justifying less severe discipline for violation of a 
rule.   
                                                 
31 See McCormick, 639 N.W.2d at 16.   
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
25 
 
¶46 According to the record, Judge Ziegler was a fine 
circuit court judge and an active member of the judiciary 
contributing to the administration of the judicial system. 
¶47 The Judge was admitted to the practice of law in 
Wisconsin in 1989.32  She was appointed a circuit court judge in 
1997, elected to that position in 1998, and reelected in 2004.33  
During her service as a circuit court judge, Judge Ziegler 
served as the Deputy Chief Judge for the Third Judicial 
Administrative District,34 which encompasses Washington, Ozaukee, 
Jefferson, and Waukesha Counties.   
¶48 Judge Ziegler has served on the faculty of the 
Wisconsin Judicial College.35  She has also served on various 
committees within the judicial system, including the Criminal 
Jury Instructions Committee, the Criminal Bench Book Committee, 
the Judicial Education Committee, the Wisconsin Circuit Court 
Access Oversight Committee, the Juvenile Justice Advisory 
Committee, and the Children's Resource Project Coordinating 
Committee.36  She volunteered for the Judicial Exchange Program 
                                                 
32 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 43.  See also 
Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler's Stipulation and Joint 
Recommendation for Reprimand No. 6. 
33 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 44.  See also 
Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler's Stipulation and Joint 
Recommendation for Reprimand No. 5.  
34 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 45.  See also 
Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler's Stipulation and Joint 
Recommendation for Reprimand No. 5.  
35 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 46. 
36 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 47.   
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
26 
 
between the court of appeals and the circuit courts in 1999, 
participating in several court of appeals cases through that 
program.37  
¶49 Judge Ziegler was not the subject of any disciplinary 
action as an attorney.38  She was not the subject of any judicial 
discipline or investigation prior to the investigation giving 
rise to the present proceeding.39 
¶50 The Judicial Commission examined allegations that 
Judge Ziegler presided in some 40 additional cases involving the 
Bank.  The Judicial Commission's investigation revealed that in 
these cases a default judgment was entered by personnel of the 
Clerk of the Circuit Court's office, using the Judge's signature 
stamp without the Judge's seeing the files or taking any 
personal action in them.40  The Judicial Commission determined 
that there was no willful violation of SCR 60.04(4)(e)1. in 
these cases.41     
                                                 
37 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 48.   
38 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 43.  See also 
Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler's Stipulation and Joint 
Recommendation for Reprimand No. 6.   
39 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 44.  See also 
Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler's Stipulation and Joint 
Recommendation for Reprimand No. 5.  
40 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 21.   
41 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 21. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
27 
 
¶51 The parties' stipulation42 and the Report of the 
Judicial Conduct Panel43 concluded that Judge Ziegler did not 
gain or attempt to gain a financial advantage either for herself 
or for any member of her family by presiding over the 11 cases 
in which the Bank was a party to the proceedings.  No one 
contended that Judge Ziegler's actions in the 11 cases were 
motivated by bias or partiality.44  None of the litigants 
involved in the 11 cases filed a complaint with the Judicial 
Commission,45 and despite the extensive publicity over this 
matter, none of the litigants in any of the cases sought to have 
a case reopened.46  
¶52 The Panel also found as a fact that if Judge Ziegler 
had recused herself from the 11 cases, any other judge hearing 
the cases would have made the same decisions that Judge Ziegler 
                                                 
42 Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler's Stipulation and 
Joint Recommendation for Reprimand No. 4.   
43 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 42.   
44 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 23.   
45 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 26. 
46 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 28.   
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
28 
 
made.  This finding is supported in the record by Judge 
Ziegler's opinion about the cases.47     
¶53 Judge Ziegler made no attempt to hide or conceal the 
fact of her husband's status as a director of the Bank.48  She 
disclosed her husband's position as a director of the West Bend 
Savings Bank on the Statement of Economic Interests that she 
filed annually with the Wisconsin Ethics Board.49   
¶54 Judge 
Ziegler's 
husband 
had 
other 
business 
relationships with the West Bend Savings Bank beyond his service 
as a director.  On November 9, 2006, Judge Ziegler and her 
husband executed a mortgage on their residence in favor of the 
West Bend Savings Bank, as security for $2,000,000 in commercial 
                                                 
47 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 42 states that 
Judge Ziegler reached the correct legal result in each of these 
11 
cases. 
 
The 
Judicial 
Commission 
and 
Judge 
Ziegler's 
Stipulation and Joint Recommendation for Reprimand (No. 4) 
states that "[t]here is no indication that any case was decided 
incorrectly."   In the Settlement between Judge Ziegler and the 
Wisconsin Ethics Board Judge Ziegler stated that she did not 
contest the Report of Investigation.  In the Report the Judge is 
quoted as having "stated that she believes that any judge would 
have handled the matters in the exact same way that she did and 
that she decided every case fairly based on the law and the 
facts."      
48 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 9.  
49 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 8.  
Supreme Court 
Rule 60.05(8)(b) provides:  "Financial 
reports.  Except as provided in SCR 60.07, a judge shall file 
with the ethics board a timely financial report as required by 
section 19.43 of the statutes. . . ."  Effective January 10, 
2008, the newly-created Government Accountability Board assumed 
the combined responsibilities of the former State Ethics Board 
and State Elections Board. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
29 
 
loans extended by the bank to Judge Ziegler's husband.50  The 
Judicial Conduct Panel found that Judge Ziegler "was not 
involved in obtaining the loans"51 and that "there is no dispute 
but that . . . the loans . . . were 'arms length' transactions, 
and that neither [Judge] Ziegler nor her husband participated in 
the approval of the loans,"52   
¶55 The basis of these findings appears to be a facsimile, 
which is appended to the brief that Judge Ziegler filed with the 
Judicial Conduct Panel, sent from counsel for West Bend Savings 
Bank to counsel for Judge Ziegler.  Judge Ziegler's counsel 
wrote the counsel for the Bank asking (1) whether each of the 
loans was negotiated and concluded in arms-length transactions; 
(2) whether Judge Ziegler's husband approved any of these loans 
in his capacity as a director; (3) whether any applicable 
federal or state statute or regulation was violated by any of 
these loans; and (4) whether Judge Ziegler participated in the 
negotiation of any loans made to the Zieglers for commercial 
purposes.  The attorney for the Bank wrote in response to the 
questions posed as follows: "1. Yes.  2. No.  3. No.  4. No."   
¶56 The 
Judicial Commission's brief states that the 
Commission was aware that the Judge and her husband were 
customers of the Bank and other financial institutions but that 
the Commission had no specific knowledge of the amount of money 
                                                 
