Former Wisconsin justice accused of ethics violations over 2020 election probe
Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman took the stand and refused to answer questions from Circuit Court Judge Frank Remington on June 10, 2022. (Amber Arnold/Wisconsin State Journal via AP, File)
MADISON, Wis. - Legal regulators filed a 10-count ethics complaint Tuesday against a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who oversaw a problem-plagued review of the 2020 presidential election in this battleground state.
The state office that oversees lawyers alleged former justice Michael Gableman filed false information with a judge, repeatedly engaged in dishonesty, unfairly disparaged a judge and an attorney, failed to perform competent legal work, did not follow the directions of his client, released confidential information and lied to the lawyer who investigated him.
The state Supreme Court is expected to soon assign the complaint to a referee, a typical step, to make findings and determine whether the court should discipline Gableman. Gableman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Republicans who control the state legislature hired Gableman to review the 2020 presidential election after Donald Trump lost the state. Gableman spent months consulting with conspiracy theorists as he conducted a secretive, shambolic investigation that culminated with him telling lawmakers they should consider revoking the state’s 10 electoral votes - a proposal he privately acknowledged was “a practical impossibility.”
Before he was hired, Gableman falsely claimed the election was stolen, and his review of it got a slow start because he wasn’t familiar with election practices. “Most people, myself included, do not have a comprehensive understanding or even any understanding of how elections work,” he said as he got his work off the ground.
His review came as courts and independent reviews found the 2020 election was decided properly. Trump narrowly won Wisconsin in 2016, narrowly lost it in 2020 and narrowly won it this year.
As part of his review, Gableman issued expansive subpoenas to the mayors and election clerks in cities with large numbers of Democratic voters. They reached agreements on what to provide him and gave him thousands of pages of documents, but soon after Gableman sued them, arguing they should be jailed because they had not provided him with more.
In his litigation, Gableman was dishonest and left out crucial information the courts needed to know, attorney Donald Schott wrote in his complaint for the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation. Similarly, when Gableman testified before a legislative committee, he made false statements, Schott wrote.
Gableman didn’t maintain investigative records properly and didn’t appropriately respond to public records requests, according to court rulings and Tuesday’s filing. When he was sued over his handling of public records, Gableman accused the judge overseeing the case of being biased against him and “not interested in right or wrong.” That comment and others disparaged the judge, and other remarks disparaged an attorney in the case, Schott found. And Gableman failed to perform competent legal work by not following the records law, Schott wrote.
In addition, Gableman failed to follow the directions of Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, the Republican statehouse leader who hired him, Schott found. Vos and Gableman publicly clashed during the review, and Vos fired Gableman after he campaigned for Vos’s opponent in the GOP primary in 2022. Vos won that race and kept his job but has had to fight off attempts by Gableman and others to recall him from office.
As Gableman worked against Vos, he disclosed information about his legal work that should have remained confidential, regulators found.
Once regulators began investigating Gableman, he filed a statement under penalty of perjury claiming he did not give legal advice or practice law when he performed his work for the legislature. Those claims are false, Schott said, because he opined on the legality of how the election was conducted and filed litigation using his state bar number. Gableman’s filing with regulators violated a rule that requires lawyers to cooperate with ethics investigations and provide them truthful information, Schott wrote.
The allegations against Gableman will next go to a referee who can evaluate the case. Ultimately, it will be up to the state Supreme Court to decide whether Gableman violated ethics rules and if he should be punished. Liberals hold a 4-3 majority on the court, and Gableman has rankled both sides over the years. Three of the justices served with Gableman and one of them, Brian Hagedorn, served as Gableman’s law clerk before Hagedorn joined the court.
The Office of Lawyer Regulation investigated Gableman in response to a grievance filed by Law Forward, a liberal nonprofit law firm focused on election issues.
“Gableman misused taxpayer funds, promoted baseless conspiracy theories, and engaged in improper intimidation tactics; his efforts undermined the integrity of our electoral system,” the group’s president, Jeffrey Mandell, said in a statement.
