Crawford Campaign Accusation That Rival Has Been “Bought Off” Is Possible Violation of Rules of Professional Conduct
Susan Crawford’s campaign for Wisconsin Supreme Court ramped up its attacks on opponent Brad Schimel this week, claiming on the social media platform X that the conservative candidate has been “bought off” by a lawyer representing child predators, by opioid manufacturers, and by billionaire Elon Musk.
The allegations by the Dane County judge have heightened tensions in the spring election, which will shape the ideological direction of the state’s highest court for at least the next few years. The comment may also be a violation of professional ethics.
Legal experts are now examining Crawford’s ethical obligations as a judge and member of the Wisconsin Bar, including potential penalties she could face for either failing to report substantiated misconduct or making knowingly false public statements.
“Accusing another sitting judge of being “bought off” is a startling and serious accusation, one that would, if proven true, almost certainly be a violation of Wisconsin’s Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct,” said Jake Curtis, general counsel for the Institute for Reforming Government.
The post on X refers to the resolution of a case while Schimel was Waukesha County District Attorney, donations received by Schimel’s campaign committee while he served as Attorney General and recent independent spending in the current Supreme Court race. However Crawford offered no proof that any alleged actions were in exchange for actions or promises on Schimel’s part.
“If Judge Crawford actually possessed knowledge that Judge Schimel engaged in such a violation, which under the Rules of Professional Conduct would raise a substantial question as to his fitness for office, then she was obligated to inform the appropriate authorities,” said Curtis. “However, if she did not possess such knowledge, proceeded to approve a political statement containing false information, then she would be in violation of engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”
Given the absence of proof, the effectiveness of the Crawford claims as a campaign tactic is debatable. But, Curtis says members of the Bar have a professional responsibility beyond decorum and traditional campaign regulations and are held to a professional code of conduct to prevent the erosion of public trust.
“It seems like Judge Crawford is trying to have her cake and eat it too,” said Curtis. “Either she knew of Judge Schimel being “bought off” but failed to report it or she approved a “dishonest” political statement that contained a misrepresentation. Both acts would appear to be violations of Wisconsin’s Rules of Professional Conduct and Code of Judicial Conduct.”
Under Wisconsin’s Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.3 requires lawyers to report known misconduct by another attorney that raises serious doubts about their honesty or fitness to practice. If Crawford possesses evidence of such violations by Schimel and fails to report them to the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), she could face disciplinary action.
Penalties for not reporting might include a private or public reprimand, suspension of her law license, or, in extreme cases, disbarment, depending on the severity and intent behind the omission. Knowledge, not suspicion, is the trigger for this duty.
Conversely, Curtis contends if Crawford made public claims on X about Schimel that she knew were untrue, she could violate Rule 8.4, which prohibits conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation. Penalties for such a breach could range from reprimands to suspension or disbarment, especially if the false statements damage Schimel’s reputation and undermine public trust in the legal profession.
The OLR would investigate intent and evidence to determine the outcome of any complaint.
Replacing retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, the winner will influence the court’s 4-3 liberal majority on pivotal issues like abortion and voting rights.
The election is April 1.
Links:
Wisconsin’s Rules of Professional Conduct
Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct
