Judge Michael Gableman’s tenure as a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice has been rocky. In his 2008 campaign for the Supreme Court, Gableman came under fire for an advertisement he ran against his opponent that may not have been completely truthful. This potential ethics violation came before the court and resulted in a 3-3 decision, split along ideological lines. The meaning of this split decision was ambiguous, and as a result nothing really happened.
Now this is where things get fun: According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,
Gableman accepted free legal services from a well-known law firm, Michael Best & Friedrich. The agreement between Gableman and the firm stated they would only be compensated if Gableman won the case, which would result in the state claims board paying Gableman’s legal fees. Since the decision was split, the firm representing Gableman was never paid. However, the important part is regardless of the decision, there was no scenario that would necessitate Gableman to pay for the firm that represented him – thus, free legal services.
There isn’t anything wrong with this sort of agreement on its own. It’s fairly common for law firms to receive payment only if they win the case. However, not every client is a Supreme Court justice. Since accepting free legal services from Michael Best & Friedrich, Gableman has presided over several cases in the Supreme Court that were represented by the same firm. This has been much to the ire of, well, people with morals. Although I’m no legal expert, I’d imagine the value of the services provided to Gableman reaches well into thousands of dollars. Imagine if a company or individual had simply given a Supreme Court justice several thousands dollars, and then asked him to rule on a case they were involved in. While not exactly the same, these two situations are more similar than different.
As a result of this situation, State Rep. Kelda Helen Roys, D-Madison, has proposed a resolution to remove Gableman from his position on the Supreme Court. Wisconsin’s constitution allows for a Supreme Court justice to be removed by a two-thirds vote in the Assembly and Senate. According to a statement released on Roys’ website, “Regrettably, Justice Gableman has committed numerous ethical and legal violations that leave him unfit for continued service on Wisconsin’s highest court.” Clearly, Gableman’s actions have constituted a serious conflict of interest.
Unfortunately, it appears that Roys’ resolution faces a tremendously uphill battle. With both houses controlled by Republicans, it seems unlikely that any progress will be made toward removing Gableman from office. This is a classic example of politics trumping responsible government. While candidates for the Supreme Court don’t technically run with any party, there are fairly clear ideological splits on the Court, and Gableman is widely considered to be a member of the Court’s conservative wing. Thus, despite his ethics violations, the Republican majorities in the Assembly and Senate will likely support him for fear of a less conservative justice winning a spot on the bench.
By ruling on cases involving attorneys from whom he has accepted free legal services, Justice Gableman is setting a dangerous precedent. This type of blatant conflict of interest should be illegal, and Gableman should be held accountable for his actions. And above all, politicians should transcend their party affiliations and do what’s right.
Joe Timmerman ([email protected]) is a freshman intending to major in math and economics.