50 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact Nos. 14-16.   
51 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 15. 
52 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 16.   
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
30 
 
Judge Ziegler and her husband borrowed from West Bend Savings 
Bank.53  The Commission advised the Judicial Conduct Panel that 
the loans were not the subject of the Judicial Commission's 
investigation, and the Commission had no indication that any 
loan was obtained other than in the regular course of business.54  
This is the entire record relating to the loans.  There is no 
additional information in the record about the loans. 
¶57 Judge Ziegler listed the West Bend Savings Bank as a 
creditor on her 2006 Statement of Economic Interests.55   
¶58 Judge Ziegler disclosed other relationships between 
her spouse and the Bank.  Beginning in late 2006, a business in 
which Judge Ziegler's husband was a part owner rented commercial 
real estate to the West Bend Savings Bank, thereby creating a 
landlord-tenant relationship between that business and the 
Bank.56  Judge Ziegler disclosed this relationship and the 
                                                 
53 Judicial Commission Brief to the Judicial Conduct Panel 
at 4. 
54 Judicial Commission Brief to the Judicial Conduct Panel 
at 5. 
55 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 17.   
56 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 18.  Judge 
Ziegler disclosed the landlord-tenant relationship "and the 
receipt of rental income from the Bank, on her Statement of 
Economic Interests for 2006.  The first rental payment was 
received after the conclusion of the last of the cases that are 
the subject of the Commission's Complaint."  Judicial Conduct 
Panel Finding of Fact No. 19. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
31 
 
receipt of rental income from the West Bend Savings Bank on her 
2006 Statement of Economic Interests.57  
¶59 Judge Ziegler's husband has no financial interest in 
the West Bend Savings Bank.58  The Judge's husband's primary 
business occupation is real estate development,59 and he viewed 
his position on the West Bend Savings Bank's board of directors 
as a public service to the West Bend community.60 
¶60 When Judge Ziegler became aware, during her election 
campaign to become a member of this court, of the allegations of 
misconduct regarding her participation in cases involving the 
West Bend Savings Bank, she took corrective action to change the 
case assignment system in Washington County so that cases 
involving the Bank would no longer be assigned to her.61  The 
Judge has also made arrangements with the supreme court 
commissioners to ensure that no case materials be transmitted to 
her in any case involving the Bank so long as her husband is 
serving on the Bank's Board of Directors.62 
                                                 
57 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 19.  The 
Judicial Commission stated that it did not consider the lease of 
the property when making its disciplinary recommendations.   
58 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 11.   
59 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 13. 
60 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 12.   
61 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 30.   
62 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 49.  See also 
Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler's Stipulation and Joint 
Recommendation for Reprimand No. 8.   
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
32 
 
¶61 In the stipulation, Judge Ziegler acknowledged and 
expressed her deep regret for the errors in judgment she made 
and for any effect her conduct may have had on the Wisconsin 
judicial system.63  She apologized to this court and to the 
public.64 
¶62 Judge Ziegler cooperated with the Judicial Commission 
in its investigation.65  She appeared in person before a closed 
session of the Commission on August 23, 2007, fully and 
forthrightly answered all questions put to her, and fully 
provided all documentation requested by the Commission.   
¶63 Judge Ziegler was forthright in discussing her conduct 
before the Wisconsin Ethics Board.  The Board had conducted an 
investigation in March 2007 into substantially the same conduct 
that is the subject of the Judicial Commission's Complaint as 
violating Wis. Stat. § 19.46(1)(a).66  On April 18, 2007, the 
Board filed a verified complaint against Judge Ziegler based on 
its Report of Investigation, concluding that there was probable 
cause to believe that Judge Ziegler had violated Chapter 19 of 
                                                 
63 Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler's Stipulation and 
Joint Recommendation for Reprimand No. 7. 
64 Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler's Stipulation and 
Joint Recommendation for Reprimand No. 7. 
65 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 41.  See also 
Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler's Stipulation and Joint 
Recommendation for Reprimand No. 3. 
66 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 31.  
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
33 
 
the Statutes.67  The Complaint (with the March Report of 
Investigation attached) is limited to any violation of chapter 
19; it does not address any violation of the Code of Judicial 
Conduct.68  The Ethics Board set the Ziegler matter for a hearing 
before Reserve Judge David G. Deininger at 9:00 a.m. on May 17, 
2007.69     
¶64 On April 26, 2007, Judge Ziegler filed a petition in 
this court for leave to commence an original action and a motion 
for an order temporarily preventing the Wisconsin Ethics Board 
from proceeding on its verified complaint until the court 
determines whether the Board has jurisdiction.  Judge Ziegler's 
argument in the petition was that her conduct had not violated 
Wis. Stat. § 19.46(1)(a) because the statute does not govern the 
"alleged failure of a circuit judge's failure to recuse."70  
Judge Ziegler's petition objected to the Ethics Board's publicly 
                                                 
67 Petition 
for 
the 
Wisconsin 
Supreme 
Court 
To 
Take 
Jurisdiction 
of 
an 
Original 
Action, 
Supreme 
Court 
File 
2007AP947-OA, State ex rel. Ziegler v. State of Wisconsin Ethics 
Board at A12.  
68 Petition 
for 
the 
Wisconsin 
Supreme 
Court 
To 
Take 
Jurisdiction 
of 
an 
Original 
Action, 
Supreme 
Court 
File 
2007AP947-OA, State ex rel. Ziegler v. State of Wisconsin Ethics 
Board at A1. 
69 Petition 
for 
the 
Wisconsin 
Supreme 
Court 
To 
Take 
Jurisdiction 
of 
an 
Original 
Action, 
Supreme 
Court 
File 
2007AP947-OA, State ex rel. Ziegler v. State of Wisconsin Ethics 
Board at A12. 
70 Petition 
for 
the 
Wisconsin 
Supreme 
Court 
To 
Take 
Jurisdiction 
of 
an 
Original 
Action, 
Supreme 
Court 
File 
2007AP947-OA, State ex rel. Ziegler v. State of Wisconsin Ethics 
Board at 10. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
34 
 
