Unlike the United States Constitution, which places only a requirement of "good Behavior" on Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Wisconsin a "supreme court justice ... must be an attorney licensed to practice law in this state."
Because of that State constitutional provision, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman's investigation by the Office of Lawyer Regulation might be even more troublesome for him than is his concurrent inquiry with the Wisconsin Judicial Commission.
While removal from the bench is by far the most severe disposition that may result from the Judicial Commission's activities, the OLR, depending on the circumstances of its investigation, can petition the Supreme Court to suspend Gableman's license to practice law, the granting of which petition would render Gableman ineligible to serve on the court (or any State court, for that matter).
Gableman's campaign consultant, Darrin Schmitz, calls the grievance filed with the OLR "frivolous." Unfortunately for Schmitz, it's his own objection that's without any merit because the OLR would not have appointed a special investigator unless "there [was] sufficient information to support an allegation of possible misconduct."
In other words, the Office of Lawyer Regulation has already made a determination that the complaint against Gableman has some merit. Otherwise the OLR would have closed the matter had the grievance not "present[ed] sufficient information of cause to proceed."
But why a Republican "campaign consultant" is still speaking on behalf of a sitting State Supreme Court Justice is anybody's guess. After all, it's consulting with Republican operatives that got Michael Gableman into this latest pickle in the first place.
eta: Gableman merits Howard Bashman's blawg.