1. Home
2. Daily News
3. After Texas chief justice criticizes ABA,…

Law Schools

After Texas chief justice criticizes ABA, state supreme court reconsiders ABA accreditation for law schools

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 8, 2025, 3:54 pm CDT

The Texas Supreme Court is inviting comments on a requirement that law grads seeking bar admission in the state must have graduated from a law school accredited by the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.

In an April 4 order, the Texas Supreme Court requested feedback on whether to “reduce or end” reliance on the ABA as an accrediting agency and “alternatives the court should consider.”

The state supreme court is inviting comments from the Texas Board of Law Examiners, Texas law school deans, the bar and the public, the order said.

Law360 covered the story.

The Texas Supreme Court did not comment on the reason for its order. But Chief Justice James D. Blacklock criticized the ABA in his February State of the Judiciary address for “aggressively taking sides in the fight going on in Washington about the scope of the president’s executive power.”

ABA President Bill Bay has criticized the Trump administration’s “wholesale dismantling of departments and entities created by Congress,” as well as “efforts to dismiss employees with little regard for the law and protections they merit.”

The Texas Supreme Court’s order follows a similar move last month by Florida’s top court. It has created a subgroup to reconsider the requirement that law grads taking the Florida bar exam must have graduated from an ABA-accredited law school.

The Florida Supreme Court took action because of “reasonable questions” about an accreditation standard on diversity and “the ABA’s active political engagement,” according to a press release. The Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has suspended enforcement of its diversity standard as it works on revisions.

The Association of American Law Schools is making the case for national accreditation of law schools in an April 8 open letter that has also been submitted to working groups considering the accreditation issue in Texas and Florida.

Thirty-three law schools, most of them in California, don’t have ABA accreditation. Most have “extremely low bar exam pass rates, poor job outcomes and high attrition rates,” the letter said.

The letter said national accreditation is critical for ensuring “a minimum baseline of quality in legal education and practice.” Most states don’t have the resources to sufficiently evaluate law schools, and “piecemeal, fragmented or overlapping regulation would increase costs on law schools, their students and the profession,” the letter said.

Creating different barriers to a law license that vary by state would also hamper lawyer mobility and add to lawyer deserts, the letter said.

The letter also clarified that the ABA does not accredit law schools. Instead, that job is handled by the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, “a national accrediting entity that is separate and independent from the bar association.”

Jennifer L. Rosato Perea, the managing director accreditation and legal education for the ABA, issued a statement to the ABA Journal.

The council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar “understands the [Texas] Supreme Court’s need to thoughtfully consider the council’s continued role in accreditation and hear from a variety of perspectives to ensure that this accreditation continues to serve its admission requirements,” the statement said.

“The council’s primary purpose in accreditation has been and continues to be contributing meaningfully to the production of effective and ethical lawyers, as well as serving the interests of the public in Texas and all other states throughout the United States.”

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

Bold. Innovative. Visionary. At a time when many courts are losing the battle to provide access to justice, especially in low-income communities, the Arizona Supreme Court has brought fresh ideas to bridge the justice gap.

Vice Chief Justice John Lopez, at the invitation of the ABA Crossroads Caucus, discussed innovations his court has recently put in place in a conversation with moderator Mark Martin, dean of High Point University School of Law at the ABA Midyear Meeting in Phoenix in February.

As reported by the Legal Services Corporation in its most recent Justice Gap Study in 2022, low-income Americans do not get any or enough legal help for 92% of their substantive civil legal problems. To address this issue, Lopez and his colleagues have focused on improving access to legal services by lowering costs and increasing options. For lower income citizens, the court approved several programs, including the Legal Paraprofessional Program, the Lawyer Apprentice Program, the Legal Advocate Program and the Government Law Admission Program.

