[eta: It does indeed.]
That he was aware of the extent of those injuries — and he would have been: it's evidence — makes the DA's overtures all the more reprehensible. Victims of violent crime should not be given second thoughts about presenting themselves to the lawyer for the State.
__________________________________________________________
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ... harass a person on the basis of sex, race, age, creed, religion, color, national origin, disability, sexual preference or marital status in connection with the lawyer's professional activities.According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
[Calumet County District Attorney Kenneth R.] Kratz said in a statement Wednesday that he was "embarrassed at this lapse of judgment" but that the State Office of Lawyer Regulation determined that no professional misconduct had occurred.Perhaps not, because the above rule of professional conduct's list of bases is intended to describe a victim of harassment rather than the alleged harasser (insert "that person's" between "of" and "sex").
Even so, this fellow has been around the block enough times to understand that a person so recently emerged from an abusive relationship is in an especially vulnerable position and yet the content of his text messages appears to be completely oblivious to that fact.
Or worse, fully comprehending of it.
More: WISDoJ's Kevin Potter would seem to have it right.
6 comments:
Would this give the ex-husband grounds for appeal?
Highly unlikely. The defendant would need to successfully withdraw the no contest plea he entered several months after the DA removed himself from prosecuting the case.
"Kratz said in a statement Wednesday that he was "embarrassed at this lapse of judgment" but that the Office of Lawyer Regulation determined that no professional misconduct had occurred.
"Keith Sellen, director of the regulation office, said he is prohibited from confirming Kratz's statement."
Why doesn't the DOJ prosecute? I have no idea what the OLR did, but this is not merely unprofessional conduct -- which the OLR needed to do something about -- but also abuse of office, a crime.
Somebody needs to revisit this situation.
how about misconduct in public office?
I haven't seen reported which statute(s) the DoJ may have looked at. Ch. 946 addresses official misconduct, but the provisions primarily address behavior directed toward personal financial gain. They may have looked at 947.013 as well. I think the OLR should set a fresh set of eyes to what the DA got up to.
Post a Comment