Court Opinion

ID: 9682975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:20:16.243234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:43.663323
License: Public Domain

LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J.
¶ 118. 0dissenting). I *309respectfully 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)l. 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 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 *310judiciary 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.

 See per curiam op., ¶¶ 21, 87, 96.