The Legal Paraprofessional Program, to highlight a very successful program, has been in operation since early 2021. It grants a license that allows nonlawyers to offer limited legal services, including legal advice; drafting and filing legal documents, opinions and strategies; and representing clients in court. The first licenses were granted in November 2021, and Arizona has 65 licensed LPs. The program improves access to justice by allowing trained nonlawyers to represent clients in criminal, family, civil, administrative and juvenile law matters. The University of Arizona and Arizona State University offer a Master of Legal Studies that prepares students for the legal paraprofessional licensure exam.

To address the problem of Arizona’s “legal deserts,” a term coined by the ABA to describe counties with few or no lawyers (i.e., fewer than one lawyer per 1,000 residents), the Arizona Supreme Court approved a Lawyer Apprentice Program. The program encourages aspiring lawyers to stay in Arizona, creates a pathway to licensure for law graduates with lower bar scores and increases the number of lawyers in the state. In a state that ranks 49th of 50 states in lawyers per capita, such a program is a necessity, but it’s a very disciplined necessity: Applicants must (1) be graduates of an ABA-accredited law school (2) score 260-269 on the Uniform Bar Exam (3) and commit to practice under the supervision of a qualified Arizona attorney for at least two years in rural Arizona or a public law practice.

More controversial are the Arizona Supreme Court-approved “Alternative Business Structures.” The ABS program allows nonlawyers to partner with lawyers in businesses that provide legal services. The program was created to encourage innovation in legal services and make them more affordable. ABS are subject to the Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court regulating the practice of law, including the requirement that the ABS employ a member of the Arizona Bar who supervises the practice of law. While such arrangements are common in the United Kingdom and Australia, they are actively debated in the U.S.

When Big Four accounting firm KPMG was approved on Feb. 27 to own a law firm under the ABS program, some skeptics asked whether such a step would actually bridge the justice gap or lower costs for lower-income citizens. Lopez acknowledges that some have also raised concerns that the “one-stop shop” model may put traditional firms out of business.

As part of the Arizona Judiciary’s Five-Year Plan, Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer, a 2021 ABA Journal Legal Rebel, has made public trust and confidence in the judiciary a foundational goal. Lopez strongly supports this goal, and the court has put in place several initiatives to address the problem.

He told his audience: “Much of the public’s distrust in our courts is driven by inaccurate media coverage of our cases. Too often, media coverage centers on a case result and often fails to accurately identify the issue, if at all. Inaccurate framing of judicial decisions is then used to drive a narrative that judicial opinions are invariably political decisions. To that end, too many media reports on judicial opinions are limited to the party affiliation of the judge, the case result and its political significance or palatability. This coverage encourages public cynicism and distrust of courts.”

To counter objectively inaccurate characterizations of judicial opinions, the Arizona Supreme Court recently adopted a practice of releasing a brief summary of the judicial opinion that identifies the issues and sets out the reasoning and the decision in the case. Lopez observed that the initial results seem to be positive, noting that coverage of judicial decisions has been more accurate. He said the purpose and effect is not to diminish critical reporting of decisions, but to increase the likelihood that the criticisms and coverage accurately reflect the actual issues, reasoning and conclusions in the case.

Lopez’s final topic was retention elections. Arizona adopted a merit selection system in 1974 that applies to Arizona’s appellate judges and trial court judges in Arizona’s four most populous counties, where a nonpartisan commission of lawyers and citizens investigates and evaluates candidates for judicial positions. The commission then submits the names of the most highly qualified applicants to the governor, who makes the appointment from that list.

Once appointed, judges are subject to retention through regularly scheduled retention elections, by which a majority of votes in favor of a judge results in retention for another term. During judges’ terms, beginning in 1992, a commission of citizens and lawyers, known as “Judicial Performance Review,” assessed judges’ performances and issued recommendations to the voters prior to an election.

From 1974 to 2020, no endorsed judge had ever been removed by voters. In fact, most judges recommended for removal by JPR were retained by voters. Moreover, during those nearly 50 years, only three judges were removed by voters in retention elections; all were embroiled in legal scandal or were otherwise deemed unfit by the JPR Commission.

