Victims’ advocates demand explanation for why Wis. regulators didn’t discipline ’sexting’ DA

Groups demand explanation of ’sexting’ DA inaction

MADISON, Wis. — Pressure built Thursday for regulators to explain why they failed to sanction a Wisconsin prosecutor who admitted sending sexually charged text messages to a domestic abuse victim.

The Office of Lawyer Regulation and the Wisconsin Crime Victims’ Rights Board knew 10 months ago about inappropriate behavior by Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz but didn’t discipline him.

Their inaction has been blasted by lawmakers and Gov. Jim Doyle since the text messages were revealed by The Associated Press last week. Two other women have since come forward with allegations of misconduct against Kratz, and Doyle has started the process to remove him from office.

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen on Thursday asked anyone with knowledge of Kratz’s misconduct to contact his office and appointed Assistant Attorney General Tom Storm as a special prosecutor to the removal proceedings.

The criticism against regulators mounted Thursday, with two victims advocacy groups demanding that the OLR publicly reveal how it handled the case. The crime victims board planned to meet Friday to discuss the case.

Stephanie Van Groll, 26, went to police last October after receiving 30 text messages in three days from Kratz in which he called her a “hot nymph” and asked if she was “the kind of girl that likes secret contact with an older married elected DA.”

At the time, Kratz was prosecuting her ex-boyfriend on a strangulation charge.

The state Department of Justice removed Kratz from the case but determined he hadn’t done anything illegal. It pressured him to resign last December as chairman of the Wisconsin Crime Victims’ Rights Board, a post he held since 1998, and to report his conduct to the OLR, which oversees attorney conduct.

Kratz has said he described his behavior to the victims’ rights board when he resigned. The board took no action because it never received a complaint from Van Groll or an “involved party,” which is required under state law. The board can sanction public officials who violate crime victims’ rights, and order fines, reprimands and corrective action.

Board spokeswoman Julie Braun said she was researching whether she could comment on discussions the board held in closed session.

“I suppose it would make a difference what the board knew and when they knew it,” said Tim Gruenke, a prosecutor who joined the board after Kratz resigned. “More of that will come out.”

An OLR investigator closed the case against Kratz without a formal review in March, saying his behavior was inappropriate but didn’t appear to be an ethics violation. That finding was kept secret per its normal policy until last week, when Kratz made it public. The OLR has been silent on its handling of the inquiry since then.

On Thursday, the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault said the public deserves an explanation, citing a rule that allows one “in matters of public controversy.”

Patti Seger, executive director of the anti-domestic violence group, called Kratz’s behavior “a textbook case of sexual harassment,” which is prohibited under attorneys’ code of professional conduct. She said Kratz may have violated other rules and demanded that OLR explain why he wasn’t sanctioned or formally investigated.

Jeanie Kurka Reimer, executive director of the anti-sexual assault group, added: “This is an extraordinary case that caused all of Wisconsin to question the legal profession. OLR should use its authority to address this situation immediately.”

A state lawmaker has called for an audit of OLR’s conduct, and the attorney general’s office has asked the OLR to revisit its findings.

Van Groll’s attorney, Michael Fox, said Thursday his client does not remember ever speaking with the OLR investigator or receiving a letter telling her the case had been closed. He said Van Groll would cooperate if the case is reopened.

A member of the Board of Administrative Oversight, which monitors the fairness of OLR and considers related policies, said the agency should not review the case. Kenosha lawyer Terry Rose said the messages reflected “poor judgment” but not sexual harassment. Rose said the behavior did not violate professional conduct rules in part because Van Groll was a witness, not Kratz’s client.

“I don’t want to see a situation where we have a lynch mob mentality where, because the general public is howling for the scalp of a particular attorney, we respond,” Rose said, adding that voters could vote Kratz out of office in 2012. “I view this as more of a political issue.”