releasing 
the 
Investigation 
Report, 
arguing 
that 
the 
"inappropriate and detailed press release disseminated state-
wide by the Ethics Board . . . , together with the publication 
of its 'Report of Investigation' . . . subjected Judge Ziegler 
to trial in the press before she had the opportunity to 
respond."71   
¶65 On May 8, 2007, this court denied Judge Ziegler's 
petition for an original action and denied Judge Ziegler's 
request for an order staying the Ethics Board proceeding.  These 
denials do not constitute a decision on the merits of the legal 
issues Judge Ziegler presented. 
¶66 On May 15-16, 2007, Judge Ziegler and the Ethics Board 
signed an agreement settling the Ethics Board's potential action 
for violation of Wis. Stat. § 19.46(1)(a).  The Ethics Board 
stated it found no evidence of Judge Ziegler's using her 
position to obtain financial gain or advantage for herself or 
her family.72  Judge Ziegler stated she did not contest the 
Report of Investigation of the Ethics Board, which was made part 
of the settlement agreement, and Judge Ziegler paid a $5,000 
forfeiture, 
plus 
costs 
of 
approximately 
$12,000, 
to 
the 
Wisconsin Ethics Board as a penalty for violating Wis. Stat. 
                                                 
71 Petition 
for 
the 
Wisconsin 
Supreme 
Court 
To 
Take 
Jurisdiction 
of 
an 
Original 
Action, 
Supreme 
Court 
File 
2007AP947-OA, State ex rel. Ziegler v. State of Wisconsin Ethics 
Board at 11-12.   
72 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 35.  See also 
Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler's Stipulation and Joint 
Recommendation for Reprimand No. 5.  
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
35 
 
§ 19.46(1)(a).73  She agreed that her participation in cases in 
which the West Bend Bank was a party violated Wis. Stat. 
§ 19.46(1)(a).74  
¶67 Judge Ziegler's conduct violated the Code of Judicial 
Conduct because it was willful under the statutes, but at the 
same time her misconduct, according to the Judicial Commission, 
"resulted from her indifference to the Code of Judicial Conduct" 
and was "inadvertent."75  Judge Ziegler's inadvertence is a 
mitigating factor.  As we explained previously, the Judge had 
sat on cases involving the Bank before her husband became a 
director of the Bank and apparently just continued her past 
practice after he became a director.          
¶68 Wisconsin Stat. § 757.81(4)(a) defines "misconduct" to 
mean, in part, "[w]illful violation of a rule of the code of 
                                                 
73 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 36.  See also 
Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler's Stipulation and Joint 
Recommendation for Reprimand No. 6.  
Wisconsin Stat. § 19.46(1)(a) prohibits a public official 
from "[t]ak[ing] any official action substantially affecting a 
matter in which the official, a member of his or her immediate 
family, or an organization with which the official is associated 
has a substantial financial interest."     
74 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 33.  See also 
Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler's Stipulation and Joint 
Recommendation for Reprimand No. 4. 
75 Judicial Commission's Brief to the Judicial Conduct Panel 
at 8.   
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
36 
 
judicial ethics."76  Not every violation of the Code constitutes 
judicial "misconduct" warranting disciplinary action.  Judge 
Ziegler's conduct in violation of rule SCR 60.04(4)(e)1. 
qualifies as judicial misconduct only if her violation was 
"willful" as that word is used in the statute.77   
¶69 A violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct is 
"willful" for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 757.81(4) when the 
judge's conduct was not the result of duress or coercion and 
when the judge knew or should have known that the conduct was 
prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct.78   
                                                 
76 Supreme Court Rule 60.04(4)(e) is a "rule of the code of 
judicial ethics" for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 757.81(4)(a).  
Rule 60.04(4) states that "[e]xcept as provided in sub. (6) for 
waiver, a judge shall recuse himself or herself in a proceeding" 
(emphasis added) under the circumstances enumerated therein.  
The preamble to the Code of Judicial Conduct, SCR 60, states in 
part that "[w]hen the text of a rule uses 'shall,' 'shall not' 
or 'may not,' it is intended to impose binding obligations the 
violation of which can result in disciplinary action."   
In contrast to SCR 60.04(4)(e), other provisions in the 
Code of Judicial Conduct use the terminology "should" or "should 
not."  "The use of 'should' or 'should not' in the [Code of 
Judicial Conduct] is intended to encourage or discourage 
specific conduct and as a statement of what is or is not 
appropriate conduct but not as a binding rule under which a 
judge may be disciplined."  SCR 60.   
77 See In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Tesmer, 219 Wis. 2d 708, 728, 580 N.W.2d 307 (1998) ("Our 
determination that Judge Tesmer's [conduct] . . . violated two 
rules of the Code of Judicial Ethics does not itself constitute 
a determination that she thereby engaged in judicial misconduct.  
Because 
the 
statutory 
definition 
of 
judicial 
misconduct 
specifies 'wilful violation of a rule of the code of judicial 
ethics,' there remains the issue of whether her violation of 
those rules was wilful.").    
78 Tesmer, 219 Wis. 2d at 729.   
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
37 
 
¶70 The Judicial Commission charged Judge Ziegler with a 
willful violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, citing Wis. 
Stat. § 757.81(4).  In the stipulation, Judge Ziegler admitted 
the 
allegations 
in 
the 
complaint 
filed 
by 
the 
Judicial 
Commission, including that the violation was willful.   
¶71 On the basis of the record and as a matter of law we 
conclude that Judge Ziegler's violation of the Code was willful.  
Throughout the relevant period of time, Judge Ziegler knew that 
her husband was a paid member of the Board of Directors of West 
Bend Savings Bank.  Furthermore, as a matter of law Judge 
Ziegler was chargeable with the knowledge (i.e., had a duty to 
know) of the provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.79  The 
Code of Judicial Conduct, SCR 60.04(4)(e)1., clearly proscribed 
Judge Ziegler's presiding over cases in which the West Bend 
Savings Bank was a party to the proceedings.  Judge Ziegler 
therefore was, as a matter of law, chargeable with the knowledge 
(i.e., had a duty to know) that her conduct in the present case 
was prohibited by SCR 60.04(4)(e)1.80  
                                                 
79 Id.    
80 See Tesmer, 219 Wis. 2d at 730-32 (concluding that Judge 
Tesmer should have known that her conduct violated the Code of 
Judicial Conduct rule proscribing aggravated or persistent 
private communications designed to influence a judge's decision; 
also concluding that Judge Tesmer was not chargeable with the 
knowledge that her conduct violated the rule proscribing ex 
parte communications, because Judge Tesmer's interpretation of 
the rule proscribing ex parte communications was, although 
incorrect, consistent with common usage of the term "ex parte" 
and with case law applying the rule).   
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
38 
 
¶72 Judge Ziegler was reminded of her husband's position 
as a director of the bank, and of the importance of her 
husband's position to her own position as circuit court judge, 
each time that Judge Ziegler disclosed her husband's position on 
the Statement of Economic Interests that Judge Ziegler filed 
annually with the Wisconsin Ethics Board.  We agree with the 
Judicial Conduct Panel's conclusion of law that "[g]iven her 
knowledge of her husband's relationships with the Bank, red 
flags of danger were prominently flying" that Judge Ziegler did 
not see.81 
¶73 Judge Ziegler offered the following explanation in the 
Report of Investigation by the State Ethics Board in March 2007 
for her having sat in cases involving the Bank: 
[S]he simply did not consider that her sitting on 
cases involving West Bend Savings Bank was a conflict 
of interests.  She stated that the Bank "is not how we 
make our living."  She said that her husband is in the 
development business and if a case came before her 
involving his business she would know that, but she 
did not think of the bank as his business.  She 
admitted that the Supreme Court rule was not present 
to her mind and would not have thought that Chapter 19 
of the statutes applied.82     
¶74 Judge Ziegler's violation of the Code of Judicial 
Conduct was willful under the statute and our case law.     
                                                 
81 Judicial Conduct Panel Conclusion of Law No. 6. 
82 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 34.  See also 
Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler's Stipulation and Joint 
Recommendation for Reprimand No. 2. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
39 
 
¶75 Although a judge may commit a "willful" violation 
constituting judicial misconduct when the judge has no actual 
knowledge that her conduct is prohibited by the Code, the 
judge's actual knowledge (or lack thereof) of the Code is 
relevant to the issue of discipline.83  In the parties' 
stipulation, the Judicial Commission "accepted" Judge Ziegler's 
"statement that [her] conduct was inadvertent."84  The Judicial 
Conduct Panel also accepted that Judge Ziegler was in fact 
unaware that she was in violation of the Code of Judicial 
Conduct.85   
¶76 In recommending a public reprimand, the Judicial 
Conduct Panel concluded that Judge Ziegler violated the Code of 
Judicial Conduct "without moral culpability, which, were that 
present, would require a different result."86   
                                                 
83 See Tesmer, 219 Wis. 2d at 733 (concluding that the 
severity of Judge Tesmer's misconduct was mitigated by her "good 
faith belief, albeit unjustified," that her conduct was not 
prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct). 
84 Judicial Commission and Judge Ziegler's Stipulation and 
Joint Recommendation for Reprimand No. 4. 
85 The Panel did not address this issue expressly in its 
findings of fact.  However, in making its recommendation to this 
court, the Panel stated that Judge Ziegler did "not recogniz[e] 
that the Code of Judicial Conduct required her to either recuse 
herself from cases involving the Bank or notify the parties of 
her husband's directorship" and similarly stated that Judge 
Ziegler 
had 
a 
"lack 
of 
awareness 
of 
the 
Code 
provision [prohibiting her conduct] . . . ."        
86 Judicial Conduct Panel Recommendations at 24.  
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
40 
 
¶77 The record demonstrates that Judge Ziegler's willful 
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, though serious and 
inexcusable, do not rise to the level of knowing violations made 
in brazen contempt for the authority of the Code.     
¶78 Finally, in determining discipline two additional 
mitigating circumstances exist:  Judge Ziegler is alert to the 
dangers of conflicts of interest and, in all likelihood, will 
not repeat her conduct.87  All judges in Wisconsin are, because 
of the extensive publicity of the present case, alert to their 
responsibilities under the Judicial Code of Conduct, the dangers 
of conflicts of interest, and the requirements of recusal.88 
¶79 We 
turn 
now 
to 
aggravating 
circumstances, 
circumstances that tend toward justifying discipline more severe 
than a public reprimand. 
¶80 Aggravating 
circumstances. 
 
An 
aggravating 
circumstance in the instant case is, as we have explained 
previously, that the Judge's misconduct may have had a negative 
effect on the public's respect for the judiciary.    
¶81 Furthermore, 
the 
misconduct 
was 
repeated 
in 
11 
separate cases over a five-year period.  Thus, the misconduct 
can be characterized as a pattern of conduct over a fairly long 
period of time, during which time the misconduct was not 
                                                 
87 Judicial Conduct Panel Recommendations at 22 ("[A]s we 
have found, [Judge] Ziegler is now alert to the dangers of 
conflicts of interest.").      
88 Judicial Conduct Panel Recommendations at 22.  
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
41 
 
corrected.  We recognize, however, that the 11 cases can also be 
viewed as several incidents of a single example of misconduct.  
¶82 Another aggravating factor is that Judge Ziegler 
presided in several cases involving parties in which she or her 
husband owned substantial shares of stock.89  In addition to 
investigating Judge Ziegler's participation in the 11 cases in 
which the West Bend Savings Bank was a party, the Judicial 
Commission also investigated other allegations of misconduct, 
including her presiding over several cases in which she or her 
husband may have had an economic interest.  Supreme Court Rule 
60.04(4)(d) in summary provides that a judge shall recuse 
herself when she has an economic interest in a party to the 
proceeding or has more than a de minimis interest that could be 
substantially affected by the proceeding.  On September 6, 2007, 
the 
Judicial 
Commission 
dismissed 
these 
allegations 
of 
misconduct with a letter as an "expression of concern or 
warning."90  To her credit, the Judge made the Judicial 
                                                 
89 Supreme Court Rule 60.04(4)(d) provides in relevant part 
that except when the judge obtains a waiver pursuant to SCR 
60.04(6), a judge shall recuse himself or herself in a 
proceeding when the judge "knows that he or she, individually or 
as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse . . . has an economic 
interest . . . in a party to the proceeding . . . ." 
90 A 
dismissal 
with 
warning 
is 
a 
"non-disciplinary 
disposition of an allegation in which the commission cautions 
the 
judge . . . not 
to 
engage 
in 
specified 
proscribed 
behavior . . . ." Wis. Admin. Code § JC 1.02(8) (Mar. 2004).    
Wisconsin Admin. Code § JC 4.08(4) (Mar. 2004) authorizes 
the Judicial Commission to dismiss the matter with such 
expression of concern or warning as the Commission deems 
appropriate upon finding that any of the following exists: 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
42 
 