But, Lopez said, “Something began to change about Arizona’s retention elections in 2020. For the first time, a major political party targeted judges for nonretention. All were retained. But in 2022, voters failed to retain three Maricopa County Superior Court judges. In other words, as many judges were removed by voters in one election as had been removed over the previous 48 years. Notably, two of the three judges had been recommended for retention by the JPR Commission—a first in the history of Arizona’s merit selection system. One of the judges was targeted not for his judicial performance, but rather for his prior associations and his work as an assistant A.G. in Arizona.”

In 2024, the merit selection system, including the retention election, became a major political issue. One side of the partisan/ideological divide cited an unpopular abortion decision, while the other side of the divide expressed dissatisfaction with the court’s election decisions. These political forces culminated in two primary events: (1) a significant campaign was marshaled to remove two members of the Arizona Supreme Court (2) and Proposition 137 was placed on the ballot to eliminate routine retention election for judges unless they committed various crimes, filed personal bankruptcy or were not recommended for retention by JPR. This proposition was rejected by nearly 80% of voters.

Lopez concluded his presentation by questioning the wisdom of politicizing the merit selection process. He quoted the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who called the prospect of jettisoning the merit selection system “a great step backwards.”

---

Jo Ann Engelhardt is a member of the ABA Board of Governors representing District 8, a member of the board of the American Bar Foundation and a founding member of the ABA Crossroads Caucus.

---

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. ‘Stay out of my shorts,’ other discourteous…

Judiciary

‘Stay out of my shorts,’ other discourteous comments led to censure for New York judge

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 10, 2025, 2:11 pm CDT

Updated: A New York judge who didn’t want to transition to new case-tracking systems has agreed to a censure for gratuitous and discourteous remarks that he made while expressing his displeasure to colleagues and to officials who transferred him to a new court.

The remarks by Judge Daniel L. Seiden of the Binghamton City Court in New York contributed to a hostile work environment, according to an April 8 press release by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Seiden raised his voice and told the chief clerk and the deputy chief clerk to “stay out of my shorts” when they came to his office in April 2023 to discuss a change to a check-box case-history system, according to a March 28 determination and an agreed statement of facts signed in February.

Seiden said the “stay out of my shorts” comment was intended to convey “stay out of my business as a judge.”

Then when the administrative judge announced that the court was going to implement a new web-based case-filing system, Seiden declared in an email that he will always ask the clerks for physical files when he is on the bench.

Seiden emailed senior court officials in October 2024 after he was told of his reassignment.

“The game that you are playing, using an administrative trick to de facto remove me from my elected position for your own nefarious purposes, is a dangerous one: trying to get in the back door what you will probably never get through the front door, all the while depriving the citizens of Binghamton of their elected official while brazenly violating several state statutes,” he wrote.

He also said the officials’ “arrogance is breathtaking,” they “are utterly out of control and intoxicated by power and privilege,” and they used “administrative sleight of hand.”

During the ethics proceeding, Seiden was “cooperative and contrite,” according to the statement of facts. He has also completed civility training.

Seiden apologized to the clerks and judges for his “unprofessional remarks” and “appreciates that an apology to them at the time would have been appropriate,” the statement of facts said.

Robert H. Tembeckjian, the judicial conduct commission’s administrator, said in a statement judges must be patient, dignified and courteous.

“Petulant quarreling with colleagues is neither productive nor conducive to the administration of justice,” Tembeckjian said.

In a separate action, Seiden sought to be transferred back to the Binghamton City Court. The court to which he was reassigned is 45 miles from his residence, and his transfer there was arbitrary and capricious, he argued in a Jan. 7 mandamus petition that is pending in the Appellate Division’s Third Judicial Department of the New York Supreme Court.

The petition said Seiden’s statement to “stay out of my shorts” was misinterpreted as sexual in nature and may have been used to justify the July 23, 2024, transfer order, which was made without notice and without explanation. The same day that he received the order, he was escorted from the Binghamton City Court premises “in full view” of his colleagues, the petition said.

