Title: Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. Daryl W. Laatsch
Citation: 2007 WI 20
Docket Number: 2004AP002954-J
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: February 16, 2007

2007 WI 20 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2004AP2954-J 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against the Honorable Daryl W. 
Laatsch, Municipal Judge for Mid-Moraine 
Municipal Court. 
 
 
Wisconsin Judicial Commission, 
          Complainant, 
     v. 
The Honorable Daryl W. Laatsch, 
          Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LAATSCH 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
February 16, 2007   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
November 1, 2006   
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondent there were briefs by The Hon. Daryl W. 
Laatsch and Daryl W. Laatsch SC, Hartford. 
 
For the complainant there was a brief by James C. Alexander 
and the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, Madison. 
 
 
2007 WI 20
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2004AP2954-J  
 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the Matter of Judicial Disciplinary 
Proceedings Against the Honorable  
Daryl W. Laatsch, Municipal Judge for  
Mid-Moraine Municipal Court. 
 
Wisconsin Judicial Commission, 
 
          Complainant, 
 
     v. 
 
The Honorable Daryl W. Laatsch, 
 
          Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
FEB 16, 2007 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDICIAL disciplinary proceeding.   Reprimand imposed.   
 
¶1 
PER 
CURIAM.   We review, pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 757.91 (2003-04)1 a judicial conduct panel's findings of fact, 
                                                 
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-
04 version unless otherwise noted.  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 
No. 
2004AP2954-J   
 
2 
 
conclusions of law, and recommendation for discipline for the 
Honorable Daryl Laatsch, a former municipal judge for the Mid-
Moraine Municipal Court.  We conclude that a reprimand is the 
appropriate discipline for Judge Laatsch's judicial misconduct. 
¶2 
Judge Laatsch served as the Mid-Moraine Municipal 
Court Judge from 1991 to 2005.  He has not been the subject of 
any 
prior 
disciplinary 
action 
by 
the 
Wisconsin 
Judicial 
Commission.  Judge Laatsch was defeated in a primary election in 
February 2005 and no longer serves as a municipal court judge. 
¶3 
The Judicial Commission filed a complaint against 
Judge Laatsch on November 10, 2004, alleging that Judge Laatsch 
had engaged in judicial misconduct by presiding over two cases 
in which a family member was a defendant, and by presiding over 
a case in which the defendant was a client he was representing 
in his private practice.  The complaint alleged further that 
Judge Laatsch identified himself as a municipal judge in an 
advertisement for his private law practice that appeared in the 
Yellow Pages telephone directory for the city of West Bend. 
¶4 
The judicial conduct panel made findings of fact based 
on a stipulation executed by the parties.  On the basis of those 
undisputed facts, the judicial conduct panel made conclusions of 
law and recommended that this court reprimand Judge Laatsch for 
his misconduct.  Judge Laatsch elected to file a brief in this 
                                                                                                                                                             
applicable to civil cases in the supreme court govern 
the review proceedings under this section.   
No. 
2004AP2954-J   
 
3 
 
court explaining additional circumstances he deemed relevant.  
The Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed a responsive brief.  
¶5 
The facts giving rise to the complaint are as follows.  
In March 1997 Judge Laatsch's niece appeared as a defendant in 
Judge Laatsch's court.  She was a minor at the time and was 
accompanied to court by her mother, Judge Laatsch's sister.  
Judge Laatsch did not recuse himself from the case. 
¶6 
Between June 2001 and December 2002 Judge Laatsch 
presided over a case in which his nephew, also a minor, was a 
defendant.  Again, Judge Laatsch did not recuse himself from the 
case, which proceeded to judgment.  Eventually, the assistant 
city attorney for the city of West Bend notified Judge Laatsch 
that the city objected to Judge Laatsch presiding over the case.  
The 
case 
was 
reopened 
by 
stipulation. 
 
Judge 
Laatsch 
participated in facilitating a stipulated agreement between the 
city and the defendant.  Another judge ultimately approved the 
stipulated disposition.   
¶7 
In July 2000 Judge Laatsch presided over a municipal 
court proceeding involving defendant, E.A.  At that time, Judge 
Laatsch was representing E.A. as a private attorney in a 
criminal matter then pending in Washington County Circuit Court.  
Judge Laatsch did not recuse himself from this matter.   
¶8 
The complaint alleged, and the judicial conduct panel 
concluded, that by presiding over cases involving his niece and 
his nephew, Judge Laatsch violated SCR 60.04(4)(e)1. of the code 
of judicial conduct, which requires a judge to recuse himself 
whenever "a person within the third degree of kinship" to the 
No. 
2004AP2954-J   
 
4 
 
judge "[i]s a party to the proceeding." See also SCR 60.01(16).2  
The panel concluded further that these incidents also violated 
SCR 60.04(4)(a), which requires recusal whenever a judge "has a 
personal bias or prejudice concerning a party."  While these 
provisions may be waived under a procedure set forth in SCR 
60.04(6),3 the stipulation executed by the parties does not 
demonstrate that this procedure was followed.    
¶9 
The 
complaint alleged further, and the judicial 
conduct panel concluded, that by presiding over a matter in 
                                                 
2 SCR 60.01(16) provides that "'[t]hird degree of kinship' 
means 
a 
person 
who 
is 
related 
as 
a 
great-grandparent, 
grandparent, parent, uncle, aunt, brother, sister, child, 
grandchild, great-grandchild, nephew or niece." 
3 SCR 60.04(6) provides that: 
 
(6) 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, 
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.   
 
