Former Wisconsin Justice Michael Gableman Faces Ethics Review Deposition
March 6, 2025, 10:00 am CST
Michael J. Gableman, former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, is at the center of an ethics review case concerning his role in investigating the 2020 election. (Photo by Jessica Reilly/The Telegraph Herald via the Associated Press)
A motion filed by the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation has demanded that Justice Michael J. Gableman appear for a deposition as part of an ongoing ethical investigation, set for March 20 and 21. The Supreme Court is being asked to enforce this requirement following Gableman’s statements through his attorney asserting his refusal to attend based on concerns regarding the Fifth Amendment.
The ethics complaint originated in November 2024 and accuses Gableman of unethical conduct during his investigation into the 2020 elections conducted on behalf of a legislative committee formed by Republican Speaker Robin Vos. His initial mandate revolved around examining election procedures in Wisconsin, which later expanded, resulting in his appointment as special counsel until his termination in August 2022.
Investigation Findings and Allegations
Gableman’s investigation, which has cost taxpayers over $2.3 million, reportedly unearthed no significant evidence of election fraud, as detailed by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Nonetheless, the inquiry generated numerous court hearings and controversies, primarily due to Gableman’s aggressive approach, which included attempts to sanction election officials who refused interviews.
Part of the complaint asserts that Gableman lacked a complete understanding of Wisconsin’s electoral processes, stating he had “no understanding of how Wisconsin elections worked.”
Key Accusations Against Gableman
- Failure to disclose agreements with mayors of Madison and Green Bay, where he had agreed that subpoenas would not necessitate their appearances.
- Providing false statements regarding his legal actions against the mayors for not appearing.
- Making inappropriate comments during legal proceedings, including disrespect towards Judge Frank Remington.
- Disclosing sensitive details about his representation of the Assembly committee during interviews, thereby violating ethical standards.
The complaint also claims that during hearings, Gableman criticized Judge Remington publicly, suggesting he had lost neutrality and making comments suggesting judicial bias.
Legal Representation and Next Steps
Gableman’s legal counsel has contended that while he retains the right to decline answering questions during the deposition if such inquiries could lead to self-incrimination, he cannot refuse to attend the deposition altogether.
As of now, Gableman’s attorney, Peyton B. Engel, has not responded to media requests for commentary on the matter.