The petition also referenced “a corrosive culture in Binghamton City Court” because of the marriage of two officials that is “perhaps not technically nepotistic or illegal.”

A Feb. 25 letter indicated that the parties were in settlement negotiations.

Seiden declined the ABA Journal’s request for comment but informed the Journal in an email that he is scheduled to resume regular duties in the Binghamton City Court on April 28, and he is still working in the Cortland City Court in New York.

His judicial term expires in 2034, but he will have to retire at the end of 2028 because he turns 70 years old that year.

Hat tip to the Legal Profession Blog, which noted the censure.

Updated April 11 at 11:04 a.m. after Judge Daniel L. Seiden declined to comment and provided his return-to-office date. Updated April 11 at 2:29 p.m. to include information on Seiden’s mandamus petition.

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

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.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Climate change case that ‘ignited a movement’…

U.S. Supreme Court

Climate change case that ‘ignited a movement’ ends with Supreme Court’s cert denial

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 25, 2025, 2:01 pm CDT

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to revive a climate change lawsuit filed on behalf of 21 youths who contended that the government is a trustee of the environment and has a duty to preserve it.

The Supreme Court denied cert in Juliana v. United States, report Law360, Reuters, the New York Times, the Oregon Capital Chronicle and E&E News by Politico.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco had tossed the case in a 2020 opinion that said the issue should be taken to the political branches of government, rather than the courts. In May, the appeals court said a revised suit had not cured standing issues that prevented courts from deciding the case.

The name plaintiff in the suit, filed in 2015, is Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana, who is now 29 years old and a teacher in Oregon, according to the New York Times.

The U.S. Department of Justice said in a March 24 press release it has defended the case across three presidential administrations.

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s cert denial brings this long saga to a conclusion,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, in the press release.

The case was filed on behalf of the children by the nonprofit group Our Children’s Trust. Julia Olson, the group’s chief legal counsel, said in a March 24 statement the suit’s impact “cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone.”

“Juliana has ignited a movement and created a powerful legal framework for future generations to assert their constitutional rights in the face of the climate crisis,” she said.

In one success for the group in late 2024, the Montana Supreme Court struck down a state law banning consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in fossil-fuel-permitting decisions. The state supreme court cited a state constitutional provision that guarantees a “clean and healthful environment.” The case was Held v. Montana.

In a second case in 2024, Hawaii agreed to cut emissions of carbon dioxide in its transportation system in a settlement with Our Children’s Trust.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Prosecutor gets suspension for invading jury’s…

Ethics

Prosecutor gets suspension for invading jury’s ‘inner sanctum’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 27, 2025, 10:27 am CDT

An Oklahoma lawyer has been suspended for six months for watching real-time jury deliberations on a monitor in a murder case that he prosecuted.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court suspended former assistant district attorney Isaac Seth Brantley Shields in a March 25 decision.

The Legal Profession Blog published highlights.

Shields violated “the inner sanctum of a jury,” which is “a high breach of trust and a serious interference with the administration of justice,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court said. “It is common knowledge that observing jury deliberations is unacceptable.”

Shields was accused of watching the deliberations video July 1, 2022, in the trial of Chouteau, Oklahoma, man Robert Kent Kraft, according to prior coverage by KJRH.com. There was no audio, according to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Shields was an assistant district attorney in Oklahoma’s District 12, which consists of Craig County, Mayes County and Rogers County. He was the lead prosecutor in the trial of Kraft, who claimed that he fatally stabbed another man in self-defense.

Jurors were deliberating in an adjacent courtroom to give them more space during the COVID-19 pandemic. The room was equipped with three security cameras that remained on during deliberations. Facial expressions and hand gestures were visible on the high-quality video, but it was not possible to read words on paper.

