Court Opinion

ID: 9672296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:52:14.947222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:15.275407
License: Public Domain

The following opinion was filed February 3, 1976.
Wilkie, C. J.
(on motion for rehearing). Sanctions available to the supreme court for violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics include reprimand, censure, or civil contempt. The Code of Judicial Ethics, as promulgated, specifically provides for reprimand or censure.1 It is settled beyond any question in Wisconsin that all courts have an inherent power to hold in contempt these who disobey the court’s lawful orders.2 This power exists independently of statute for the fundamental reason that it “is a necessary incident to the exercise of judicial power and is reasonably to be implied from the grant of such power.”3 Of course, Wisconsin courts also possess, by virtue of statute, specific power of civil4 and criminal5 contempt. A violation with respect to the financial disclosure provisions of Rule 17, or of any of the other provisions of the Code of Judicial Ethics, is serious and this court must have the authority to enforce the provisions of the code through civil contempt.
*543cViolations of the Code of Judicial Ethics, if determined to be in contempt of the court, are civil rather than criminal contempt. The real character of a contempt of court is determined by the nature of the relief sought,6 and in cases involving violations of the code this court seeks to remedy the situation created by the violation and to enforce the collective private rights of the citizens of this state to impartial justice.
In this instance, if Charles E. Kading fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 17 for the year ending December 31, 1974, as mandated in these proceedings, he will be subject to reprimand and censure, but not civil contempt. The court, with the exception of the writer, concludes that his conduct is not contumapious and therefore will not resort to civil contempt in this instance.
By the Court. — The motion for rehearing is denied and Charles E. Kading is granted twenty days from the date of this order to file with the Judicial Commission the financial disclosure report as required for the year ending December 31,1974.

 Code of Judicial Ethics (1967), 36 Wis. 2d 252, 153 N. W. 2d 873, 155 N. W. 2d 565. See also: State v. McCarthy (1949), 255 Wis. 234, 250, 38 N. W. 2d 679.

 Appeal of Cichon (1938), 227 Wis. 62, 67, 278 N. W. 1; State ex rel. Rodd v. Verage (1922), 177 Wis. 295, 305, 306, 187 N. W. 830.

 Appeal of Cichon, supra, footnote 2, at pages 67, 68.

 Sec. 295.01, Stats.

 Sec. 256.03, Stats.

 Wetzler v. Glassner (1925), 185 Wis. 593, 596, 201 N. W. 740.