1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice agrees…

Judiciary

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice agrees to license suspension for alleged election-review misconduct

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 11, 2025, 11:00 am CDT

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael J. Gableman has agreed to the suspension of his law license to resolve an ethics complaint that stems from his investigation of the 2020 election for the Wisconsin State Assembly.

Gableman and the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation agreed a three-year suspension of Gableman’s law license is an appropriate sanction in a stipulation signed on April 7 and filed with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The court must approve the suspension.

The stipulation acknowledges that Gableman can’t successfully defend against the misconduct allegations.

The Associated Press, Reuters and the Washington Post have coverage. Law Forward had filed a grievance against Gableman, according to a press release.

Gableman’s $2.3 million election review did not find significant fraud, according to past reporting by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The ethics complaint accused Gableman of failing to tell a legislative committee about cooperation by the cities of Madison and Green Bay in Wisconsin and falsely stating in court documents that the cities’ mayors had failed to appear for depositions without justification.

He was also accused of criticizing a judge instead of responding to questions during a court hearing on a group’s public-records request in Dane County, Wisconsin. He claimed that Judge Frank Remington “has abandoned his role as a neutral magistrate” and later said, “You want to put me in jail, Judge Remington? I’m not gonna be railroaded.”

“With this deal,” said Jeff Mandell, president and general counsel of Law Forward, “Gableman stipulates that he misled courts, lied in public meetings, and violated government transparency laws.”

Gableman served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 2008 to 2018. He filed the stipulation a week after a Democratic-backed candidate won election to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, giving the court a 4-3 liberal majority, the Washington Post points out.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

A Superior Court judge in Georgia is accused of using “the prestige of her office” to advance her private interests and commit judicial misconduct, allegedly going so far as to lock up a young woman who testified in a divorce case for more than 30 minutes in a holding cell, just so she could demean her for having “daddy issues,” officials say.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Shermela Williams allegedly had a deputy take the 22-year-old to a holding cell and made her sit inside it for over half an hour before bringing her back into the courtroom to condemn her for the testimony she gave in her parents’ divorce case. The Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) handed down formal charges of misconduct to Williams on Monday and accused her of failing to “fairly, promptly and efficiently” dispose of cases in violation of the state’s code of judicial conduct.

She allegedly tried cutting corners and asked for favors related to cases involving her uncle and other “private interests,” according to the JQC complaint. For her uncle, Williams “lent the prestige of her office” and called a local law associate whose firm was handling a case for someone with a pending contempt action against the uncle in Fulton County Superior Court. According to the JQC, she tried getting them to agree to an extension of time, to no avail.

Many states including Oklahoma, where I practice, have laws that create strict liability crimes when a person in power engages in a sexual relationship with someone subject to that authority. The underlying theory is someone cannot legally consent in those situations because of the power imbalance.

Which brings us to Netflix’s Jailbreak: Love on the Run, a documentary detailing the story of a career corrections employee and an inmate with multiple violent felonies who was awaiting trial for murder.

Vicky White, assistant director of operations at the Lauderdale County Detention Center in Florence, Alabama, went missing while escorting inmate Casey White to what she claimed was a mental health evaluation. However, as authorities began to investigate further, they quickly realized Vicky had broken protocol and was likely not the victim of a kidnaping, which they initially believed, according to Jailbreak.

How did the escape happen?

Despite Vicky’s 17 years of service as a corrections officer, the documentary gives the impression that Vicky had been planning Casey’s escape while carrying out her duties as law enforcement.

Before the breakout, she announced plans to retire, sold her home and withdrew $90,00 from the bank. On her last day of employment, Vicky informed co-workers that she was transporting Casey to the Florence courthouse for a mental health evaluation.

To their surprise, the pair never returned.

Due to her position, Vicky didn’t need an elaborate plan to get Casey out of his cell and into a patrol vehicle. This wasn’t some type of “bolt for freedom.” There wasn’t much oversight, and a little bit of scheduling was all she needed to get the two on the open road.

They abandoned her patrol car at an Alabama shopping center. They switched vehicles and went north to Indiana; surveillance footage gave law enforcement the ID necessary to track the couple to a motel. From there a high-speed chase ensued, the getaway vehicle crashed into a ditch and Casey was taken into custody. He eventually pled guilty to escape and is currently serving a life sentence.