 
 
No. 
2004AP2954-J   
 
5 
 
which a private practice client was a defendant, Judge Laatsch 
violated SCR 60.04(4)4 and SCR 60.03(1).5 
                                                 
4 SCR 60.04(4) provides:   
 
(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: 
 
(a) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice 
concerning a party or a party's lawyer or personal 
knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the 
proceeding.    
 
(b) The judge of an appellate court previously 
handled the action or proceeding as judge of another 
court.   
 
(c) The judge served as a lawyer in the matter 
in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge 
previously 
practiced 
law 
served 
during 
such 
association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the 
judge has been a material witness concerning the 
matter.     
 
(d) 
The 
judge 
knows 
that 
he 
or 
she, 
individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse 
or minor child wherever residing, or any other member 
of 
the 
judge's 
family 
residing 
in 
the 
judge's 
household has an economic interest in the subject 
matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding 
or has any other more than de minimis interest that 
could be substantially affected by the proceeding.    
 
(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:   
No. 
2004AP2954-J   
 
6 
 
¶10 The judicial conduct panel concluded that each of 
these violations was willful and thus constituted judicial 
misconduct under Wis. Stat. § 757.81(4)(a).6  See In re Judicial 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Tesmer, 219 Wis. 2d 708, 711, 
580 N.W.2d 307 (1998). 
¶11 With respect to the Yellow Pages advertisement, the 
judicial conduct panel concluded that Judge Laatsch violated SCR 
60.03(2) which provides in relevant part that a "judge may not 
lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private 
interests of the judge or of others or convey or permit others to 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
1. Is a party to the proceeding or an 
officer, director or trustee of a party.   
 
2. Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding.    
 
3. Is known by the judge to have a more than 
de minimis interest that could be substantially 
affected by the proceeding.   
 
4. Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be 
a material witness in the proceeding.   
 
(f) The judge, while a judge or a candidate for 
judicial office, has made a public statement that 
commits, or appears to commit, the judge with respect 
to any of the following: 
 
1. An issue in the proceeding. 
 
2. The controversy in the proceeding.  
5 SCR 60.03(1) provides that "[a] judge shall respect and 
comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that 
promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of 
the judiciary." 
6 Wisconsin Stat. § 757.81(4)(a) defines judicial misconduct 
to include "[w]ilful violation of a rule of the code of judicial 
ethics." 
No. 
2004AP2954-J   
 
7 
 
convey the impression that they are in a special position to 
influence the judge."  In addition, the panel concluded that by 
placing 
the 
advertisement, 
Judge 
Laatsch 
violated 
SCR 
60.05(4)(a)1.a., which provides that "[a] judge may not engage in 
financial or business dealings that could . . . [r]easonably be 
perceived to exploit the judge's judicial position."  Again, the 
panel concluded that Judge Laatsch's violations of the rules of 
judicial conduct were willful.   
¶12 We adopt the panel's findings and conclusions of law 
and thus turn to the question of the appropriate discipline for 
the misconduct.   
¶13 The misconduct in this case is serious.  A fair and 
impartial judge is the cornerstone of the integrity of the 
judicial system.  Even the appearance of partiality can erode the 
public's confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.  Any 
reasonable person would question the impartiality of a judge who 
presides over a case in which that judge's family member or 
private client is the defendant.   
¶14 We acknowledge that the parties stipulated that no 
favor was granted to any of these defendants and that the 
disposition of each case was comparable to that accorded similar 
cases in Judge Laatsch's courtroom.  We acknowledge further that 
Judge Laatsch mistakenly believed his disqualification could be 
waived.  Notwithstanding these factors, he violated the rules of 
judicial conduct as described by the panel and failed to act in 
a manner that "promotes public confidence in the integrity and 
impartiality of the judiciary."   
No. 
2004AP2954-J   
 
8 
 
¶15 Similarly, 
by 
highlighting 
his 
municipal 
court 
judgeship in the advertisement for his private legal practice, 
Judge Laatsch sought to use the prestige of his judicial office 
to advance his private interests and exploited the judgeship in 
the hopes of obtaining financial gain.   
¶16 Under 
the 
circumstances, 
we 
determine 
that 
the 
appropriate discipline for Judge Laatsch's judicial misconduct 
is a reprimand.  We note that in his stipulation, Judge Laatsch 
expressed "great[] regret[] that his conduct had a negative 
impact on the appearance of his impartiality and the integrity 
of the court."  We note further that Judge Laatsch was defeated 
in a primary election and is no longer serving as a municipal 
judge.  The likelihood of similar misconduct by Judge Laatsch is 
minimal, and the reprimand we impose on him should provide 
adequate protection to the public from any further judicial 
misconduct 
of 
this 
kind by others. See In re Judicial 
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Stern, 224 Wis. 2d 220, 233, 
589 N.W.2d 407 (1999). 
¶17 IT IS ORDERED that the Honorable Daryl W. Laatsch is 
reprimanded 
for 
judicial 
misconduct 
established 
in 
this 
proceeding.  
 
No. 
2004AP2954-J   
 
 
 
1