COA affirms remedial sanction entered against attorney in CHIPS cases
Yacoub v. St. Croix County, 2023AP758, 759, 760, 761 & 762, 5/27/26, District III (ineligible for publication) case activity.
COA affirms judgment requiring Attorney Sarah Yacoub to pay $4,663.03 in costs and attorney fees as a remedial sanction after the circuit court found her in contempt for intentionally disclosing confidential information from 5 CHIPS cases.
Yacoub represented a parent in 5 CHIPS cases jointly brought by the parents. (¶2). After the county removed her client’s children, Yacoub filed a complaint in federal court on her client’s behalf, in which she disclosed that there were open CHIPS cases involving the five children (without naming the children), disclosed confidential information about the children, and disclosed detailed information related to the CHIPS proceedings. (¶3). Yacoub also sent an email to numerous county officials and employees that included attachments with identifying information and details related to the CHIPS cases. (¶4).
The county moved for contempt against Yacoub pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 48.299(1)(b) and WIS. STAT. ch. 785, based on her disclosure of confidential information in the email and the federal lawsuit. (¶5). After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court found Yacoub in contempt and issued remedial sanctions, finding that her disclosures were intentional. (¶¶6-7). Specifically, the court ordered: (1) removal of Yacoub as counsel for her client; (2) payment of reasonable attorney fees incurred by the county “for the work performed” related to the motions for contempt; (3) payment of actual costs incurred by the county to “purge all records of the email dissemination related to these proceedings”; and (4) payment of attorney fees incurred by the county for the appointment of counsel (if her former client receives counsel paid by the county). (¶8).
COA first rejects Yacoub’s newly raised arguments that the state was not aggrieved by the confidential disclosures and therefore lacked standing and that the county is not entitled to receive payment because it lacks standing, concluding that Yacoub forfeited these claims. (¶10). Next, it deems Yacoub’s argument related to exceptions to WIS. STAT. § 48.299 as conceded because she failed to address the state’s arguments and authorities. (¶11). Similarly, COA rejects Yacoub’s argument that the circuit court erred by finding her violation was intentional because it is undeveloped. (¶¶12-13).
As to the merits, COA concludes that Yacoub’s violations of WIS. STAT. § 48.299(1)(b) constituted continuing contempt. Yacoub seems to base her arguments on the testimony from the evidentiary, but the transcript does not appear in the record on appeal. Thus, COA assumes the missing transcript supports the circuit court’s decision. (¶18). COA rejects Yacoub’s arguments that the email to the county officials wasn’t ongoing, as she “recalled” the emails and they were purged from the county’s system, because they are also unsupported by legal authority. Regardless, Yacoub fails to argue that the disclosure of confidential information in the federal lawsuit was not ongoing. (¶19). As to her argument that the circuit court failed to afford her the opportunity to purge the contempt, Yacoub again fails to respond to the state’s legal analysis and COA therefore deems her to have conceded. (¶¶20-21).
Last, Yacoub argues that the circuit court denied her due process of law because it did not afford her an opportunity to participate in its determination of the amounts to be paid. (¶22). COA rejects this argument because Yacoub fails to explain how the court violated the remedial sanction procedures set forth in WIS. STAT. § 785.03(1)(a), and concludes that the procedure the circuit court followed complied with due process. (¶23).