Title: Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. John A. Zodrow
Citation: 2010 WI 107
Docket Number: 2009AP002904-J
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: August 26, 2010

2010 WI 107 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2009AP2904-J 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against the Honorable John A. 
Zodrow. 
 
Wisconsin Judicial Commission, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
The Honorable John A. Zodrow, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ZODROW 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
August 26, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 107
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2009AP2904-J  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against the Honorable John A. 
Zodrow. 
 
Wisconsin Judicial Commission, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
The Honorable John A. Zodrow, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
AUG 26, 2010 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDICIAL disciplinary proceeding.  Reprimand imposed.   
 
1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We review, pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 757.91 (2007-08),1 a Judicial Conduct Panel's findings of fact, 
                                                 
1 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2007-08 version unless otherwise indicated.  Wisconsin stat. 
§ 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. 
No. 
2009AP2904-J   
 
2 
 
conclusions of law, and recommendation for discipline for the 
Honorable John A. Zodrow, a former Cudahy municipal judge.  We 
conclude that a reprimand is the appropriate discipline for 
Judge Zodrow's judicial misconduct. 
¶2 
Judge Zodrow served as the municipal judge for the 
City of Cudahy from May 1, 1999, through April 30, 2010.  He has 
not been the subject of any prior disciplinary action by the 
Wisconsin Judicial Commission.  Judge Zodrow was defeated in the 
April 2010 general election and no longer serves as a municipal 
judge.   
¶3 
The Judicial Commission filed a complaint against 
Judge Zodrow on November 23, 2009.  The complaint alleged that 
Judge Zodrow engaged in misconduct by failing to dispose of 
judicial matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly and by 
willfully or persistently failing to perform official duties. 
¶4 
Judge Zodrow filed an answer to the complaint in 
December 2009.  On June 24, 2010, the parties filed a 
stipulation and joint recommendation for discipline.  On the 
basis of those undisputed facts, the Judicial Conduct Panel made 
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation which 
was filed with the court on July 19, 2010.  The panel 
recommended that Judge Zodrow be reprimanded.  From our 
independent review of the record, we agree that Judge Zodrow's 
misconduct warrants a reprimand.  
¶5 
The City of Cudahy municipal court has an annual 
caseload of approximately 4,000 cases.  During Judge Zodrow's 
tenure as municipal judge a substantial backlog of unadjudicated 
No. 
2009AP2904-J   
 
3 
 
citations accumulated, dating back to at least 2002.  As of the 
date the Judicial Commission's complaint was filed with this 
court in November of 2009, approximately 3,500 cases were 
awaiting Judge Zodrow's decision.  When Judge Zodrow appeared in 
person before the Judicial Commission on October 23, 2009, he 
said he did not know how many cases were pending or for how long 
they had been pending.  His best guess was that there were 
between 1,000 and 1,500 pending cases, with some dating from 
2002 and a few pre-dating 2002.  
¶6 
City of Cudahy officials, court staff, and court 
officials repeatedly advised Judge Zodrow about the case 
backlog, but Judge Zodrow did not take significant action to 
reduce the backlog.  An audit of the City of Cudahy municipal 
court, conducted by Virchow Krause and Company, showed a large 
backlog of cases dating from 2002.  Judge Zodrow was advised of 
the results of the Virchow Krause audit in November of 2008, but 
refused to timely decide cases or reduce the backlog.   
¶7 
Throughout Judge Zodrow's tenure as municipal judge, a 
single full-time clerk supported the City of Cudahy municipal 
court.  Judge Zodrow believed the court was understaffed, 
particularly when compared to the neighboring City of South 
Milwaukee's municipal court which had a smaller caseload but one 
and one-half clerk positions.  Throughout his tenure as 
municipal judge, Judge Zodrow persistently asked city officials 
to fund an additional half-time or full-time clerk position.  
Funding for a half-time deputy clerk position was approved in 
No. 
2009AP2904-J   
 
