Ziegler is given a public reprimand

The discipline stems from Ziegler's acknowledgement that while serving as a circuit judge, she presided over nearly a dozen cases in which she had a conflict of interest. Ziegler was elected to a 10-year term on the court in April 2007, about a month after the conflict of interest involving West Bend Savings Bank was revealed.

While calling the misconduct "serious and significant," the high court in a 60-page opinion nonetheless opted for the most lenient discipline available. The court could have imposed a suspension or expulsion from the bench, although both the Wisconsin Judicial Commission and a three-judge Judicial Conduct Panel had recommended a reprimand.

"Our decision to impose a public reprimand and not a suspension is consistent with our past precedent in both the judicial and attorney discipline line of cases," the five-member majority wrote. "In addition, a suspension would not serve the purpose of fostering public trust and confidence in the judicial system any better than a public reprimand under the circumstances of the present case."

Ziegler didn't participate in the deliberations. Justice Louis Butler Jr. dissented, saying he didn't disagree with the decision but that by declining to call witnesses, the Judicial Conduct Panel failed to establish "facts" upon which to base the discipline.

"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," Butler wrote.

In a statement released to reporters Wednesday, Ziegler said, "I appreciate that this matter is now concluded. I look forward to continuing to serve the people of Wisconsin."

Ziegler has acknowledged that while a Washington County Circuit Court judge, she sat on cases involving West Bend Savings Bank, where her husband, developer J.J. Ziegler, serves on the board of directors.

\ Violations 'willful'

The court called the violations "willful" because "the judge knew or should have known that the conduct was prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct." However, Ziegler had said she didn't think about the code when presiding over the West Bend Savings cases.

The lawsuits included six cases in which the bank sought to seize vehicles from customers who were behind in their car payments, three mortgage foreclosures and two other matters. One case involved a man caught up in an Internet scam who directed the bank to wire $45,000 to a Nigerian attorney. In nearly all of the cases, defendants represented themselves against the bank. In every case, Ziegler either ruled for the bank or the matter was settled out of court.

Ziegler contended the decisions were the same as any other judge would render under the circumstances. The judicial commission investigation into the conflict of interest concluded Ziegler didn't gain financially from the decisions, and that once she was alerted to the violation, she took steps to avoid any future conflicts.

The Supreme Court found Ziegler violated a rule that prohibits judges from handling cases in which he or she or a family member is a party or a director of a party in a lawsuit. The majority also faulted the three Court of Appeals judges for giving Ziegler credit for acknowledging her violations but not probing whether that admission was public or made behind closed doors during investigations by the Judicial Commission and the state Ethics Board.

"What is clear is that the judge never unambiguously admitted before the election that her conduct violated the code," the court said.

While the decision called Ziegler's violations of the rules "inexcusable," it concluded that they "do not rise to the level of knowing violations made in brazen contempt ... of the code."

\ Discipline called lenient

Good government groups decried Ziegler's actions and what some perceived as discipline that was too lenient.

"Annette Ziegler violated the sacred trust that when you go into a courtroom the judge isn't rooting for one side over the other," said Scot Ross, executive director of the Milwaukee-based One Wisconsin Now, which first revealed the conflicts of interest.

Said Mike McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign: "The court is operating under a cloud, and I don't think that cloud cover is any less dense because the court slapped Annette Ziegler on the wrist."

McCabe, whose group filed the complaint, criticized the high court for imposing a less harsh discipline than it hands out to attorneys who commit less egregious ethical violations. In a recent study, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign found that "lawyers were being suspended for things as minor as failure to pay their bar dues on time." He called the treatment afforded by the Supreme Court to fellow members of the judiciary "a double standard."

McCabe also was critical of the justices for following precedent in a case that was "unprecedented."

"They obviously leaned very heavily on past precedent, which I find bizarre since this is the first time the court has had to discipline a sitting Supreme Court justice," he said.