Two hours into the deliberations, an officer allowed Shields into the locked security office where the video played. Shields claimed that he was asked to enter because of a security situation involving the defendant’s family trying to enter the courtroom; security personnel said the security incident happened hours later, but they did not know why Shields was allowed in.

Shields said he did not immediately leave because he was curious about what was taking the jurors so long and because he had nothing else to do, the Oklahoma Supreme Court said. He left and returned several times. He later told another assistant district attorney who was the second chair in the trial to come the security room. Shields controlled the cameras to zoom in and zoom out and discussed his observations with security officers and the other prosecutor.

At first, there appeared to be a holdout juror, but Kraft was ultimately convicted of first-degree murder. His case is on appeal after a mistrial was granted because of the prosecutors’ jury observations.

A deputy reported his concerns about the prosecutors watching the video. When asked what happened, Shields told his supervisors that he was in the room for “30 minutes. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less,” according to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. He also said the video was grainy.

Shields actually observed the jury for more than two hours, according to the state supreme court. Shields “misrepresented and was deceitful regarding the reason he entered the security room, the length of time he watched the jury, and what he observed,” the state supreme court concluded.

Shields “not only observed the jury for over two hours, he failed to disclose that he was doing so to the court, or opposing counsel, even when dealing with jury questions. This is egregious behavior,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court said.

Shields and the other prosecutor self-reported the matter to the Oklahoma Bar Association.

Shields agreed to resign and entered into a deferred prosecution agreement in which he acknowledged violating a law that bans observing or recording jurors. He specified, however, that he had no intent to break the law.

Shields argued that he received no advantage by observing the jury, and he had watched others—including judges and prosecutors—listen to juries when deliberations got loud.

The state supreme court cited several mitigating factors. They included Shields’ military service, his acceptance of responsibility for his actions, his self-reporting of the incident to the Oklahoma Bar Association, and his cooperation in the investigation that followed.

He has been “diligent in completing the terms” of the deferred prosecution agreement and has entered into an agreement with Lawyers Helping Lawyers, a referral service for lawyers, the Oklahoma Supreme Court said.

Shields’ lawyer, Sheila Naifeh, told the ABA Journal that she and her client have no comment on the suspension.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Missouri judge suspended for ‘grossly untimely…

Judiciary

Missouri judge suspended for ‘grossly untimely performance of his duties’ while deflecting blame

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 5, 2025, 9:23 am CST

Updated: A Missouri judge has been suspended for a year without pay for taking years to issue some rulings while falsely telling judicial regulators and attorneys that he had delivered judgments to court clerks in unresolved cases.

The Missouri Supreme Court suspended Judge Joe Don McGaugh of Carroll County, Missouri, in a Feb. 28 opinion that ordered a higher suspension than the six months sought by the Missouri Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline.

The Missouri Independent and KTTN have coverage.

The state supreme court accepted the commission’s recommendation that McGaugh must submit to an independent mental health exam before the end of his suspension. The results will determine whether McGaugh enters a disability retirement or resumes work with continued monitoring of his treatment.

In some instances, McGaugh took as long as five to six years to issue rulings after taking cases under advisement.

“This is an egregious case of multiple instances in which a judge completely failed to timely perform his duties,” the Missouri Supreme Court said in an opinion by Judge Ginger K. Gooch.

McGaugh’s “performance issues extend well beyond his own grossly untimely performance of his duties,” Gooch said. “The uncontested allegations also establish he was untruthful with attorneys, parties and the commission on multiple occasions. He repeatedly failed to respond to court staff and, even worse, blamed court staff when he knew he failed to perform his judicial duties.”

In one instance, McGaugh told the commission that he had submitted a judgment to his law clerks and would follow up when he returns from the state fair the following week. The state supreme court noted that judicial duties are required to take precedence over personal activities.

The state supreme court identified 10 cases in which McGaugh dragged his feet on rulings. The delays “directly harmed multiple parties, among them some of Missouri’s most vulnerable citizens, including families and children; those facing financial difficulties; and those seeking orders of protection,” the state supreme court said.

