Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kenneth R. Kratz, 353 Wis. 2d 696

Background

Kenneth R. Kratz, Calumet County District Attorney (appointed 1992), was accused by the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) of multiple ethics violations based on: sexually suggestive text messages to S.VG., a domestic‑abuse victim he was prosecuting; and lewd verbal comments to two social‑worker witnesses (S.S., R.H.).
Kratz self‑reported the text messages to OLR in December 2009 after the victim reported them to police; a special prosecutor replaced him in the criminal case; he resigned as DA in October 2010. No prior disciplinary history.
OLR filed an 11‑count complaint (Nov. 30, 2011); five counts were later dismissed; Kratz pled no contest to six counts (including conflict of interest, offensive personality, and sex‑based harassment) and the referee accepted the pleas.
The referee recommended a four‑month suspension, noting aggravating (selfish motive; vulnerable victim; experience/leadership) and mitigating factors (no prior discipline; cooperation; treatment/rehab; collateral consequences).
The Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted the referee’s findings and conclusions, imposed a four‑month suspension effective July 11, 2014, and ordered Kratz to pay full costs totaling $23,904.10.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (OLR)	Defendant's Argument (Kratz)	Held
Whether Kratz violated ethical rules by soliciting a sexual relationship from a crime victim he was prosecuting	Kratz’s texts to S.VG. created a concurrent conflict of interest and constituted offensive personality and sex‑based harassment	Texts were not sexually explicit; he admitted poor judgment and self‑reported; mitigation via therapy/addiction treatment	Court: Violations proven (SCR 20:1.7(a); 20:8.4(g),(i); SCR 40.15). Misconduct established
Whether his lewd verbal comments to social‑worker witnesses constituted misconduct	Comments to S.S. and R.H. were offensive and sex‑based harassment occurring in professional capacity	Admitted the vulgarity to S.S. and apologized; denied one comment to R.H.; urged mitigation	Court: Comments were sanctionable offensive personality and harassment; misconduct established
Appropriate discipline (reprimand, suspension length)	Six‑month suspension warranted given multiple victims, vulnerability of victims, and lack of evidence of recovery from claimed addictions	Public reprimand only; emphasized self‑reporting, apologies, treatment, cooperation, prior good reputation	Court: Adopted referee’s recommendation — four‑month suspension is appropriate given aggravating/mitigating balance
Assessment of OLR costs and timeliness of objection to costs	Full costs appropriate under SCR 22.24 absent extraordinary circumstances	Objected (late) and argued costs should be reduced or eliminated given dismissed counts and early willingness to stipulate	Court: Rejected late objection; found no extraordinary circumstances and imposed full costs ($23,904.10)

Key Cases Cited

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Beatse, 297 Wis. 2d 292, 722 N.W.2d 385 (Wis. 2006) (analogous discipline for sexually inappropriate workplace conduct by prosecutor)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ridgeway, 158 Wis. 2d 452, 462 N.W.2d 671 (Wis. 1990) (six‑month suspension where attorney initiated sexual contact with client)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Inglimo, 305 Wis. 2d 71, 740 N.W.2d 125 (Wis. 2007) (standard of review for referee findings and conclusions in disciplinary appeals)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Widule, 261 Wis. 2d 45, 660 N.W.2d 686 (Wis. 2003) (court independently determines appropriate discipline while giving weight to referee)
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Compton, 329 Wis. 2d 318, 787 N.W.2d 831 (Wis. 2010) (stipulation prior to referee appointment can avoid assessment of costs)
Spears v. City of Indianapolis, 74 F.3d 153 (7th Cir. 1996) (courts and counsel must respect procedural deadlines)