Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.
Appointed to: Outagamie County Circuit Court
Appointment date: Nov. 7, 2025, to term ending July 31, 2027
Education:
Law School – Valparaiso University Law School, Valparaiso, Indiana
Undergraduate – Loras College, Dubuque, Iowa
High School – Barneveld High, Barneveld, Wisconsin
Recent legal employment:
September 2021-present – Civil litigation attorney, Habush, Habush & Rottier, Appleton, Wisconsin
February 2020-April 2021 – Senior associate attorney, Sterling Law Offices, Madison, Wisconsin
March 2019-September 2021 – Buyer’s agent, Realty Executives Cooper Spransy, Fitchburg, Wisconsin
September 2015-March 2019 – Civil litigation attorney, Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs, Madison, Wisconsin
Bar and administrative memberships:
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
State Bar of Wisconsin
General character of practice:
My current practice involves representing plaintiffs who have been physically, emotionally, or financially harmed due to the negligence or wrongdoing of another. Although I practice throughout the Fox Valley, the majority of my cases arise from or involve residents of Outagamie County. My caseload is primarily comprised of car accident-related cases, but I also handle premises and strict liability cases. In advocating for the injured party, I assist in recovering compensation for medical bills, lost wages, as well as pain and suffering. I currently have over 100 active files, with approximately 25% of them in litigation at any given time. Because I pride myself on providing individualized representation, this requires great attention to detail and a deep understanding of the nuances of each case.
Describe typical clients:
I have spent most of my legal career practicing on the plaintiff side of personal injury. During the first half of my career, I also focused on civil rights litigation, employment law, and family law. A unique aspect of my practice is that my clients come from diverse and varied backgrounds. I am privileged to have represented individuals of different races, genders, political affiliations, and socioeconomic statuses. I believe every person deserves justice and a fair opportunity. Accordingly, I have dedicated my career to serving individuals. As a personal injury attorney, I work with people who have been physically, emotionally, and financially impacted through no fault of their own. In civil rights litigation, I represented those whose constitutional rights were violated by government entities and public figures. In employment law, I represented individuals who were harassed, discriminated against, or wrongfully terminated. These clients were often afraid of retaliation, losing their livelihood, or being ostracized. Finally, as a family law practitioner, I represented individuals facing one of the most emotionally challenging transitions in their lives.
Number of cases tried to verdict: 7
List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years:
Nick Solomon, et al. vs. John Cabot University, et al. … This case was brought after the murder of [redacted], a student at the University of Madison-Wisconsin who was studying abroad at John Cabot University (“JCU“) in Rome, Italy. I was extensively involved in this case. Before bringing a complaint, I researched all I could about JCU, including its history, policies, procedures, and incorporation documents. During my research, I discovered that JCU had been plagued by student deaths year after year, which all occurred in a very similar fashion. Nevertheless, JCU never provided any warnings or even notice to any of the schools in the United States with which it contracted. After discovering that JCU was incorporated in Delaware, we knew we could bring a claim against it in the United States. Moreover, once I was able to locate the identities of prior victims, I reached out to their families to get more information on what occurred abroad that led to their deaths. The more victims I spoke with, the more it became clear that these deaths all occurred within blocks of the campus in a very similar manner. The interesting caveat to this was that most of the research I conducted was in Italian, so many of my findings required translation. This became even more troubling because the Italian newspapers would report on these deaths, but typically not the newspapers in the United States. Once we were prepared with this information, we filed a lawsuit against, primarily, John Cabot University. The litigation was long and grueling. We were met with several motions, including motions to dismiss and motions to transfer the case. We ultimately overcame all of those motions. In taking depositions of the JCU staff members abroad, we learned that they kept what they called a “death list”, which included all of the students who had died similarly. Ultimately, the case settled for a confidential amount at mediation. This case was significant because it underscored the importance of fighting for justice even when it seems impossible. JCU was a bad actor that continued to minimize the tragedies that occurred on its campus, allowing it to continue profiting from its study abroad programs at the expense of the students. This was a time that justice prevailed even though it seemed impossible.
