Judicial Composure and Impartiality: Suspension for Willful Violations of the Judicial Code of Ethics

Introduction

Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. Ellen K. Berz (2025 WI 17) is a per curiam disciplinary decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin addressing two separate instances in which Dane County Circuit Judge Ellen K. Berz willfully violated provisions of the Code of Judicial Ethics. The Commission alleged breaches of SCR 60.02, 60.03(1), 60.04(1)(d), and 60.04(1)(e), and Judge Berz admitted the factual allegations in a Joint Stipulation. After review, the court imposed a seven‐day suspension without pay. This commentary analyzes the background, key issues, legal reasoning, and potential impact of the decision.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin:

Adopted the Judicial Conduct Panel’s findings that Judge Berz engaged in two instances of judicial misconduct.
Concluded these facts established willful violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics under WIS. STAT. § 757.81(4)(a).
Imposed a suspension without pay for seven days, commencing June 26, 2025.
Emphasized that the goal of discipline is public protection and maintenance of judicial integrity, not punishment alone.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court and Panel relied on several comparative cases:

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gorski, 2020 WI 5: Public reprimand for intemperate bench remarks.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Michelson, 225 Wis. 2d 221 (1999): Public reprimand for discourteous comments to litigants.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Woldt, 2021 WI 73: Framework for weighing aggravating and mitigating factors in judicial discipline.
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Calvert, 2018 WI 68: Standards for de novo review of discipline and focus on protection of public confidence.

Gorski and Michelson guided the Panel’s view that intemperate courtroom conduct typically merits at least a reprimand; the Berz case extended it to a short suspension because of the severity and uniqueness of her second incident.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in three steps:

Establishing Misconduct. The stipulated facts showed willful breaches of SCR 60.02 (judicial integrity), SCR 60.03(1) (promoting public confidence), SCR 60.04(1)(d) (patience, dignity, courtesy), and SCR 60.04(1)(e) (absence of bias or prejudice).
Assessing Appropriate Sanction. Under WIS. STAT. § 757.91 and Calvert, the court weighed the seriousness of misconduct, likelihood of recurrence, and protection of the public. Mitigating factors included Judge Berz’s clean record, acceptance of responsibility, and expressions of remorse. Aggravating factors were the in-court intemperance and the judge’s trip to a hospital in a personal vehicle, abandoning her neutral role and placing defense counsel in an untenable position.
Setting Discipline. Drawing on Woldt’s factors and comparative precedents, the court determined that a seven-day suspension was sufficient to underscore the importance of judicial decorum and impartiality while recognizing the incidents as aberrations in an otherwise honorable career.

Impact

The Berz decision will influence future judicial discipline in several ways:

Establishes that out-of-court conduct extending from a judge’s official duties (e.g., personally retrieving a party) can aggravate sanctions beyond a reprimand.
Reaffirms that disrespectful or discourteous commentary—even under courtroom stress—warrants discipline to preserve public confidence.
Provides a calibrated approach to sanctions, balancing individual circumstances and the overarching need for judicial restraint and impartiality.
Signals to all judges that acknowledgment of wrongdoing and remediation efforts may mitigate—but not eliminate—the need for meaningful disciplinary measures.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Willful Violation: A judge intentionally departs from the standards set by the Code, knowing the requirement and choosing to ignore it.
Code of Judicial Ethics (SCR 60): A set of rules governing judicial behavior to maintain independence, integrity, impartiality, and public confidence.
Judicial Conduct Panel: A body appointed under Wis. Stat. § 757.87(3) to investigate and recommend discipline in misconduct proceedings.
De Novo Review: The Supreme Court’s independent examination of the Panel’s legal conclusions and the imposition of discipline.

Conclusion

Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. Berz crystallizes the principle that judges must exercise patience, courtesy, and impartiality at all times—both within and outside the courtroom. By imposing a short suspension, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin balanced protection of the public and the judiciary’s integrity against the recognition that the misconduct incidents were isolated aberrations. The decision reinforces that judicial reputation rests not only on legal acumen but on steadfast adherence to ethical standards and measured conduct under pressure.