Because the Wisconsin Supreme Court tied over the ethics complaint, Gableman couldn't argue to the board that he had won and the State should cover his fees, Michael Best & Friedrich's chief attorney Jonathan Margolies said in the letter.Well. Isn't that something. I have been saying for years that Mike Gableman failed to win his ethics case, because the three-judge panel below the Supreme Court convened on Gableman's motion for summary judgment, and pursuant to his own motion, Gableman was unsuccessful. And it also happens to be a conclusion in which Justice N. Patrick Crooks, who has been a judge for more than three decades, concurs.
(I reckon Crooks, J. knows a thing or eleventeen about legal procedure.)
Therefore does the ethics complaint against Gableman remain pending.
Mr. Margolies might presumably know better than anybody, as it was one of his colleagues at Michael Best who participated in Gableman's defense.* This space's conclusion was based on an examination of the statutory framework governing the civil procedure with which the State deals with ethics allegations against judges. This space does not make substantive legal claims without having undertaken such examinations.
So it amuses me no end to recall that Richard Esenberg, a professor of the law at Marquette University, would criticize me by asserting that my view of the Gableman case's procedural posture was informed merely by "a reference to horn book Civil Procedure" which "does not cut it here."
A "horn book" is something like a Cliff's Notes that first-year law students use to prepare for exams. Esenberg is billed as a "prominent Milwaukee attorney" by Wisconsin Public Radio but his condescension on occasion most certainly does not comport with that description.
Now perhaps Esenberg can direct his scorn at MB&F's chief attorney.
I am always suspicious of Esenberg's claims, and you should be too. Yet Wisconsin Public Radio and other local media outlets continue to present him as a disinterested academic, whereas he's as partisan as they come.
Esenberg's former research assistant's claims are mighty lame as well.**
Feet of the master and all that, apparently. Laughable.
* At no charge, as it turns out. And a classy defense it was indeed.
** I trust that was the end of atrocious legal analysis from the faculty blog, since Prof. Esenberg is abdicated as one of the website's editors.