OLR v. Daniel P. Steffen, 2023AP1511-D, 7/1/25, per curiam decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court (in its disciplinary capacity).
In a decision of potential interest to criminal practitioners, SCOW revokes the license of a prosecutor who has been criminally sentenced for sex crimes.
In 2021, Steffen, an assistant district attorney, was criminally charged with three counts of capturing an intimate representation without consent. (¶3). The State alleged that Steffen had sexual relationships with two victims. (Id.). One victim was a defendant in a case being prosecuted by Steffen. (Id.). Another “sought his advice on avoiding criminal prosecution for potential criminal acts.” (Id.). The case proceeded to a trial and Steffen was convicted of the charged offenses. (Id.). Steffen eventually stipulated to violating SCR 20:8.4(b). (¶24). Steffen proposed a one-year suspension; the OLR asked for two years. (¶25). The referee split the difference and recommended an 18-month suspension. (Id.). In rejecting the referee’s recommendation, SCOW makes several points relevant to cases involving an intersection between criminal law and professional discipline.
First, SCOW holds that the referee erred by focusing “almost exclusively on the elements of Attorney Steffen’s underlying criminal offenses and seemed to believe that the surrounding circumstances were not relevant to this determination.” (¶47). This focus only on the elements of the offenses proven at trial was insufficiently narrow given the nature of this proceeding. (Id.).
Second, the referee failed to give sufficient weight to Steffen’s role as an assistant district attorney. (¶49). Under these facts, “The nature of the misconduct here calls into question the very foundation of the judicial system as a neutral and objective dispenser of justice.” (¶50).
Third, the Court is critical of the referee’s attitude toward the victims and openly accuses the referee in engaging in “victim-blaming” and otherwise failing to give these victims the status they are entitled to in our system. (¶53).
Finally, the Court holds that the referee gave undue weight to the existence of Steffen’s prison sentence, which the referee believed was a mitigating factor. (¶57). The Court suggests that the time in prison, 10 months, was insufficiently weighty under these facts. (Id.). Accordingly, SCOW rejects the referee’s conclusion and imposes revocation of Steffen’s license. (¶67).