Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Gary King
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2023 WI 77 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2022AP745-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gary King, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. Gary King, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KING OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: Per curiam. ATTORNEYS: December 15, 2023 2023 WI 77 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2022AP745-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Gary King, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, FILED Complainant, DEC 15, 2023 v. Samuel A. Christensen Clerk of Supreme Court Gary King, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended. ¶1 PER CURIAM. Piehler recommending We review the report of referee David A. that this court suspend Attorney Gary King's license to practice law in Wisconsin for one year and require him proceeding, to pay which the are full $5,927.83 costs as of of this disciplinary September 20, 2023. Because no appeal has been filed, we review the referee's report and recommendation pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) No. 22.17(2).1 2022AP745-D Upon careful review of the matter, we agree with the referee's recommendations in all respects. ¶2 Attorney King Wisconsin in 1998. was admitted to practice law He has no prior disciplinary history. in The most recent address he furnished to the State Bar of Wisconsin is in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. ¶3 In 2012, Attorney King ran for and was elected Eau Claire County District Attorney. He was re-elected in 2016 and 2020. ¶4 On May 5, 2022, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint against Attorney King alleging two counts of misconduct, both arising out of his conduct as the Eau Claire County District Attorney. ¶5 Attorney King filed an answer to the complaint on May 31, 2022. Referee Piehler was appointed on July 14, 2022. On June 27, 2023, the parties entered into a stipulation whereby Attorney King withdrew his answer, entered a plea of no contest to the two counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint, and agreed that complaint as the referee an adequate could factual use the basis allegations in the record of the for a determination of violations of supreme court rules as to both counts of misconduct alleged in the complaint. The parties SCR 22.17(2) provides: "If no appeal is filed timely, the supreme court shall review the referee's report; adopt, reject or modify the referee's findings and conclusions or remand the matter to the referee for additional findings; and determine and impose appropriate discipline. The court, on its own motion, may order the parties to file briefs in the matter." 1 2 No. 2022AP745-D agreed that the appropriate level of discipline for Attorney King's misconduct was a nine-month suspension of his license to practice law. The parties filed a supplemental stipulation on July 28, 2023 in which Attorney King identified some potentially mitigating factors discipline. relating Specifically, to the Attorney appropriate King level of that he stated attributes his misconduct to personal or emotional problems he was experiencing at the time, and he described the two-year period detailed in the complaint as a particularly difficult time in his life, which included the deaths of family friends and the isolation of the COVID quarantine. and Attorney King stated that he has sought comprehensive treatment to deal with those personal or emotional problems. he expressed remorse in his letter He also noted that resigning as Eau Claire County District Attorney, saying "To the extent that any conduct fell short of the level expected of me, I sincerely apologize." ¶6 The referee issued his report and recommendation on September 1, 2023. The referee found that Attorney committed the misconduct alleged in OLR's complaint. King Rather than the nine-month suspension advocated by the parties, the referee concluded that a one-year suspension of Attorney King's law license was an appropriate sanction for his misconduct. ¶7 King The admitted allegations by virtue in of OLR's his complaint, entry into which the Attorney stipulation, detail problems concerning his behavior at work that began in 2018. E.H., the Office Manager for the Eau Claire County District Attorney's Office, reported to OLR that Attorney King 3 No. 2022AP745-D regularly appeared at the office in an "altered state." E.H. said he saw Attorney King slumped and sleeping in the office chairs of various attorneys and office staff, including during a discussion in E.H.'s office in which Attorney King fell asleep and remained sleeping for 10 to 15 minutes. ¶8 An Assistant District Attorney (ADA) reported that Attorney King would frequently come into attorneys' offices and interrupt their work, sometimes falling asleep in the attorney's office. A former ADA wrote a letter to Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers saying that she had witnessed Attorney King sleeping and snoring in meetings contemporaneously and written court memo proceedings. dated December 20, In a 2019, the former ADA wrote that Attorney King's "speech was slurred, his breathing labored, face red and he had a faint odor about him that I could intoxicant." not determine if it was hand sanitizer or an The memo went on to say that a few minutes later the former ADA heard loud snoring and observed Attorney King sleeping and asked two other people in the office to wake him. ¶9 told T.G., the Eau Claire County Criminal Justice Director, OLR about representatives a of meeting the on Chicago October Police 21, Department Attorney King fell asleep for most of the meeting. former District Attorney's Office employees told 2019 with in which Current and OLR that, around this time, Attorney King's temperament changed, with his temper becoming explosive and his behavior erratic and abusive. These individuals told OLR of instances in which Attorney King 4 No. 2022AP745-D yelled, swore, and shouted at his staff, leaving them feeling intimidated and afraid they would be fired. ¶10 On January 11, 2021, Attorney King missed a status conference. the court E.H. was contacted by a court staff member saying was waiting for Attorney King to appear. E.H. discovered Attorney King "slumped in his office chair at his computer, snoring and obviously asleep." E.H. was unable to awaken Attorney King, so he found an ADA to cover for Attorney King's failure to appear for the proceeding. ¶11 On February 16, 2021, Attorney King appeared in court. According to Deputy M.S., Attorney King could barely walk down the hall and had to brace against the wall to get to court. her report to the Eau Claire County Sheriff, Deputy In M.S. reported that Attorney King was not wearing a mask, which was unusual given that he had imposed strict mask policies for his staff. J.B., the Coordinator of the Office of Victim Services, was monitoring the hearing on Zoom and told OLR that Attorney King could not even say the word "Wisconsin" as he was "completely intoxicated." ¶12 Attorney King went to J.B.'s office after the hearing. J.P. told OLR that Attorney King "was slouched in his chair," with only "one eye open and his speech was heavily slurred." Attorney King stood up from his chair and was "unstable and ran into [J.B.'s] open door." ¶13 Sheriff Ron Cramer was advised about Attorney King's condition. Sheriff Cramer met with Attorney King and confronted him about his behavior and his appearing in court under the 5 No. influence of an intoxicant. 2022AP745-D Attorney King started to cry, rant, yell and scream, at which point J.B. and other office employees were evacuated to a safe remainder of the day. submit to a location and sent home for the Sheriff Cramer asked Attorney King to Preliminary Breath Test (PBT). Attorney King refused. ¶14 On June 1, 2021, Attorney King came to work appearing to be under the influence of an intoxicant. filed with OLR, Judge Michael Schumacher In a grievance said he observed Attorney King "nod off, jerk his head, and lose his balance for the next forty minutes." Judge Schumacher reported that Attorney King "appeared to be either suffering a serious medical incident or was severely intoxicated." Two Sheriff's Department personnel went to Attorney King's office on June 1, 2021 to perform a welfare submit to a PBT. ¶15 check. They also asked Attorney King to He refused. Judge Sarah Harless, apprised by Judge Schumacher that Attorney King appeared to be either ill or intoxicated, met with Attorney King prior to a sentencing hearing. asked Attorney King to submit to a PBT. Harless An officer performed the PBT and obtained a "weak breath sample." reading of .047. Judge The test showed a Judge Harless adjourned the sentencing hearing and filed a grievance with OLR. In the grievance, Judge Harless reported that "[Attorney] King's eyes were red and bloodshot and I also observed a faint odor of intoxicants." ¶16 OLR's complaint alleged the following count misconduct with respect to Attorney King's behavior at work: 6 of No. Count One: 2022AP745-D By sleeping through a January 2021 court hearing, appearing in a February 2021 court hearing while under the influence of intoxicants or otherwise impaired, and appearing in a June 2021 court hearing while under the influence of intoxicants or otherwise impaired, Attorney King violated SCR 20:1.1.2 ¶17 The complaint also detailed incidents harassment by Attorney King directed toward J.B. of sexual The Office of Victim Services is a special unit within the Eau Claire County District Attorney's information, support, Office that and advocacy is designed to all to crime provide victims, witnesses, and family members of adult and juvenile offenders. J.B. is the Coordinator of the Office of Victim Services and supervises the department, which includes five employees. was also part of Attorney King's management team. J.B. She reported directly to the Office Manager, E.H., as well as Attorney King. ¶18 From the time J.B. began employment at the District Attorney's Office in 2013 until July 2019, J.B.'s interactions with Attorney King, although limited, were cordial and attended the professional. ¶19 In July 2019, J.B. wedding of an office employee. and her husband J.B. told OLR that Attorney King also attended the wedding and that he was intoxicated. Attorney SCR 20:1.1 provides: "A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." 2 7 No. 2022AP745-D King made a number of statements to J.B.'s husband complimenting J.B. J.B. found the comments odd since she did not often King began interact with Attorney King. ¶20 After the July 2019 wedding, paying extra attention to J.B. Attorney He would frequent her office, whereas in the past he would communicate with her and other staff members mostly through email. He would comment on J.B.'s hair and clothes and express opinions on how her hair was styled or how she dressed. she could not On one occasion, Attorney King told J.B. wear a particular dress because it was "too distracting." J.B. said Attorney King then "looked me up and down." was J.B. confused by the interaction and asked colleague if the comment was sexual or simply "joking." a Neither J.B. nor her colleague believed J.B.'s dress was inappropriate for work or revealing. Attorney King's comments about J.B.'s appearance continued, and at some point before the end of 2019, J.B. told her supervisor and the Deputy District Attorney that the comments were making her uncomfortable. ¶21 As time passed, became more sexual. breakfast and Attorney King's comments to J.B. In March 2020, Attorney King took J.B. to talked "dirty" with her. He joked that they should stop by a local hotel, take a picture outside the hotel or inside a room and send it to E.H. J.B. consulted with E.H. since she felt the conduct was inappropriate and more than just "joking." ¶22 In other incidents during 2020, Attorney King told J.B. repeatedly that she was appearing in his dreams and that 8 No. she "needed to stay out of his dreams." 2022AP745-D On another occasion, Attorney King hugged J.B. twice, then pulled out her ponytail and began playing with her hair. Attorney King mentioned to J.B. the possibility of having a "threesome" with someone who lived near the District Attorney's Office. ¶23 In another incident, Attorney King suggested to a female administrative specialist that they "make out" in her office, a comment that stunned her. This comment echoed a similar comment Attorney King had made to J.B. after another wedding event that J.B. did not attend. Attorney King said J.B. "was supposed to be there because he and [J.B.] were going to sit in the corner and make out so everybody could start talking about us." ¶24 On another occasion, Attorney King approached J.B. in her office, took off her shoes, and began rubbing her feet. By this time, office employees had initiated an informal safety plan because Attorney King office and closing the door. was regularly coming into J.B.'s The plan involved employees coming to J.B.'s office and interrupting Attorney King's interactions with her. ¶25 In January 2021, office and started to cry. Attorney King appeared in J.B.'s He pulled J.B. from behind and made her sit in his lap, prevented her from leaving, and patted her. When J.B. got up and returned to her desk, Attorney King told her that he loved her. He then approached her while she was sitting in her chair, hugged her from behind, took off her mask, 9 No. and tried to kiss her on the lips. 2022AP745-D J.B. immediately told E.H. about the interaction. ¶26 February Attorney 2021. King's He asked attentions to J.B. J.B. her sex about continued life with in her husband and said "if you came to me in a vulnerable state, I could not say no to you." Attorney King told J.B. that he "used to think she was the kind of girl he could take to the Super 8 but now knows he has to take her somewhere fancier like the Lismore." He lifestyle." told He her he suggested wanted that "to he be send with an you email in to your staff suggesting that the two of them, both married, were "together." ¶27 On another occasion, Attorney King commented on another female employee's shirt and touched her and the shirt in a lingering, inappropriate manner. Attorney King told the woman that she looked "really saucy" and ran his eyes up and down her body. ¶28 On February 10, 2021, J.B. contacted human resources to report that Attorney King was sexually harassing her. Eau Claire County commenced an investigation into J.B.'s complaint. After interviewing multiple witnesses, Attorney Mindy Dale wrote a report to the Eau Claire County Human Resources Director concluding that Attorney King "did make inappropriate comments to women, most notably [J.B.], which made them uncomfortable. Further, he should not have kissed [J.B.] on the cheek or pulled her on to [his] lap, regardless of the emotions he was feeling at the time." Attorney Dale recommended