## Facts

- Thomas George Ragatz, a Wisconsin lawyer licensed since 1961, represented an estate in a will contest and filed a related action seeking an equitable adjustment to reduce the opposing party’s potential recovery.
- Opposing counsel moved to dismiss the related action and have it declared frivolous, seeking fees and costs; the parties agreed to dismissal but disputed frivolousness.
- After the matter was argued and while a decision was pending, the presiding judge (newly assigned) spoke with Ragatz in an unplanned, private conversation and mentioned the judge’s law clerk believed the action might be frivolous; Ragatz responded that the clerk was wrong. Opposing counsel was not present and was not informed.
- Ragatz later received an unsolicited draft decision concluding the action was frivolous.
- Ragatz arranged for a substantive response letter arguing the merits of the frivolousness issue, altered it to be informally addressed to the judge, signed it using his first name, marked it “confidential,” and sent it directly to the judge without copying or notifying opposing counsel.
- Opposing counsel later found the letter in the court file and sought it; the judge contacted Ragatz about the discovery.
- When opposing counsel contacted Ragatz, he initially claimed unfamiliarity with the letter and did not disclose that the judge had already called him about it.
- Ragatz then contacted the judge ex parte and suggested a conference; at the conference, the letter was not produced, and opposing counsel did not receive it until later.
- Ragatz had no prior disciplinary history and presented favorable character testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether Ragatz committed professional misconduct by making and exploiting ex parte communications with the judge about the merits of a pending, contested matter, including a “confidential” letter sent without notice to opposing counsel.
2. Whether Ragatz’s post-discovery conduct, which delayed disclosure of the letter to opposing counsel, aggravated the misconduct.
3. What discipline was appropriate in light of the seriousness of the conduct and mitigating evidence.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that Ragatz engaged in improper ex parte communications intended to influence a pending decision and that the misconduct was extremely serious.
- The Court imposed a 60-day suspension of Ragatz’s license to practice law.
- The Court ordered Ragatz to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.
- The Court accepted the referee’s findings and adopted the recommended sanction.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may not communicate ex parte with a judge about the merits of a pending, contested matter unless authorized by law.
- Ex parte communications intended to affect a judicial outcome threaten the fairness and integrity of adjudication and warrant significant discipline.
- Sending substantive, undisclosed advocacy to a judge while a matter is under advisement is a serious violation, especially when framed to avoid notice to opposing counsel (e.g., labeled “confidential” and sent directly).
- Misleading or delaying disclosure to opposing counsel regarding ex parte contacts with the court aggravates attorney misconduct.
- Mitigating factors such as an otherwise unblemished record and favorable character evidence may affect sanction severity but do not preclude suspension for conduct aimed at influencing a pending ruling.

## Conclusion

The court suspended Ragatz for 60 days and assessed costs after finding that he attempted to influence a pending ruling through undisclosed ex parte advocacy and then delayed disclosure to opposing counsel, conduct deemed extremely serious despite strong mitigation evidence.


In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Ragatz, 429 N.W.2d 488 (Wis. 1988)