In one case, an attorney told McGaugh that a divorce litigant’s mortgage was in default, and she could lose her home in foreclosure without a judgment. McGaugh took the case under advisement in September 2021 but did not rule until 2024.

McGaugh was even slower to rule in some of the other cases cited by the Missouri Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline.

In one instance, McGaugh took a motion to modify child custody and support under advisement in April 2018 but did not enter a judgment until April 2024. In another, he took two consolidated cases involving minor guardianship and child custody in May 2019 and issued a judgment in one of the cases in April 2024. The judgment in the other case was still pending at the time that the commission made its allegations.

McGaugh had admitted the allegations and offered to attend mental health counseling, as well as judge training. He had requested a suspension of only three months but later changed his request to no suspension or a suspension served under a disability retirement.

The Missouri Supreme Court said it had no authority to convert a suspension proceeding to a disability retirement, but the commission could conduct future disability proceedings.

Two dissenting judges said the state supreme court did not have constitutional authority to deviate from the six-month suspension recommended by the commission. If it was constitutionally permissible, one of the dissenters said, he would vote to remove McGaugh from office.

McGaugh was a former state lawmaker who began serving as a judge in 2017.

A clerk who answered an ABA Journal phone call to the state supreme court said McGaugh is no longer there. A contact number for McGaugh was not listed in the Missouri bar directory.

McGaugh did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal email sent to a court address provided by the commission.

Updated March 5 at 1:28 p.m. to report that Judge Joe Don McGaugh of Carroll County, Missouri, did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s email.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Ex-Wisconsin justice who led election review…

Ethics

Ex-Wisconsin justice who led election review should be compelled to sit for deposition in ethics case, motion says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 6, 2025, 10:00 am CST

A former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice should be compelled to sit for a deposition before a disciplinary review board, a lawyer for the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation argued in a Feb. 28 motion.

The motion asks the Wisconsin Supreme Court to require Justice Michael J. Gableman’s appearance March 20 and 21 and to state that a failure to appear will result in his admission to the facts in a disciplinary complaint. Filed in November 2024, the complaint alleges ethical misconduct in Gableman’s investigation of the 2020 election for the Wisconsin State Assembly.

The motion to compel was filed after Gableman said through his attorney he would not show up for a scheduled February deposition “after much consideration, including Fifth Amendment concerns.”

WisPolitics.com and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel covered the motion to compel.

Gableman was initially hired by Republican Wisconsin State Assembly Speaker Robin Vos to help a legislative committee gather facts about how recent elections were conducted in Wisconsin and to suggest possible legislative changes. Gableman’s duties were later expanded, and he was named a special counsel. He was fired in August 2022.

Gableman included in an appendix to his legislative report his legal opinion that the state could decertify the results of Wisconsin’s 2020 general election in which former President Joe Biden was declared the winner.

Gableman’s election review did not find significant fraud, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

“Taxpayers paid more than $2.3 million for the investigation,” the newspaper reports, “which yielded a steady drumbeat of explosive court hearings and rulings in lawsuits over his desire to jail election officials and mayors who refused to be interviewed behind closed doors, and his decision to ignore requests from the public for records related to his probe.”

Besides serving as a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, Gableman was a former prosecutor, a circuit court judge and an adjunct law professor teaching professional responsibility. Before agreeing to represent the committee, he worked in the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for the first Trump administration.

He had “by his own admission, no understanding of how Wisconsin elections worked,” the ethics complaint says.

Part of the ethics complaint concerns Gableman’s quest for information from the cities of Madison, Wisconsin, and Green Bay, Wisconsin, and their mayors. After issuing subpoenas to the mayors, Gableman negotiated agreements that made their appearances unnecessary, the complaint says.

Yet Gableman allegedly failed to tell the legislative committee about the agreements or about his receipt of thousands of pages of documents from the cities. He also falsely said he issued writs of attachment against the mayors because they “failed without reason or excuse to appear for their depositions,” the ethics complaint alleges.