4 
 
November of 2009 but that position remained unfilled when Judge 
Zodrow left office on April 30, 2010. 
¶8 
The parties agree that the additional clerk support 
would have assisted the municipal court in case management and 
reduced or possibly eliminated the need for the municipal court 
to rely on clerical staff from the city's police department to 
process court cases involving parking citations and other court 
administrative matters.  Judge Zodrow believes he would have 
been encouraged to process cases in a more timely manner if 
there had been additional clerk support so he would not have 
been required to spend time performing tasks that he believed to 
be more properly the work of a clerk. 
¶9 
Since 
early 
May 
2009, 
Judge 
Zodrow 
refused 
to 
adjudicate any parking ticket stipulation cases.  He did so to 
protest the decision of the City of Cudahy's police department 
that the municipal court could no longer access the police 
department computer in those cases.  After that time, Judge 
Zodrow placed parking ticket stipulation cases in a box.  He 
told the Judicial Commission that "they can sit and collect dust 
until hell freezes over for all [he] care[s]."  Judge Zodrow 
refused to adjudicate parking ticket stipulation cases because 
he believed that the use of a police department clerk as a de 
facto court clerk in those cases was unconstitutional.  Although 
he did adjudicate a small number of parking ticket stipulation 
cases after the half-time clerk position was approved in 
November of 2009, most of those cases remained unadjudicated 
until he left office on April 30, 2010.   
No. 
2009AP2904-J   
 
5 
 
¶10 In the stipulation submitted to the court, Judge 
Zodrow expressed regret for his conduct and the effect it had on 
the municipal court, litigants, and the Wisconsin judicial 
system.  In the stipulation the parties recognized that the 
appropriate discipline was entirely within the province of this 
court.  The parties jointly recommended that a reprimand was the 
appropriate discipline for Judge Zodrow's misconduct.   
¶11 The Judicial Commission's complaint alleged, and the 
Judicial Conduct Panel concluded, that by allowing a backlog of 
3,500 
cases 
to 
accumulate, 
Judge 
Zodrow 
violated 
SCR 60.04(1)(h), which states that "[a] judge shall dispose of 
all judicial matters promptly, efficiently and fairly."  The 
Judicial Conduct Panel opined that "Judge Zodrow's conduct was 
the antithesis of the prompt and efficient disposition of 
judicial 
matters," 
and 
such 
a 
substantial 
backlog 
was 
particularly egregious at the municipal court level where the 
cases presented were generally straightforward and not complex.   
¶12 The Judicial Conduct Panel noted that the "willful 
violation of a rule of the code of judicial ethics" constitutes 
judicial misconduct.  See Wis. Stat. § 757.81(4)(a).2  It also 
noted that a judge's conduct is "willful" if it is "not the 
result of duress or coercion and . . . the judge knew or should 
have known that the conduct was prohibited by the Code of 
Judicial Ethics."  In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings 
                                                 
2 Wisconsin stat. § 757.81(4)(a) states that misconduct 
includes "[w]illful violation of a rule of the code of judicial 
ethics." 
No. 
2009AP2904-J   
 