Commission's "cautionary letter" public.  Except for the letter, 
the file on this matter remains closed. 
¶83 A troublesome factor raised by Judge Ziegler, the 
Judicial 
Conduct 
Panel, 
and 
the 
Judicial 
Commission 
in 
determining the level of discipline is the relevance of the 
judicial election campaign.   
¶84 The Judicial Conduct Panel expressed interest in 
whether the timing of Judge Ziegler's admission of misconduct 
was relevant to discipline.91  The Judicial Conduct Panel 
explicitly asked that the parties "address whether the timing of 
Judge Ziegler's admissions is relevant to the question of what 
discipline is appropriate for her judicial misconduct."   
¶85 This request about timing was prefaced with the 
Judicial Conduct Panel's statements "that during the election 
                                                                                                                                                             
(a) A violation of one or more standards of the code 
of 
judicial 
ethics 
that 
is 
not 
aggravated 
or 
persistent. 
(b) A violation of a rule of the code of judicial 
ethics that is not wilful. 
(c) A failure to perform official duties that is not 
willful or persistent. 
(d) 
The 
allegation does not warrant prosecution 
because of its minor nature or other circumstances. 
91 After reviewing the complaint filed by the Judicial 
Commission and the Stipulation and Joint Recommendation, the 
Judicial Conduct Panel requested that the Judicial Commission 
and Judge Ziegler file briefs addressing, among other matters, 
"whether the timing of Judge Ziegler's admission is relevant to 
the question of what discipline is appropriate for her judicial 
misconduct."  Order of the Judicial Conduct Panel at Item 8 
(Sept. 26, 2007). 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
43 
 
campaign Judge Ziegler is reported to have denied that she had 
violated the Code of Judicial Conduct" and that in the 
subsequent settlement of the State Ethics Board's complaint and 
in the admissions to the Judicial Commission Judge Ziegler 
admitted violations of the Code and judicial misconduct.92  The 
parties filed their written responses to the Judicial Conduct 
Panel's question by briefs filed on October 17, 2007. The 
Judicial Conduct Panel's question 8 posed to Judge Ziegler and 
the Judicial Commission reads in full as follows:  
8. 
During her campaign for the Wisconsin Supreme 
Court, Judge Ziegler is reported to have denied that 
she had violated the Code of Judicial Ethics.  In the 
subsequent settlement of the Ethics Board's complaint 
and in admissions to the Commission, Judge Ziegler has 
admitted violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics and 
judicial misconduct.  The Commission and Judge Ziegler 
shall address whether the timing of Judge Ziegler's 
admissions is relevant to the question of what 
discipline is appropriate for her judicial misconduct. 
¶86 The Judicial Conduct Panel found as a fact (Finding 
29) that Judge Ziegler "has openly acknowledged her mistake and 
has apologized publicly for it."93  Finding 29 is ambiguous.  It 
does not state when Judge Ziegler made this open acknowledgment 
of her mistake and public apology.  
¶87 If Finding of Fact 29 is that the "open acknowledgment 
and public apology" was after the election, the finding is 
supported by the record.  If the Finding of Fact relates to a 
time period before the election, the finding of an "open 
                                                 
92 Id. 
93 Judicial Conduct Panel Finding of Fact No. 29. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
44 
 
acknowledgment and public apology" is not supported by the 
record. 
¶88 The Judicial Commission responded as follows to the 
Judicial Conduct Panel's question about the relevance of the 
timing of Judge Ziegler's denial or admission of misconduct:  
"In the Commission's opinion, Judge Ziegler's admission of 
misconduct including the timeliness of it is relevant to the 
question of what discipline is appropriate for her misconduct."94  
The Judicial Commission also stated that it was "unaware that 
Judge Ziegler previously denied that she violated the Code of 
Judicial Conduct in regard to her presiding over the eleven West 
Bend Savings Bank cases."  The Judicial Commission's full 
response is in the footnote.95   
¶89 Judge Ziegler's response by brief to the Judicial 
Conduct Panel's question about the relevance of the timing of 
                                                 
94 Judicial Commission's Brief to the Judicial Conduct Panel 
at 6. 
95 The Judicial Commission's full response to the 
Judicial Conduct Panel's question 8 is as follows: 
The 
commission 
is 
unaware 
that 
Judge 
Ziegler 
previously denied that she violated the Code of 
Judicial Conduct in regard to her presiding over the 
eleven West Bend Savings Bank cases.  Throughout the 
course 
of 
Commission 
proceedings 
Judge 
Ziegler 
admitted that her conduct in regard to those West Bend 
Savings Bank cases was a violation of the Code.   
In the commission's opinion, Judge Ziegler's admission 
of misconduct including the timeliness of it is 
relevant to the question of what discipline is 
appropriate for her misconduct. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
45 
 
her denial of misconduct was as follows:  Any report that Judge 
Ziegler denied a violation of the Code with respect to her 
husband's 
directorship 
before 
the 
election 
"would 
be 
incorrect."96  Judge Ziegler's brief asserts that before the 
election the Judge "publicly admitted that she could have 
handled things better, [and] is not perfect."97  This is Judge 
Ziegler's total "response" to the question whether she denied 
violating the Code before the election.  Judge Ziegler does not 
claim that she need not have responded publicly before the 
election to charges of violation of the Code.  Rather, Judge 
Ziegler asserts that she responded publicly to these charges 
during the election campaign.  Nothing in the Code of Judicial 
Conduct appears to require a judge to make any public statement 
in response to or in discussion of an allegation of a Code 
violation,98 but if the judge discusses or responds publicly to 
any such allegation the discussion or response must be made with 
absolute candor.99   
                                                 
96 Brief of Annette K. Ziegler to the Judicial Conduct Panel 
in Support of Wisconsin Judicial Commission Recommendation at 
11. 
97 Id.    
98 This statement about the Code is not intended to refer to 
a response to allegations in a formal complaint or petition by 
the Judicial Commission. 
99 Supreme Court Rule 60.06(3)(c) provides as follows:   
A candidate for a judicial office shall not knowingly 
or with reckless disregard for the statement's truth 
or falsity misrepresent the identity, qualifications, 
present 
position, 
or 
other 
fact 
concerning 
the 
candidate or an opponent.  A candidate for judicial 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
46 
 