Gableman is also accused of including false statements in the petitions for writs of attachment when he claimed that the two mayors had failed to appear for a deposition “without justification.”

Another part of the complaint alleges that Gableman made improper comments during and after a court hearing on a public interest group’s public-records request. Gableman was called to testify.

Gableman allegedly criticized Judge Frank Remington of Dane County, Wisconsin, who was presiding, instead of responding to questions. He claimed that 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.”

In a later June 2022 decision and order, Remington said Gableman made his accusations in a “sneering” fashion, raised his voice and pointed and shook his finger at the judge.

During a hearing recess, when the microphone was still live, Gableman allegedly made remarks that “demeaned and belittled opposing counsel by making allegations of improper collusion with the court and by portraying her as an incompetent lawyer whose only role was to aid Judge Remington in his bias,” the ethics complaint says.

After the hearing, in remarks to the press, Gableman again alleged that Remington had abandoned his neutral role.

“The deck was stacked,” he told reporters.

Another allegation in the complaint is that Gableman wrongly revealed information about his representation of the state Assembly committee as a guest on video broadcasts organized by Mike Lindell, the founder and CEO of MyPillow and a supporter of President Donald Trump.

Gableman said he supported an effort to recall Vos, that Vos did not want a serious investigation, and that Vos was a “serial liar who is interested only in his personal monetary financial gain.”

To support his allegation that Vos didn’t want a serious investigation, Gableman described discussions with Vos and staff members, revealing information related to the representation, the ethics complaint says.

The motion to compel says Gableman has a right to refuse to answer deposition questions when he has reasonable cause to think that his answers could expose him to criminal liability, but he does not have the right not to appear for the deposition.

Gableman is represented by lawyer Peyton B. Engel, who did not immediately reply to the ABA Journal’s request for comment via email and voicemail.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Allegations that murder defendant was ‘a…

Criminal Justice

Allegations that murder defendant was ‘a drug ho’ who practiced witchcraft leads to tossed conviction

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 25, 2025, 9:15 am CST

The New Mexico Supreme Court has overturned a woman’s 2022 murder conviction and barred a retrial because of “severe and pervasive prosecutorial misconduct, exacerbated by a lackluster defense.”

The state supreme court tossed the conviction and the case against Desiree Lensegrav, concluding in a Feb. 20 opinion that her “entire trial was filled with theatrics, hyperbole and disparaging inflammatory statements.”

In his opening statement, the prosecutor called Lensegrav “a worthless mother” and “a drug ho—not my words!” the opinion said. During the trial, the prosecution called a witness who accused Lensegrav of witchcraft. In closing statements, the prosecutor encouraged jurors to convict Lensegrav “for the stench of death that permeated this courtroom.”

The prosecutor was referring to the introduction of “foul-smelling” physical evidence that was attached to the victim’s body, which caused a trial adjournment.

The Legal Profession Blog posted highlights from the opinion, while the Taos News and KOB had coverage. The state supreme court also issued a Feb. 20 press release.

The opinion identified the lead prosecutor as Assistant District Attorney Cosme Ripol of the Eighth Judicial District in New Mexico. He will not be commenting in response to an ABA Journal request, according to the district office manager.

Eighth Judicial District Attorney Marcus J. Montoya issued a statement.

“Though we prepared fully to present this case at trial, secured a conviction and would have preferred to keep this truly bad actor in prison, we accept the opinion of the supreme court, and we will always learn and evolve so as to continually improve,” Montoya said.

Lensegrav’s husband, Aram Montoya, pleaded guilty to murder in the killing in 2021 and received a life sentence. In his opening statement, Ripol told jurors about Aram Montoya’s statements incriminating Lensegrav, even though he was not on the prosecution witness list.

Referring to Lensegrav, Ripol said jurors will hear a story “of a strong, smart, determined, manipulative, vengeful, capable, controlling, resilient, cunning human being with a profound drug problem” who used her “needy, insecure” husband to commit murder.

