A state investigation into Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4, found his conduct as assistant Dane County district attorney was “troubling” and could potentially violate attorney conduct laws.
Kevin Potter, Assistant Attorney General, said Verveer’s behavior raised concerns for violation of attorneys rules of professional conduct, and the case was submitted to Wisconsin’s Office of Lawyer Regulation for further review.
The Department of Justice announced Wednesday there was not enough information beyond a reasonable doubt to file criminal complaints against Verveer for inappropriate conduct.
David Wamabach, Assistant Attorney General, said in an official report obtained Thursday by the Wisconsin State Journal that whether Verveer may have violated the rules governing the ethical conduct of attorneys under Madison regulations was not part of the criminal investigation.
In the official report, witnesses alleged Verveer had engaged in providing alcohol to minors and encouraging suspects with existing warrants to avoid arrest.
Additionally, a witness interviewed throughout the investigation alleged Verveer had contacted him while seemingly intoxicated and a second, underage witness contested Verveer told bar security the witness was “with him” after determining the witness’ fake ID would not work.
Eric Schulenburg, Verveer’s attorney said he could not comment on the specifics of the alcohol-related allegations, but said Verveer was happy to see no criminal charges were found following two years of investigation.
However, Potter said although Verveer’s alleged conduct was questionable, the key elements needed to criminally charge him were absent.
“While aspects of Verveer’s conduct may have been inappropriate, unprofessional and contrary to the interests of his employer, I cannot find that any of Michael Verveer’s conduct was criminal in nature,” Potter said in his report to the OLR.
The DOJ also investigated whether Verveer had acted ethically and honestly in relations with defendants while maintaining his employer’s best interests.
A number of witnesses suggested Verveer pushed the boundaries of excessive contact with them or associated Verveer with the positive result of their criminal cases.
Schulenburg said Verveer did not communicate with any defendant who was represented by counsel, and went out of his way to ensure no defendant faced any punishment greater than absolutely necessary for the charges faced.
The report said although Verveer’s contacts with defendants was unusual and his offers of assistance were suspicious, he did not directly suggest he was seeking something in return for his assistance.
Schulenburg said Verveer was only trying to “do justice” for people who had no where else to turn.