¶90 Judge Ziegler's response to question 8 in her brief to 
the Judicial Conduct Panel is as follows:   
To the extent that there was something "reported" 
about Judge Ziegler denying a violation of the Code of 
Judicial 
Conduct 
with 
respect 
to 
her 
husband's 
directorship, that report would be incorrect.  On 
learning that she might have inadvertently violated 
the Code of Judicial Conduct by taking cases involving 
the Bank after her husband was named to the Board of 
Directors of the Bank (no party had ever before raised 
the issue), Judge Ziegler publicly admitted that she 
could have handled things better, is not perfect, 
wished that she had not found herself sitting in that 
situation and she repeatedly said that she welcomed an 
objective review.  These types of comments came up at 
virtually every public forum (including a March 19, 
2007 debate at Marquette Law School).  In addition 
Judge Ziegler fully discussed the matter with the 
Wisconsin Ethics Board.  Those actions and admissions 
occurred prior to the Supreme Court Election.   
Not only did Judge Ziegler do her best to address 
matters related to the West Bend Savings Bank during 
the campaign, in advance of any election, she took 
immediate 
action 
with 
the 
District's 
Chief 
Judge . . . .  Judge Ziegler immediately corrected the 
error when it was disclosed and fully and frankly 
cooperated with investigations by both the Commission 
and the Wisconsin Ethics Board.100       
                                                                                                                                                             
office should not knowingly make representations that, 
although true, are misleading, or knowingly make 
statements that are likely to confuse the public with 
respect to the proper role of judges and lawyers in 
the American adversary system. 
100 Brief of Annette K. Ziegler to the Judicial Conduct 
Panel in Support of Wisconsin Judicial Commission Recommendation 
at 11-13.   
The last paragraph in Judge Ziegler's response to question 
8 posed by the Judicial Conduct Panel in full is as follows: 
Not only did Judge Ziegler do her best to address 
matters related to the West Bend Savings Bank during 
the campaign, in advance of any election, she took 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
47 
 
¶91 Nothing in Judge Ziegler's response in her Brief and 
her counsel's argument before the Judicial Conduct Panel asserts 
that before the election Judge Ziegler openly admitted that her 
conduct was a violation of the plain, bright-line prohibition on 
a judge's sitting in a proceeding when her husband was a 
director of a party.  What is clear is that the Judge never 
unambiguously admitted before the election that her conduct 
violated the Code.   
¶92 Had 
Judge 
Ziegler 
made 
an 
unambiguous, 
public 
admission before election day that her conduct violated SCR 
                                                                                                                                                             
immediate action with the district's chief judge, 
other judges, and the clerk of the court in Washington 
County to implement the "Order Amending Rotation 
Order" even as the supreme court campaign was ongoing.  
Moreover, given Judge Ziegler's full and complete 
disclosures in her statements of economic interests 
showing the bank as a creditor and as an employer of 
her husband as a director, there was certainly no 
attempt whatsoever to hide any of the relationships.  
These 
facts 
provide 
powerful 
mitigation 
to 
be 
considered in recommending discipline and they are 
equally powerful in demonstrating that the handling of 
routine legal proceedings involving the bank was an 
inadvertent violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  
Judge Ziegler immediately corrected the error when it 
was disclosed and fully and frankly cooperated with 
investigations 
by 
both 
the 
commission 
and 
the 
Wisconsin Ethics Board (notes omitted). 
Judge Ziegler referenced the remarks she made at the 
Marquette University Law School in the brief she filed with the 
Judicial Conduct Panel, and her attorney referred to the remarks 
during oral argument before the Judicial Conduct Panel.  We 
assume the Judge's counsel could feel confident recalling them 
for the Judicial Conduct Panel because the Judge's remarks can 
be heard at http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=580291 
(last visited May 26, 2008). 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
48 
 
60.04(4)(e)1., her brief and argument would have vigorously and 
repeatedly included the admission as a mitigating circumstance.  
One of Judge Ziegler's strongest arguments for mitigation was 
the repeated assertion that Judge Ziegler forthrightly admitted 
her misconduct in closed sessions before the Judicial Commission 
and the Ethics Board before the election and in public after the 
election.   
¶93 The Judicial Conduct Panel asked a question but did 
not demand that the parties answer the question directly or 
fully.  The Panel did not follow through on its inquiry into the 
timing of Judge Ziegler's public admissions and acknowledgments 
of her misconduct.       
¶94 The Judicial Conduct Panel could have clarified the 
answers to its question 8 at the hearing by taking testimony, as 
has been done by panels in prior cases in which the parties 
filed a stipulation and recommendation for discipline.101   
¶95 The Judicial Conduct Panel's decision not to take 
testimony was deliberate.  At the beginning of its hearing, 
Presiding Judge Fine stated that the Judicial Conduct Panel had 
decided not to hold an evidentiary hearing and not to take 
testimony.  It decided instead to rely on the assertions of fact 
in the documents before it, the pleadings, and the stipulation, 
as well as the assertions of fact made by counsel in the briefs 
                                                 
101 See, e.g., Crawford, 245 Wis. 2d 373, ¶7; Tesmer, 219 
Wis. 2d at 713; In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against 
Carver, 192 Wis. 2d 136, 140, 531 N.W.2d 62 (1995); Aulik, 146 
Wis. 2d at 64-66. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
49 
 
and in argument.102  When asked, Judge Ziegler's counsel said he 
did not object to this procedure.  Although Judge Fine planned 
to ask Mr. Alexander whether he objected to proceeding in this 
manner, Judge Fine did not do so.  Mr. Alexander did not ask for 
an evidentiary hearing. 
¶96 Nothing in the record directly answered question 8 
that the Judicial Conduct Panel posed.  We agree with the 
Judicial Conduct Panel that question 8 raises an important 
consideration in imposing discipline.  But the question is not 
answered in the record.  If the Judicial Conduct Panel found as 
a fact that Judge Ziegler publicly admitted misconduct before 
the election, the finding is not supported by the record.       
¶97 Although the question about the timing of the open and 
public admission is important, we nevertheless have decided not 
to remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing and a finding of 
fact relating to question 8.  Judge Ziegler's election was more 
than one year ago.  It is time to conclude this matter for the 
sake of Judge Ziegler and the Judicial Commission, this court, 
and the people of the State.  Consequently, we will review the 
Judicial Conduct Panel's report and recommendation despite some 
concerns about the completeness of the record.  The court has 
enough information upon which to base its decision about the 
discipline to be imposed, despite the ambiguous state of the 
                                                 