Ripol also told jurors about expected testimony from the owner of a drug house. The owner would testify that Lensegrav suggested on several occasions that she was a witch, and she “would put menstrual blood concoctions” in her husband’s food to control him, Ripol said. The owner saw Lensegrav’s eyes turn “black. With fury. And rage,” Ripol said. “And it was like a Hollywood movie. He could feel the wind coming out of her.”

Lensegrav and Aram Montoya became suspects in 2020 after Aram Montoya was accused of trying to kill Lensegrav by repeatedly stabbing her in the neck and back with a paring knife. After Lensegrav came out of a medically induced coma, police gave her a Miranda warning and began to question her about the 2019 murder of Joseph Morgas. Police told Lensegrav that her husband had confessed to the murder, and her husband had thrown her “under the bus.”

Lensegrav told police that she wanted Aram Montoya to beat up Morgas because of his statements at the drug house. Morgas was a relative of a man who raped and impregnated Lensegrav when she was a teenager.

Lensegrav said Morgas laughed at her, called her a drug whore, and said she deserved to be raped. He also said he had video of Lensegrav at the drug house, and he would share it with his family, so they could get custody of her child.

Aram Montoya and Morgas fought outside the drug house, Lensegrav told police. Aram Montoya put Morgas in a headlock and “choked him out,” causing him to turn purple and go limp, she said. Lensegrav said she helped dispose of the body, fearing that Aram Montoya would kill her, too, if she didn’t cooperate.

Ripol told jurors that Lensegrav had confessed to strangling Morgas with twine, directed her husband to burn the body and to cut off Morgas’ head with a shovel, and had thrown the shovel and head in the river.

“None of these allegations would conform to the evidence,” the New Mexico Supreme Court said.

“Inexplicably,” the state supreme court said, “defense counsel did not object to the vast majority of instances of prosecutorial misconduct that defendant identifies on appeal.”

The New Mexico Supreme Court concluded that the prosecutorial misconduct was so unfairly prejudicial that it presented a double jeopardy bar to a retrial under the New Mexico Constitution.

“Prosecutors are held to the highest ethical standards in all courtrooms, and any time that standard is not maintained, reversal and this type of circumstance is the result. Like many trials get, this case became emotionally charged,” Montoya said in his statement to the Journal.

“Fortunately, the person we know was physically guilty of taking Mr. Morgas’ life is still in prison, and he will stay there,” Montoya said.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Former law firm partner censured over sex…

Ethics

Former law firm partner censured over sex with associate and legal assistant, stay-quiet offers

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 26, 2025, 8:55 am CST

A former partner at a Boise, Idaho, law firm has been publicly censured after he allegedly tried to entice an associate and a legal assistant to keep quiet about an incident in which he had sexual relations with them at the office.

The Idaho Supreme Court publicly censured Boise lawyer W. Dustin Charters in a Feb. 6 order, the Idaho Statesman recently reported.

The enticements involved money and a lightened workload, according to the public censure.

Charters was a mentor for the associate and supervised her work. She had joined the firm in August 2023, the month before the sexual incident, according to the censure order. The associate was 26 years old, and Charters was 37 years old, according to allegations cited by the Idaho Statesman.

Afterward, the order said, Charters offered compensation to both women if they did not report his conduct. He also offered to complete work for the associate that she could bill as her time and suggested that she falsely bill his completed work on a case as client development, according to the order.

Both women turned down the offers, and the associate did not falsely bill her time. They reported Charters’ conduct to the firm Sept. 26, 2023, three days after the incident, according to the allegations. Charters was fired two days later.

A stipulation in the case said Charters had no previous discipline and had acknowledged his misconduct, according to the Idaho Statesman. The stipulation also said he had received counseling and agreed to perform 100 hours of community service.

Charters did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s request for comment made in an email and a voicemail.

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