Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel relied on help from lawyers suing prosecutors and investigators when he filed a friend-of-the-court brief in January that would make it harder for Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm to defend himself. Credit: Mark Hoffman

SHARE

By of the

Madison — State Attorney General Brad Schimel got help from lawyers suing prosecutors and investigators when he filed a friend-of-the-court brief in January that would make it harder for Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm to defend himself.

Documents released Tuesday under the state's open records law show the lawyers suing Chisholm provided Schimel's team with an outline of how to frame its argument trying to keep Chisholm from having easy access to material seized in a probe of Gov. Scott Walker's campaign.

The release of the records highlights an unusual situation — the state's top lawyer working with attorneys who hope to force taxpayers to shell out money because of the actions of public officials.

One of the attorneys involved and a spokesman for Schimel said it was normal for those with common interests in litigation to coordinate their filings. They noted Schimel's team did not pursue many of the arguments recommended by the outside attorneys.

The dispute over evidence comes in a lawsuit filed by former Walker aide Cindy Archer. She sued the Democratic district attorney in July, arguing he had engaged in a "continuous campaign of harassment and intimidation" of supporters of the GOP governor.

Chisholm conducted two investigations related to Walker. Archer's home was raided as part of the first probe, but she was not charged. Six others were convicted in that case.

The second investigation focused on whether Walker had illegally worked with conservative political groups on recall elections. That probe was halted last year by the state Supreme Court, which concluded no wrongdoing occurred.

The high court ordered prosecutors to turn over material they gathered to the justices, but Chisholm and his aides have asked to be able to keep it so they can defend themselves in Archer's suit.

Schimel, a Republican, sided with Archer in arguing the seized material should not be left in the hands of Chisholm's team.

In response, Chisholm attorney Samuel Leib maintains Schimel has defamed the district attorney. He argued in February it was inappropriate for Schimel to file his friend-of-the-court brief because his office earlier had declined to participate in the probe of Walker's campaign and litigation related to it because of conflicts of interest.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman is to hear arguments Wednesday on whether to allow Chisholm to retain evidence seized in the probe. A decision in Chisholm's favor could lead to further legal disputes because it would conflict with the state Supreme Court's ruling.

He will also hear arguments on a request by Chisholm to throw out the lawsuit.

New records. The records released Tuesday show Andrew Grossman, an attorney at the firm representing Archer, on Jan. 7 provided Deputy Attorney General Andrew Cook a copy of filings by Chisholm's team seeking to keep the material prosecutors had seized.

"Please let me know if there's anything else we can do to assist," Grossman wrote.

Two weeks later, on Jan. 21, Grossman's firm sent an overnight letter to Assistant Attorney General David Meany with a three-page legal memo titled "Proposed Issue Outline for Wisconsin Amicus Brief in Archer v. Chisholm."

A week later, on Jan. 29, Schimel and his aides filed their friend-of-the-court brief siding with Archer.

On Tuesday, Grossman said his firm provided information to Schimel's office at the Department of Justice's request.

"It is appropriate and routine for parties to communicate with amici," or friends of the court, Grossman said by email. "Many courts require parties to coordinate arguments with amici so as to avoid duplicative briefing, and that is considered a best practice in all cases involving amici."

Schimel spokesman Johnny Koremenos said in a statement it is common for those with similar stances in a case to be in touch with each other.

"A comparison of DOJ's brief to the outline provided by Ms. Archer's attorneys demonstrates most of their proposed arguments were not mentioned in DOJ's brief," his statement said.