Lawyers Shouldn’t Spit in Protesters’ Faces (and Police Generally Shouldn’t Kick in Doors Without Warrants)

In In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Rapkin, decided Sept. 17 by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Stephanie Rapkin was subjected to discipline by the Wisconsin OLR (Office of Lawyer Regulations) for charging a client “thousands of dollars without a valid written fee agreement in place,” “fail[ing] to diligently carry out her duties,” and related misconduct, as well as this unrelated offense:

The OLR’s complaint next alleged that on June 6, 2020, Attorney Rapkin “spat in the face of an African-American teenager who was taking part in a protest in Shorewood, Wisconsin” [apparently a Black Lives Matter protest -EV]. This incident led to Attorney Rapkin being convicted, following a jury trial, of misdemeanor disorderly conduct….

Rapkin didn’t appear to contest the charges, saying that she had retired. The court concluded that a one-year suspension was the proper disciplinary measure:

We agree with the referee that, regarding her work for the estate and trust of N.H.B., there was a knowing nature to Attorney Rapkin’s long-term failures to communicate with her client, timely complete tasks, and bill appropriately. There is also no dispute that this misconduct caused injury to her client. On these facts, ABA Standards 4.42(a) and 7.2 suggest that suspension is the appropriate sanction. See ABA Standard 4.42(a) (recommending a presumptive sanction of suspension when “a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client”); ABA Standard 7.2 (recommending a presumptive sanction of suspension “when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system”).

We note, too, that ABA Standard 5.12 recommends a presumptive sanction of suspension when a lawyer commits a crime that does not involve certain intentional acts such as fraud or theft and that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law. We have no trouble concluding that Attorney Rapkin’s criminal conduct—spitting in the face of a teenager who was taking part in a protest—seriously adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law. See generally In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Johns (Wisc. 2014) (noting that “certain criminal conduct is so revealing of character defects, and so undermines public confidence in the legal profession, that it necessarily reflects adversely on an attorney’s fitness as a lawyer”). The incident is an embarrassment to the bar….

The court also ordered Rapkin to pay $3K in costs. On the other hand, Wisconsin Public Radio reports that,

Rapkin sued the villages of Shorewood and Whitefish Bay after her arrest in 2020, alleging police violated her Fourth Amendment rights by kicking in the door to her home without a warrant. An insurance company representing the villages settled her case in 2024, awarding Rapkin $760,000.

Here are the allegations from Rapkin’s Complaint in that case (remember, these are just allegations, though a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story reports that “Rapkin eventually filed a motion to suppress the evidence gathered from the search, and Judge Laura Crivello granted the motion, saying ‘you need to get a warrant or wait till her attorney brings her down to the station house to talk'”):

On June 7th of 2020, while Stephanie Rapkin was sleeping in her bed, members of the Shorewood and Whitefish Bay police departments were outside her home, trying to think of an excuse to enter, so they could arrest her on allegations that she pushed a protestor picketing outside of her home.

After spending roughly 40 minutes milling around, the officers conspired to violate the Fourth Amendment by breaking into Rapkin’s home under the false pretense that they just wanted to perform a welfare check. The justification for the excuse came from a neighbor, who told them that Rapkin may have taken a single sleeping pill twelve hours before.  Based on this totally innocuous information, the officers kicked down Rapkin’s door, pointed weapons at her, arrested her, dragged her outside, paused to allow a round of applause by a crowd who had gathered around her home to watch the spectacle, and then re-entered her home to desperately search for any evidence they could use to justify their blatant violation of the Constitution.