Vicky, however, died from a reported self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head sometime during the escape.

Why did Vicky fall for Casey?

When all was said and done, I wasn’t a huge fan of Jailbreak: Love on the Run. I appreciated the access director Dan Abrams secured with Vicky’s friends and former co-workers. But the show felt like an attempt to humanize Vicky and rehabilitate her image rather than a thorough look at the “how and why” behind the relationship that led to the escape.

In addition, I constantly found myself wondering if the genders had been reversed, would the production team cast the male guard in the same light?

For instance, Vicky was not naive in this circumstance. Her relationship with Casey didn’t simply pop up overnight, according to the documentary. And while Jailbreak: Love on the Run does discuss various issues the jail administration could have and should have seen and addressed, it was very surface-level. The production team missed a good opportunity to examine those underlying concerns across a much wider range of systemic problems in county jails nationwide.

Moreover, although the documentary did go into some detail about Vicky’s mental state and possible reasons why she would fall in love with a detainee awaiting trial for murder charges, it could have offered much more. Why not hear from mental health providers and practitioners as to the underlying theories behind these types of circumstances? Instead, we’re mostly left with assertions that Vicky was lonely, she drank her sorrows away and Casey was a charmer who “manipulated” her.

But that explanation seems so underdeveloped. Remember, Vicky was a county jail veteran. She wasn’t a new hire without the training and experience to navigate advances like Casey’s and the emotions they might create. Also, this wasn’t a situation where Casey was an objectively sympathetic inmate. He was a man with a violent history who was already serving a 75-year sentence for shooting a woman during an attempted carjacking and killing his ex-girlfriend’s dog, among other crimes.

As such, more insight into how jail staff could fall for a person with that baggage would be beneficial. Another idea: Interviews with other individuals who found themselves in Vicky’s shoes, with an aim at discovering firsthand accounts to explain how jail staff end up in relationships with the people in their custody.

Instead, the last hour-plus of screen time is filled with detailed accounts of the 11-day manhunt, intermixed with phone sex recordings from Vicky and Casey’s jail calls.

Inmate and jail staff relationships statistics

If you have no background with the specific facts, I could see Jailbreak: Love on the Run playing as a tragic love story with enough suspense and fascination to keep an audience well engaged. There’s something to be said for that.

But the documentary fails to highlight how these types of relationships occur much more often than most laypersons would guess. A 2023 Department of Justice report examined sexual victimization at adult correctional facilities. According to the report, 67% of the staff sexual misconduct perpetrators were female.

Reported examples of sexual misconduct included intentional touching with the intent to arouse; voyeurism for sexual gratification; and completed, attempted or requested sexual acts.

At the time of Vicky and Casey’s disappearance, NBC News reported that the pair’s romantic involvement was “a very common story.”

Some individuals interviewed for the NBC News piece said inmates have an ability to manipulate guards, and such manipulation is the catalyst for instances like Vicky and Casey’s relationship.

However, with statistics to rely on and professionals likely willing to offer their opinions as to the cause of these relationships, Jailbreak: Love on the Run missed an opportunity by not exploring these factors in depth.

But maybe I’m expecting an answer that isn’t there. Maybe one of Casey’s former cellmates is right: “Don’t paint it out that he has a monster. Don’t paint it out that she was a fool. They were just two people, different walks of life, that fell in love.”

---

Adam R. Banner is the founder and lead attorney of the Oklahoma Legal Group, a criminal defense law firm in Oklahoma City. His practice focuses solely on state and federal criminal defense. He represents the accused against allegations of sex crimes, violent crimes, drug crimes and white-collar crimes.

The study of law isn’t for everyone, yet its practice and procedure seem to permeate pop culture at an increasing rate. This column is about the intersection of law and pop culture in an attempt to separate the real from the ridiculous.

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. After Hurricane Helene, court deadlines extended,…

Natural Disasters

After Hurricane Helene, court deadlines extended, misconduct hotline activated

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 2, 2024, 12:25 pm CDT

Hurricane Helene is having a continuing impact on the courts.

The Georgia Supreme Court’s chief justice declared a statewide judicial emergency Monday to extend deadlines in cases where parties were affected by the hurricane.

The judicial emergency affects all courts, but deadlines are extended only in cases in which parties certify that they were unable to file or meet deadlines, according to the Sept. 30 order by Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael P. Boggs.