[Redacted] et al. vs. St. Clare Hospital, et al.; Medical Malpractice Trial and Appeal … This case involved an 18–month-old child [redacted] who was deprived of oxygen for nearly ten minutes after the providers at St. Clare Hospital paralyzed [redacted] to intubate him, but could not work the Ambu bag to provide oxygen to [redacted] was ultimately left completely incapacitated and unable to ever lead a “normal” life. The trial was a 2–week trial against the treating provider, the respiratory therapist, and the hospital. After two weeks, the jury determined that there was no fault on behalf of any of the defendants. The verdict was shattering. On motions after verdict, the trial court reversed the jury’s decision and awarded a new trial in favor of our client. Unfortunately, the decision fell outside of the 90-day window for the court’s competency, and the case was forced to go up on appeal. My role in this case was to brief any necessary motions that arose before, during, and after the trial. This included the motions after the verdict and the motion that secured a new trial. I also had the opportunity to get to know the family personally and create the “Day in the Life” video for [redacted]. This case was personally significant in several respects. First, it was the first time in my career that I felt failed by the process. I was so confident that the facts and the law were on our side that I could not fathom that the jury would not find in our favor. It was a lesson in not taking the process for granted. Second, it reaffirmed to me the necessity of taking on tough cases without fear of the outcome. Medical malpractice cases in Wisconsin are incredibly difficult. They are expensive, time-consuming, and incredibly risky. However, holding others accountable is essential work and necessary for our communities. Finally, it was an important lesson in knowing the critical deadlines for all parties involved, including the court.
Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies:
During my tenure at Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs (formerly known as Gingras, Cates & Luebke), I devoted a significant part of my practice to employment law matters. Accordingly, I compiled, drafted, and contested employment cases for employees before the Department of Workforce Development.
Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation).
At Sterling Lawyers, I completed a 40-hour divorce and family mediation training through the University of Wisconsin-Madison. This included Wis. Stat. 767.405 training on domestic violence dynamics and its effects on victims. I applied this training while serving as a mediator in family law cases. As a civil litigator, I have extensive experience as an advocate in the mediation process. At both Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs and Habush, Habush & Rottier, I have served as a client advocate in countless mediations.
Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: N/A
Previous runs for public office: N/A
All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years:
Justice Susan M. Crawford, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2025
Justice Janet C. Protasiewicz, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2023
Judge Lisa S. Neubauer, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2019
Professional or civic and charitable organizations:
Outagamie County Bar Association, Executive Committee, September 2021-present
Wisconsin Association for Justice, Executive & Legislative Committee, Board of Directors, September 2015-present
Legal Association for Women, Board of Directors and Meet & Mingle Chair, September 2018-April 2021
Dane County Bar Association, member, September 2015-April 2021
Robert J. Parins Legal Society of Northeast Wisconsin, member, August 2025-present
The James E. Doyle American Inn of Court, member, September 2019-February 2020
American Association for Justice, member, September 2015-present
Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service:
For the past three years, I have volunteered to serve on the Executive Committee of the Outagamie County Bar Association. I have also served on the Executive Committee, Legislative Committee, and Board of Directors for the Wisconsin Association for Justice for the past four consecutive years. Moreover, I served as Vice Chair of the Women’s Caucus of the Wisconsin Association for Justice in 2019 and Chair of the Women’s Caucus of the Wisconsin Association for Justice in 2020. All of these positions were volunteer positions. From 2018 to 2021, I volunteered to serve on the Board of Directors for the Legal Association for Women in Madison, WI.
Quotes:
Why I want to be a judge:
My desire to serve as a judge arises out of my commitment to justice, empathy, integrity, and the belief that the judiciary should reflect the diversity of the communities it serves. While the law provides the blueprint for justice, empathy and lived experiences allow a judge to understand the human element involved in every case.