102 Transcript of the Hearing Before the Judicial Conduct 
Panel at 6-7.  
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
50 
 
record about Judge Ziegler's denial or admission of misconduct 
before the election. 
¶98 Precedent.  We impose discipline independently of the 
recommendation of the Judicial Conduct Panel and the parties' 
Stipulation and Joint Recommendation of Discipline, benefiting 
from 
the 
Judicial 
Conduct 
Panel's 
and 
the 
parties' 
recommendations.103  
¶99 Each case involves unique circumstances.  "We have not 
established, nor will we here, a 'bright line' standard when, 
for example, reprimand or censure is warranted as opposed to 
suspension.  Each case is different, and is considered on the 
basis of its own facts."104  Nevertheless, past judicial 
misconduct cases are of some use in setting the discipline 
appropriate for the instant case.  We turn to prior discipline 
cases 
because 
discipline 
imposed 
in 
any 
case 
should 
be 
consistent with that imposed in other cases.     
¶100 The Judicial Conduct Panel considered two previous 
cases as most informative:  In re Judicial Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Dreyfus, 182 Wis. 2d 121, 513 N.W.2d 604 
(1994), in which a circuit court judge was suspended for 15 days 
for (1) filing false certificates attesting that he was up to 
date in deciding his cases; (2) lying to his chief judge about 
whether he was up to date in deciding his cases; and (3) 
                                                 
103 Crawford, 245 Wis. 2d 373, ¶38 (citing Seraphim, 97 
Wis. 2d at 513). 
104 Crawford, 245 Wis. 2d 373, ¶40. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
51 
 
initially telling the same lie to a Judicial Commission 
investigator; 
and 
In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings 
Against Crivello, 211 Wis. 2d 435, 564 N.W.2d 785 (1997), in 
which a circuit judge was publicly reprimanded for battering his 
wife.   
¶101 The 
Judicial Conduct Panel concluded that Judge 
Ziegler does not deserve a suspension because her conduct was 
much less serious than Judge Dreyfus's, and viewed Judge 
Ziegler's 
conduct 
as 
warranting 
no 
more 
than 
the 
same 
discipline, a public reprimand, as was imposed on Judge 
Crivello.105  
                                                 
105 The Judicial Conduct Panel concluded as follows: 
Crivello and Dreyfus are bookends that set the 
boundaries of appropriate discipline.  If a fifteen-
day suspension is appropriate for a judge who filed 
false official certificates directly affecting his 
judicial business, lied to his chief judge about it, 
and initially lied to the Commission investigator 
about it, can anyone adhering to neutral principles 
unaffected by clamor seriously contend that what 
Justice Ziegler did here warrants a sanction as harsh 
or harsher than that imposed in Dreyfus?  We think 
not.  
Further, although Judge Crivello's battering of his 
wife did not directly affect his judicial duties, it 
indirectly affected those judicial duties because 
persons who are given the authority to judge others 
accused of violating the criminal law must not, 
themselves, commit crimes.  Again, can anyone adhering 
to neutral principles unaffected by clamor contend 
that Justice Ziegler's violation warrants more than 
the reprimand given to Judge Crivello?  We think not. 
Judicial Conduct Panel's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law 
and Recommendations at 26. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
52 
 
¶102 We have considered these cases and also consider In re 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Laatsch, 2007 WI 20, 299 
Wis. 2d 144, 727 N.W.2d 488.  Laatsch presents a fact situation 
similar to the present case.  Laatsch was a part-time municipal 
judge who sat on one case in which his niece, a minor, appeared 
as a defendant and in another case in which his nephew, also a 
minor, appeared as a defendant.  Laatsch did not recuse himself 
from either case.  The Judicial Commission charged Laatsch with 
a willful violation of SCR 60.04(4)(e)1., which requires a judge 
to recuse himself "whenever a person within the third degree of 
kinship" to the judge "[i]s a party to the proceeding."  Laatsch 
was also charged with another willful violation of the Code, 
namely presiding over a matter in which one of Laatsch's clients 
in private practice was a defendant. 
¶103 The mitigating circumstances were that Judge Laatsch 
had never been disciplined; no favor was shown to his niece and 
nephew; Judge Laatsch mistakenly believed his disqualification 
could be waived; and Judge Laatsch expressed great regret that 
his conduct had a negative impact on the appearance of his 
impartiality and the integrity of the court.  These mitigating 
circumstances are similar to the ones in the present proceeding. 
¶104 In Laatsch, as in the present case, the parties 
stipulated to a public reprimand.  Judge Laatsch was defeated in 
a primary election for municipal judge and as a defeated 
municipal judge, Laatsch had no continuing relationship with the 
Wisconsin court system or judiciary.  Suspending or revoking 
Judge Laatsch would be futile discipline; Laatsch could no 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
53 
 
longer serve as a municipal judge or as a reserve municipal 
judge.  Under these circumstances no discipline except a public 
reprimand could realistically be imposed.106  Thus this court, 
like the Judicial Conduct Panel, decided that a public reprimand 
was the appropriate discipline for Judge Laatsch to protect the 
public.  
¶105 The instant case differs from the Laatsch case because 
Judge Ziegler won the election and is serving as a justice in 
the Wisconsin judicial system.  Accordingly, suspension or 
revocation 
is 
a 
viable 
sanction 
in 
the 
instant 
case.  
Nevertheless, after careful consideration we have come to the 
conclusion that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction 
for Judge Ziegler's violation of SCR 60.04(4)(e)1.  Prior 
judicial misconduct cases in which judges received a sanction 
more severe than a reprimand all involved some degree of moral 
culpability that is not present here.  
                                                 
106 The Judicial Conduct Panel in Judge Laatsch's case 
commented as follows: 
Judge 
Laatsch 
no 
longer 
serves 
as 
Mid-Moraine 
Municipal Court judge, having been defeated . . . .  
[B]ecause we conclude that the sanctions of suspension 
or removal would serve little purpose because he was 
defeated in the primary election, we conclude that a 
reprimand is adequate discipline and it is sufficient 
to protect the public from any further judicial 
misconduct of this kind by others. 
Brief & Appendix of Wisconsin Judicial Commission in In re 
Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Laatsch, 2004AP2954-J, 
at 12-13. 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
54 
 
