December 19, 2011
Mr. Jonathan Becker, Ethics Division Administrator
Wisconsin Government Accountability Board
212 East Washington Avenue, Third Floor
P.O. Box 7984
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7984
Dear Mr. Becker:
As the ranking member of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and Ethics, I am concerned about recent news stories in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (“Justice Gableman not charged legal fees in ethics case.” December 15, 2011) and the Wisconsin State Journal (“Report: Justice Gableman received free legal services to fight ethics complaint.” December 16, 2011) that raise serious ethical issues regarding State Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman’s fee arrangement with Attorney Eric McLeod of the law firm Michael Best & Friedrich that reportedly resulted in Justice Gableman receiving thousands of dollars in free legal services from the firm when Attorney McLeod represented Justice Gableman in a judicial ethics case.
The above mentioned news stories describe what appears to be a unusual contingency fee agreement between Justice Gableman and Michael Best and Friedrich that is usually used for civil plaintiffs in cases where the plaintiff can potentially be awarded a large judgment. According the Journal Sentinel, there is only one recorded case since 1988 where a judge defending against an ethics charge was awarded legal fees by the state Claims Board, which is likely the only way Michael Best could have collected a contingency fee for the firm’s representation of Justice Gableman.
As you are aware, Wisconsin’s Code of Ethics for Public Officials and Employees prohibits a sitting judge from accepting anything of value that could reasonably be expected to influence the judge's vote, official actions or judgment (Wisconsin Statutes §19.45(3)). If this fee arrangement does constitute a gift to Justice Gableman, this is especially problematic as Michael Best currently has five cases sitting before the state Supreme Court. Justice Gableman has not recused himself from any of these cases involving Michael Best.
Wisconsin’s Code of Ethics for Public Officials and Employees also prohibits state officials from receiving anything of pecuniary value from an organization that employs a lobbyist unless also made available to the general public on like terms and conditions (Wisconsin Statute §13.625(2)). If Michael Best and Friedrich employed a lobbyist at the time the firm represented Justice Gableman and the contingency fee agreement they offered him was not a fee arrangement they offered to other similarly situated clients who are members of the general public, this would appear to be problematic.
If the Government Accountability Board receives any legitimate complaints regarding Justice Gableman’s contingency fee agreement with Michael Best and Friedrich, I respectfully request that your division conduct a thorough investigation of this matter. I have the utmost respect for your organization’s ability to ensure that Wisconsin’s state officials meet the ethical standards that our laws demand and our public expect.
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
GARY HEBL
State Representative
46th Assembly District