My experiences have taught me to listen intently, think critically, and consider different perspectives. I grew up in a very homogeneous area of the state, where the representation of my culture and background was limited, if not nonexistent. I recall taking tests and filling out the race and ethnicity question, having to check both “white, non-Hispanic” and “Hispanic” while being reminded that I was different from my peers. I can imagine being a litigant or an individual facing a crime or attempting to exercise legal rights and feeling like the only person in the room who is different from everyone else. I firmly believe that experiencing that feeling repeatedly throughout my life has allowed me to see things from a different, more empathetic perspective. I am better able to understand the thoughts and emotions of the person who is “different”. I know the importance of representation and how critical it is that the judiciary mirrors the people it exists to serve.
However, I also understand that diversity is just one factor inhibiting one’s access to the justice system. Litigants often face barriers due to the cost, complexity, statutory caps, and an overall lack of understanding of the legal system. As a public servant, it is a judge’s responsibility to ensure that the court remains open to every single member of the community who may need it. I want to be a judge to ensure that the citizens of Outagamie County have access to the justice system when necessary.
Finally, I feel called to serve as a judge in Outagamie County to help protect and uphold the law, no matter how difficult. A judge is entrusted with the responsibility to interpret and apply the law impartially without conceding to public pressure, personal biases, or societal chaos. I aspire to be a judge who upholds the integrity of our judicial system at a time when that feels threatened. Ultimately, I believe deeply in our justice system and the good that it can do when it is run fairly, empathetically, and with integrity. Ultimately, I want to be a judge to put those principles into practice for the citizens of our state and those who look to Outagamie County for assistance in resolving disputes or deciding their liberties.
Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin.
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s holding in Priorities USA v. Wisconsin Elections Commission is undoubtedly one of the most profoundly impactful decisions in recent history. Just last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, reinstated ballot drop boxes across the state by overruling the Supreme Court’s decision in Teigen
v. Wisconsin Elections Commission. Teigen was a case that led to a complete prohibition of drop boxes in Wisconsin. By overruling Teigen, the Court’s decision has had, and will continue to have, a profound positive effect on voter access and democratic participation in Wisconsin by making voting more accessible and by increasing confidence in the electoral process.
In prior elections, voters who were elderly, disabled, or living in rural areas may have faced significant barriers in returning their ballots. Although mailing is still an option, it may not be reliable or trustworthy for some. The option of having a drop box instills additional confidence that their vote will, in fact, count. Moreover, Priorities USA reduces the risk of disenfranchisement. Unquestionably, limiting voters to mail-in ballots or hand delivery during business hours creates logistical challenges. Drop boxes offering around-the-clock access allow more votes to arrive on time and be counted.
At a time when many states are facing growing restrictions on voter access, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Priorities USA v. Wisconsin Elections Commission is one that greatly benefits every single citizen of Wisconsin. It has not only expanded access to voting but also helped to restore faith in the electoral process. This is critical because it leads to greater participation, which in turn leads to a better-run democracy.
Two or three judges whom I admire and why:
Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor
In May 2009, the White House published a press release on Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor, describing her as “a sharp and fearless jurist who does not let powerful interests bully her into departing from the rule of law.” The White House, Background on Judge Sonia Sotomayor (May 26, 2009), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/background-judge-sonia-sotomayor. At a time when powerful interests seem to be threatening the laws our country is founded on, my admiration for Justice Sotomayor, based on this alone, is especially poignant.
However, I admire Justice Sonia Sotomayor for a multitude of reasons. I admire her for her perseverance and the manner in which she has served on the United States Supreme Court. My own identity aligns with Justice Sotomayor in that we are both the daughters of immigrants who are first-generation attorneys. Just like Justice Sotomayor, I also knew from a young age that I wanted to pursue a career in law. I felt compelled to help the underserved in any way possible. I believed I could best achieve this through my intellect and love of learning.
