|
Kristin Schrank is a Wisconsin-licensed
attorney, admitted to practice in 2009.
From March 2010 until her resignation in
October 2017, Schrank was employed as an
Assistant District Attorney in the Milwaukee
County District Attorney’s Office.
Schrank was assigned on-duty DA
responsibilities for the week of July 14 –
July 21, 2017, to include carrying a county-
issued cell phone (the “Duty DA phone”)
enabling the on-duty Assistant DA to answer
questions and assist law enforcement during
the non-business hours of the Milwaukee
County DA’s Office.
On Sunday, July 16, 2017, Schrank was
scheduled to work a bartending shift at a
restaurant where she works part-time. Prior
to her shift, Schrank asked Antoni Apollo
(“Apollo”), a long-time friend, if he would
take the Duty DA phone during her shift.
Apollo agreed and took the Duty DA phone
from Schrank at the restaurant. Although he
had previously worked as an Assistant DA in
the Milwaukee County DA’s Office, Apollo was
unauthorized to carry and answer the Duty DA
phone at that time.
On Sunday, July 16, 2017, officers from the
Fox Point Police Department were involved in
the arrest of a man for first offense
operating while intoxicated and obstructing
an officer. The man, who resisted arrest
and was subsequently taken to a hospital for
injuries, refused to consent to a blood
draw. One of the Fox Point officers
attempted to make contact with Schrank, whom
the officer knew to be the on-duty DA, but
Apollo answered the call. Apollo advised
the officer to obtain a search warrant for
the arrested man’s blood. Apollo
represented himself as an intern in the
Milwaukee County DA’s Office, and provided
the name of an actual former intern. The
officer thereafter applied for and obtained
a search warrant. The Fox Point Police
Department narrative lists the former
intern’s name (that Apollo provided to the
officer) as the source of advice.
The arrested man was cited for non-criminal
first offense operating while intoxicated by
the Village of Fox Point.
On July 19, 2017, the man was charged with
misdemeanor obstructing an officer in
Milwaukee County Circuit Court. A
transcript of the initial appearance held
July 19, 2017 in the matter shows that
Schrank, who was then assigned to the
Special Crimes Division (and thus would not
typically handle an obstructing case),
appeared in court for the sole purpose of
moving to dismiss the criminal case. The
motion was granted. Schrank provided no
explanation to the court for the dismissal
and reportedly left immediately after the
dismissal with the case file.
When asked by the Fox Point Police
Department Captain and Village Prosecutor
about the source of advice (to the officer
involved in the arrest), Schrank was not
immediately forthcoming with Apollo’s name.
She eventually identified Apollo as the
source of advice.
In mid-August 2017, the Milwaukee County
DA’s Office commenced a criminal
investigation of Schrank. A district
attorney from another county was appointed
special prosecutor. In September 2017,
Schrank was placed on administrative leave
(and made aware that she was under criminal
investigation).
On January 16, 2018, Schrank was charged
with misdemeanor Attempted Misconduct in
Public Office (Party to a Crime) contrary to
sec. 946.12(3), 939.50(3)(i), 939.32, 939.05
Wis. Stats. in State v. Schrank,
Milwaukee
County case no. 2018CM238.
On February 1, 2018, pursuant to a no
contest plea, Schrank was convicted of
misdemeanor Attempted Misconduct in Public
Office (Party to a Crime). Schrank was
ordered to provide a DNA sample and pay the
DNA surcharge. She was also ordered to pay
a fine of $500 inclusive of all applicable
court costs (to include the DNA surcharge)
within 120 days (06/01/18).
|
|
By engaging in conduct leading to a
misdemeanor conviction of Attempted Misconduct
in Public Office (Party to a Crime) in State
v. Schrank, Milwaukee County case no.
2018CM238, Schrank violated SCR 20:8.4(b),
which states, “It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to…commit a criminal act that
reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in
other respects.”
|
|
By proceeding in the criminal case involving
the man arrested by Fox Point Police, while
compromised by her personal interests,
Schrank violated SCR 20:1.7(a)(2), which
states, “Except as provided in par. (b), a
lawyer shall not represent a client if the
representation involves a concurrent
conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict
of interest exists if (2) there is a
significant risk that the representation of
one or more clients will be materially
limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to
another client, a former client or a third
person or by a personal interest of the
lawyer.”
Schrank had no prior discipline.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Schrank is hereby publicly reprimanded.
Dated this 27th day of October, 2018.
|