that a copy of her 10 No. 2022AP745-D letter and related reports be forwarded to the Department of Administration for "further consideration and disposition." ¶29 Attorney King resigned as Eau Claire County District Attorney in August 2021. ¶30 OLR's complaint alleged the following count of misconduct with respect to Attorney King's sexual harassment of female employees at work: Count Two: comments to engaging in By making multiple inappropriate sexual female employees unwanted sexual in his office, contact with and J.B., Attorney King violated SCRs 20:8.4(g),3 20:8.4(i),4 and 40.15.5 ¶31 the The referee found the factual statements contained in complaint, the comprehensive supplemental stipulation to be true. stipulation, and the The referee also found, based on the facts in the record, that Attorney King violated the Supreme Court Rules as alleged in the complaint. The referee noted that in determining the appropriate sanction for SCR 20:8.4(g) provides: "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate the attorney's oath." 3 SCR 20:8.4(i) provides: "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. Legitimate advocacy respecting the foregoing factors does not violate par. (i)." 4 SCR 40.15 states, in pertinent part: "I will abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged." 5 11 No. Attorney King's misconduct he must consider the 2022AP745-D seriousness, nature and extent of the misconduct; the level of discipline needed to protect the public; attorney the seriousness of the need to impress on the the misconduct; and the need to deter other attorneys from similar misconduct. In concluding that a one-year suspension, rather than the nine months proposed by the parties, was the appropriate level of discipline for Attorney King's transgressions, the referee said: The aggravating factors of selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, substantial experience in the law, and vulnerable victim carry far more weight . . . than the mitigating factors of absence of prior discipline, personal or emotional problems, other consequences, and expression of remorse. This is particularly so where the respondent was the District Attorney, responsible for overseeing law enforcement in his county. As such, he should have upheld the highest standards of behavior, of which he fell short in his treatment of his staff. In addition, when he was incapacitated (apparently due to his own choices), he was possessed of a staff to whom he could delegate duties which he could not personally carry out, yet did not do so. Turning to the factors relevant to assessing discipline, the seriousness, nature, and extent of misconduct and the level of discipline required to protect the public both militate for significant discipline. Although the respondent's behavior never crossed the line into the realm of criminal activity, it was nonetheless substantial and prolonged. Further, the respondent's job was to competently represent the public, a task where he fell short. . . . I believe the need to impress on the respondent the seriousness of his misconduct is of lesser concern here. His resignation from office made this point already. The need for deterrence is, however, an important consideration. Attorneys must understand that sexual misconduct, whether directed toward clients, employees, or the public, will not be 12 No. 2022AP745-D tolerated. It undermines the mission of the bar to be an instrument of justice, it degrades the profession, and it harms its victims. Considering the entirety of the facts of this matter, I deem a 9-month suspension inadequate and believe a one-year suspension is appropriate. ¶32 We will affirm a referee's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Eisenberg, 2004 WI 14, ¶5, 269 Wis. 2d 43, 675 N.W.2d 747. The court regardless of may the impose whatever referee's sanction it recommendation. sees fit, See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 2003 WI 34, ¶44, 261 Wis. 45, 660 N.W.2d 686. There is no showing that any of the referee's findings of fact are clearly erroneous, and we adopt them. We are also in accord with the referee's legal conclusions that Attorney King violated the Supreme Court Rules noted above. ¶33 As to the appropriate level of discipline, after careful consideration we agree with the referee that a one-year suspension of Attorney King's license to practice law in Wisconsin is appropriate. ¶34 Although we often say that no two disciplinary matters are identical, we strive to identify cases that are somewhat analogous and impose a similar level of discipline. referee compare aptly points cases especially since out, involving this it is sexual court has particularly misbehavior recently As the difficult by stated to attorneys, that it is "applying increasing scrutiny to attorneys' sexual misconduct." See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against DeLadurantey, 2023 WI 13 No. 2022AP745-D 17, ¶ 53, 406 Wis. 2d 62, 985 N.W.2d 788; In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ritland, 2021 WI 36, ¶¶ 37, 39, 396 Wis. 2d 509, 957 N.W.2d 540. As a result, as the referee notes, and as OLR also recognized in its memorandum in support of the parties' comprehensive stipulation, if disciplinary decisions involving sexual misbehavior issued in years past were to come before the court today, the sanctions would likely be greater than the ones imposed. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceedings Kratz, 2014 WI 31, 353 Wis. 2d 696, 851 N.W.2d 219. Against (District Attorney's law license suspended for four months for six counts of misconduct that included sending sexually suggestive text messages to a domestic abuse crime victim and making sexually suggestive comments to social workers.) ¶35 This court described then-District Attorney Kratz's conduct as "appalling," "exploitive," "crass," and "sanctionably sophomoric." Id. at ¶ 47. It discounted Attorney Kratz's claim that his misconduct resulted from various addictions. Id, ¶ 48. Here, the referee noted that this court used the Kratz case as a measuring stick when deciding the appropriate sanction to impose in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Baratki, 2017 WI 89, 378 Wis. 2d 1, 902 N.W.2d 250. Attorney Baratki faced nine counts of misconduct, including sending a client flirtatious, sexual text messages and, during a meeting, lifting the client's shirt and kissing her abdominal area. This court suspended Attorney Baratki's license for six months, saying, "Given his course of conduct, we deem it imperative that, to resume the practice of law in Wisconsin, Attorney Baratki show this court 14 No. that he future." ¶36 has taken steps to avoid similar 2022AP745-D misdeeds in the Id., ¶ 34. In DeLadurantey, we made clear that, going forward, we would be more critically evaluating the appropriate sanction to impose in cases involving attorneys' sexual misconduct. We explained: We do so because sexual harassment comes at a heavy price for victims who can suffer significant psychological effects as well as job-related costs, including job loss, reputational harm, impairment of professional opportunities, and irreparable damage to interpersonal relationships at work. Attorneys should be on notice that sexual misconduct by attorneys, whether directed toward fellow lawyers, clients, or others, is not taken lightly. Id. ¶ 53. ¶37 King While he was serving as District Attorney, Attorney harassed authority. multiple women over whom he had supervisory His misconduct included not only verbal harassment but also unwelcome physical contact. His harassment in the workplace created a hostile working environment that persisted over the course of two years. Attorney King's behavior warrants a significant sanction. ¶38 In addition to the sexual misbehavior, Attorney King, while serving as District Attorney, appeared in the office, as well as impaired. abusive. in court, His while coworkers either reported intoxicated that he was or otherwise erratic and Two judges reported Attorney King's erratic behavior. On one occasion the Sheriff was advised of the situation and confronted Attorney King. That confrontation led to Attorney 15 No. 2022AP745-D King becoming so upset and unbalanced that employees had to be evacuated to a safe location and sent home for the rest of that work day. As OLR noted in its memorandum in support of the comprehensive stipulation: The fact that [Attorney] King was the top law enforcement official in the county heightens the concern that he was showing up in court and at work incapacitated——his constituents and his coworkers deserved more. These allegations buttress OLR's conclusion that [Attorney] King's misconduct merits significant discipline. ¶39 After careful review of this matter, we conclude that Attorney King's misconduct warrants a more severe sanction than was imposed in Kratz and Baratki. that a one-year suspension of We agree with the referee Attorney King's license to practice law is an appropriate sanction for his misconduct. ¶40 We now practice is to proceeding on misconduct. from that turn to impose the the attorneys issue of costs. full costs of a are found to have who See SCR 22.24(1m). general practice Our general disciplinary committed There is no reason to depart here. We therefore impose full costs. ¶41 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Gary King to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, effective January 19, 2024. ¶42 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Gary King shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which are $5,927.83. 16 No. ¶43 2022AP745-D IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gary King shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of an attorney whose license to practice law has been suspended. ¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance conditions of this order is required for reinstatement. 22.29(4)(c). 17 with all See SCR No. 1 2022AP745-D
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