¶106 Although Judge Ziegler should have realized that, 
absent a waiver from the parties, she was required to recuse 
herself from the 11 cases at issue, and although we conclude 
that her failure to recuse herself was willful and diminishes 
public confidence in the legal system, the Judge was cooperative 
with the Wisconsin Ethics Board and the Judicial Commission and 
after the election admitted publicly the violations at issue.   
¶107 A review of the online edition of the Office of Lawyer 
Regulation's 
Wisconsin 
Attorneys 
Professional 
Discipline 
Compendium, 
available 
at 
http://compendium.olr.wicourts.gov/app/search, shows that from 
2002 to 2007, attorneys who were found to have violated conflict 
of interest rules, which although different from the rules 
applicable to judges are nevertheless somewhat analogous, almost 
always received either a private or public reprimand, if they 
had no prior disciplinary history.  Those attorneys who received 
a license suspension for conflict of interest violations either 
had a prior disciplinary history or were also found to have 
committed additional ethical violations.   
¶108 Our decision to impose a public reprimand and not a 
suspension is consistent with our past precedent in both the 
judicial and attorney discipline lines of cases.     
¶109 In addition, a suspension would not serve the purpose 
of fostering public trust and confidence in the judicial system 
any better than a public reprimand under the circumstances of 
the present case.  Under some circumstances, a suspension would 
be needed to maintain public trust and confidence.  However, in 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
55 
 
the circumstances of the present case, we conclude that this 
drastic step is unnecessary.      
¶110 We have not previously imposed censure in a judicial 
disciplinary proceeding and have not, to the best of our 
knowledge, defined the word in this context.  The Judicial 
Commission, the Judicial Conduct Panel, and Judge Ziegler did 
not discuss censure.       
¶111 Although a reprimand may be either public or private, 
we conclude that a private reprimand is not appropriate in the 
present case.  A private reprimand cannot adequately convey to 
the public the gravity with which this court views judicial 
misconduct such as Judge Ziegler's willful violation of SCR 
60.04(4)(e)1. 
¶112 Our decision to impose a public reprimand is based on 
our review of precedent and the application of the factors 
discussed above to the circumstances of this case.  It is not 
based on any public comment or clamor advocating a particular 
result.107  
¶113 Some may believe that the sanction imposed today is 
too severe.  Judge Ziegler herself, together with the Judicial 
Conduct Panel and the Judicial Commission, recommended a public 
reprimand.  Others may believe the sanction imposed today is too 
lenient. 
 
The 
misconduct 
is, 
however, 
both 
serious 
and 
                                                 
107 "A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain 
professional competence in it.  A judge may not be swayed by 
partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism."  SCR 
60.04(1)(b). 
No. 
2007AP2066-J   
 
56 
 
significant.  And a sanction of a public reprimand is both 
serious and significant.  Never before in the history of the 
Wisconsin Supreme Court has a sitting justice received a public 
disciplinary sanction from the members of the Court.  
¶114 In sum, Judge Ziegler violated a rule that clearly 
mandated that she either recuse herself from the 11 cases 
involving the bank or obtain a waiver of recusal. Judge 
Ziegler's conduct was a serious failing.  "While the potential 
for harm to the court system, to the litigants in the cases she 
decided, and to the public's perception of the fairness of the 
judicial system was great,"  Tesmer, 219 Wis. 2d at 733, neither 
Judge Ziegler nor her family benefited financially from her 
participation in the cases.  None of the litigants has asked to 
have a case reopened.  Judge Ziegler took prompt steps to 
prevent a recurrence, and after the election the Judge has 
publicly apologized for her misconduct.  The record demonstrates 
that Judge Ziegler was a hard-working, diligent, and highly 
regarded circuit court judge.  The Judge's conduct at issue here 
is, however, troubling.  Nevertheless, we are confident that 
Judge Ziegler can and will perform creditable service as a 
member of this Court.  
¶115 We determine that on the facts and circumstances 
before us, Judge Ziegler's judicial misconduct warrants the 
reprimand recommended by the panel. 
¶116 IT IS ORDERED that the Honorable Annette K. Ziegler is 
publicly reprimanded for conduct violating SCR 60.04(4)(e)1. 
¶117 ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J., did not participate. 
No.  2007AP2066-J.lbb 
 
1 
 
¶118 LOUIS 
B. 
BUTLER, JR., J.   (dissenting).  I 
respectfully 
dissent, 
not 
with 
the 
particular 
choice 
of 
discipline made by the court, but with the lack of a sufficient 
evidentiary foundation for that determination.  The easy part of 
this decision is the recognition of Judge Ziegler's undisputed 
and stipulated violation of SCR 60.06(4)(e)1.  See per curiam 
op., ¶¶1-3.  The problem is what happens in the remainder of the 
per curiam opinion, as the court attempts to determine the 
appropriate discipline in light of relevant mitigating and 
aggravating "facts," despite the lack of sufficient facts in the 
record supporting its determination.  I respectfully cannot sign 
on to a decision lacking the type of evidentiary basis that we 
would consider a foundational requisite in any other case before 
us. 
¶119 As the majority observes, when the Panel explained its 
decision to take no testimony at the November 19, 2007, hearing 
in this matter, it explained that it would instead "rely on the 
assertions of fact in the documents before it, the pleadings, 
the stipulation, as well as the assertions of fact made by 
counsel in the briefs and in argument."  Per curiam op., ¶20.  
However, briefs and arguments do not constitute evidentiary 
facts of record.  See Merco Distrib. Corp. v. O&R Engines, Inc., 
71 Wis. 2d 792, 795-96, 239 N.W.2d 97 (1976). 
¶120 In light of the lack of an evidentiary record in this 
case,1 I cannot accept the court's stated reasons for denying 
remand.  I respectfully disagree that at the one-year mark a 
                                                 
1 See per curiam op., ¶¶21, 87, 96. 
No.  2007AP2066-J.lbb 
 
2 
 
case has become no longer worthy of ensuring the adequate 
evidentiary safeguards and factual foundation as required in any 
other case that comes before us.   
¶121 The majority begins its analysis by describing the 
purpose of judicial discipline:  to protect our judiciary and 
public from misconduct and "to restore and maintain the dignity, 
honor, and impartiality of the judicial office."  Per curiam 
op., ¶35 (citations omitted).  I agree.  I therefore would 
remand this matter to the Judicial Conduct Panel for further 
fact-finding.  Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.   
 
 
No.  2007AP2066-J.lbb 
 
1