Moreover, Justice Sotomayor is also known for empathetically and pragmatically looking at cases with an eye toward the human impact of the Court’s decisions. She balances respect for the law with respect for her fellow people. She has been recognized as emphasizing the importance of treating individuals with dignity and respect, regardless of one’s own views. I, too, firmly believe in treating everyone with respect, irrespective of our differences. I admire that she also embodies this same belief.
Finally, I admire Justice Sotomayor because she remains undeterred by political affiliation. Having been first nominated by George H.W. Bush to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and ultimately nominated by Barack Obama to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States, I find her ability to cross party lines admirable. The very position of a judge is complete and total impartiality. A judge is meant to follow the law and do what is right, regardless of their individual beliefs. Unfortunately, that line seems to be increasingly blurred nationwide. If I were to have the honor of serving the citizens of Outagamie County on the judiciary, I would aspire to exemplify the characteristics of Justice Sotomayor.
Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr.
I find Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. to be one of the most courageous judges in history. In 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed Attorney Frank Johnson to serve on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Judge Johnson was only 37 years old at the time of his appointment to the federal bench and was the youngest sitting federal judge. At that time, he was faced with maintaining justice in the deep south during one of the most tumultuous periods in United States history.
Within just one year of taking the bench, Judge Johnson decided Browder v. Gayle, holding that an Alabama statute permitting segregation on buses was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1961, Judge Johnson decided United States v. U.S. Klans, Knights of Ku Klux Klan, Inc. In that case, Judge Johnson stood firm on his belief that Goodwin J. Ruppenthal, the Chief of Police of the City of Montgomery, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment after he failed to take any of the usual precautionary measures to protect Freedom Riders. Because of Chief Ruppenthal’s inaction, the Freedom Riders were attacked by a mob of Klansmen upon their arrival in Montgomery. Throughout the next several years, Judge Johnson continued to encounter landmark cases in the civil rights movement, including Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, which was the first statewide desegregation order in Alabama, United States v. Alabama, which permitted black persons to vote so long as their application papers were equal to the least qualified white applicant accepted on voting rolls, and perhaps most famous was his decision in Williams v. Wallace, which prohibited authorities in Alabama from interfering with the Selma marches.
Due to his unwavering commitment to the Constitution and equality, Judge Frank Johnson faced intense hostility. In 1963, his mother’s house in Montgomery was bombed. Governor George Wallace, a former classmate, called him a “integrating, carpetbagging, scalawagging, boldface liar.” Yet Johnson remained committed to the law, saying his “basic philosophy as a trial judge…is to follow the law and the facts without regard to the consequences.” I deeply admire Judge Frank Johnson as the epitome of doing the right thing despite difficulty. He maintained reason during unreasonable times. Because of judges like him, our society has made significant strides toward equality. Judge Johnson could have followed the status quo, but instead stood firm on constitutional principles when they were challenged most.
The proper role of a judge:
The role of a judge is rooted in public service. A judge serves the community and the legal system as a whole. In performing this service, a judge must preside with a commitment to fairness, humility, and integrity. A judge’s role extends beyond resolving disputes. A judge upholds the rule of law while treating individuals with dignity and respect. This applies to litigants, attorneys, jurors, witnesses, and even those observing the courtroom. The judge is ultimately a reflection of our civilized society when it is functioning at its best. To fulfill this duty, a judge must set aside personal interests and biases and instead prioritize doing the right thing and affirming that the courtroom serves the people above all else.
A judge’s authority depends on the trust of the people rather than any power they may have been afforded. That trust is earned through impartiality, honesty, and veracity. It is a judge’s role to apply the law in a way that is uninfluenced by their personal beliefs, societal pressure, or political affiliation. This also requires accountability and courage to uphold the law, even when it may be unpopular. Ultimately, the judge’s role is to maintain the public’s confidence in the justice system by doing the right thing and protecting the ideals of justice.