6 
 
Against Tesmer, 219 Wis. 2d 708, 729, 580 N.W.2d 307 (1998).  
The panel concluded that Judge Zodrow's failure to decide cases 
in a timely fashion constituted judicial misconduct under 
§ 757.81(4)(a). 
¶13 The Judicial Commission's complaint alleged, and the 
Judicial Conduct Panel found, that Judge Zodrow also violated 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 757.81(4)(b), 
which 
states 
that 
judicial 
"misconduct" includes the "willful or persistent failure to 
perform official duties."  The panel noted that Judge Zodrow 
refused to adjudicate virtually all parking ticket stipulation 
matters for nearly one year.  It said regardless of his 
motivations, whether related to the use of a police department 
employee as a clerk or to the police department's decision to 
limit computer access, his steadfast refusal to adjudicate 
virtually all parking ticket stipulation cases for nearly a year 
constituted the persistent failure to perform an official duty. 
¶14 The panel noted that both of Judge Zodrow's ethical 
violations were related to the timely disposition of judicial 
business.  It pointed out that this court has said that the 
"prompt 
disposition 
of 
cases 
brought 
to 
the 
courts 
for 
resolution . . . is essential to the integrity of the judicial 
system on which the citizens of this state have the right to 
rely."  In re Judicial Disciplinary Proceedings Against Waddick, 
2000 WI 11, ¶20, 232 Wis. 2d 733, 605 N.W.2d 861.  The panel 
concluded that Judge Zodrow's failure to organize his court so 
that cases could be timely decided adversely impacted the 
integrity of the judicial system, and it said his conduct could 
No. 
2009AP2904-J   
 
7 
 
not be excused by a perceived understaffing or lack of 
resources. 
¶15 The Judicial Conduct Panel noted that the discipline 
imposed for judicial misconduct 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.  See In re 
Judicial 
Disciplinary 
Proceedings 
Against 
Gorenstein, 
147 
Wis. 2d 861, 873, 434 N.W.2d 603 (1989).  The panel said that 
Judge Zodrow's misconduct was serious because the prompt 
disposition of cases is important to the parties involved in 
those cases as well as to the integrity of the state's judicial 
system.  Because Judge Zodrow was defeated for reelection and no 
longer serves as a municipal judge, the panel concluded that the 
sanctions of suspension or removal would serve little purpose.   
¶16 In light of Judge Zodrow's expressed remorse and given 
the fact that he no longer serves as a municipal judge, the 
panel concluded that a reprimand was appropriate discipline for 
his judicial misconduct.  See In re Judicial Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against Laatsch, 2007 WI 20, ¶16, 299 Wis. 2d 144, 
727 N.W.2d 488.  The panel stressed that its recommendation 
would likely be more severe if Judge Zodrow were still serving 
as a municipal judge.  Since Judge Zodrow was defeated in the 
general election, the panel concluded that a reprimand was 
adequate discipline and was sufficient to protect the public 
from any further judicial misconduct of this kind by others. 
No. 
2009AP2904-J   
 
8 
 
¶17 We review the findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and recommendations made by the panel under Wis. Stat. § 757.89 
and determine appropriate discipline in cases of misconduct.  We 
adopt the panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law.  
After conducting an independent review of the matter, we agree 
with the panel that a reprimand is the appropriate discipline 
for Judge Zodrow's misconduct.  
¶18 The misconduct at issue in this case is serious.  
Judge Zodrow repeatedly and willfully refused to dispose of 
judicial matters presented to him promptly, efficiently, and 
fairly.  We agree with the panel that there is no conceivable 
reason that might justify a backlog of 3,500 cases, some of 
which were more than seven years old.  Judge Zodrow's persistent 
misconduct stymied the timely disposition of cases assigned to 
him and adversely impacted the business of the Cudahy municipal 
court and, more broadly, cast a negative light on the entire 
Wisconsin judicial system.   
¶19 Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude 
that the appropriate discipline for Judge Zodrow's judicial 
misconduct is a reprimand.  We note that in his stipulation 
Judge Zodrow expressed regret for his conduct.  We further note 
that Judge Zodrow was defeated in the general election and no 
longer serves as a municipal judge.  The likelihood of similar 
conduct by Judge Zodrow is minimal, and we trust that the 
reprimand we impose on him will provide adequate protection to 
the public from any further judicial misconduct of this kind by 
others. 
No. 
2009AP2904-J   
 
9 
 
¶20 IT IS ORDERED that the Honorable John A. Zodrow is 
reprimanded 
for 
judicial 
misconduct 
established 
in 
this 
proceeding. 
 
No. 
2009AP2904-J   
 
 
 
1