Law360 has coverage.

Boggs told Law360 that many chief superior court judges in Georgia began issuing emergency orders closing courthouses in advance of the storm.

In North Carolina, North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul Newby issued an amended order extending court deadlines in 28 counties, according to a Sept. 30 press release.

Law360 has coverage.

In Florida, all courts had reopened by Oct. 1, according to the Florida Bar, which has activated a hotline for residents to report potential misconduct and solicitation by lawyers.

A Florida courts information page said orders will be issued to extend deadlines that happened during court closures.

ABA Young Lawyers Division Disaster Legal Services Resources

• Message from ABA President Bill Bay

• Volunteer Interest Form

• Donations for Providing Legal Services to Disaster Survivors

• Hotline Numbers for Legal Services Questions

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 2 federal judges who boycotted Columbia law…

Judiciary

2 federal judges who boycotted Columbia law grads didn’t commit misconduct, review panel says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 17, 2024, 10:10 am CDT

Two federal judges who said they wouldn’t hire future law grads from Columbia University did not commit misconduct, according to a review panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta’s judicial council.

The review panel appeared to be referring to U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch and U.S. District Judge Tilman E. Self III of the Middle District of Georgia, the only judges who signed a letter announcing the boycott within the 11th Circuit.

Law360, Reuters and Bloomberg Law covered the Aug. 12 order released last week.

Branch and Self were among 13 federal judges who signed the letter pledging not to hire future Columbia grads for clerkships because of the school’s handling of campus disruptions. All 13 judges were appointees of former President Donald Trump.

The judges’ May 2024 letter deemed Columbia to be “an incubator of bigotry” and said the university should embrace viewpoint diversity and impose serious consequences for students and faculty who participate in campus disruptions and violate university rules.

The no-misconduct finding follows an August 2024 decision drawing the same conclusion by a review panel of the 5th Circuit at New Orleans’ judicial council. The 5th Circuit review panel found no ethics violations by eight federal judges within the 5th Circuit, including, apparently, Circuit Judge James C. Ho.

The 11th Circuit review panel affirmed a decision by the 11th Circuit Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr. The order included Pryor’s June 2024 decision dismissing the complaint.

There is no basis for a finding of misconduct, Pryor had said.

“Federal judges routinely hire law clerks and must consider applicants’ educational backgrounds in determining whether an applicant is qualified for and will succeed in the job. As part of that consideration, judges are permitted to make reasonable conclusions regarding the value and quality of a school’s educational program,” he wrote.

A person who filed a complaint against the judges with the 11th Circuit said there is every reason to think that judges who are willing to punish a university and its graduates “will skew their judicial rulings in a similar manner.”

“It is no stretch of the imagination,” the complainant wrote, to conceive that the judges will “attempt to discern the political views of the parties and counsel before them and discriminate and retaliate against them.”

The complainant also called for an investigation into whether “outside organizations or foreign governments” orchestrated the judges’ letter.

Pryor responded that that the complainant’s claims lack sufficient evidence, including insufficient evidence to show that the judges “treated or will treat individuals in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal judges wrongly engaged in ‘oral-argument…

Judiciary

Federal judges wrongly engaged in ‘oral-argument affirmative action,’ group’s misconduct complaint says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 29, 2024, 3:15 pm CST

The conservative legal group America First Legal has filed a misconduct complaint against three federal judges in Illinois who issued orders intended to encourage “newer, female and minority attorneys” to argue motions.

The complaint, filed with the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, contends the judges are violating federal judicial conduct rules, violating the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment, and discriminating on the basis of race and sex, according to a press release. Reuters and Law360 are among the publications with coverage.

The judges, all from the Southern District of Illinois, are Nancy J. Rosenstengel, Staci M. Yandle and David W. Dugan. Rosenstengel is the chief judge.

Their policies provide that, after a motion is briefed, a party may alert the court that a newer, female or minority attorney will argue the motion if a request for argument is granted. The court will then grant the request, if practicable; will strongly consider granting extra time for argument; and will permit more experienced lawyers to assist.

“The judges’ policies are essentially oral-argument affirmative action for lawyers,” the complaint says. The policies violate judicial canons requiring judges to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and the impartiality of the judiciary, according to the complaint.

America First Legal has also targeted diversity efforts by corporations and a law review.