LIVE: Peaceful march makes its way through Milwaukee to remember George Floyd
LIVE: President Trump addresses the unrest surrounding the death of George Floyd
Hub for reliable, timely news about COVID-19 pandemic

Sheriff Clarke accuses Milwaukee attorney of misconduct after lawsuit filed against him

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

Sheriff David Clarke

MILWAUKEE — Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke has accused a local attorney of misconduct.

Sheriff Clarke said Attorney William Sulton, who represents Dan Black in a lawsuit filed against Sheriff Clarke, Milwaukee County and six deputies leaked the lawsuit to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in an effort to get publicity.

Black is suing, saying he was unlawfully detained by deputies at General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee after an interaction with Sheriff Clarke on a plane.

In a post on Facebook, Sheriff Clarke said he’ll file a complaint of misconduct and violation of attorney ethics with the State Bar of Wisconsin.

FOX6 News reached out to Sulton, who issued the following statement:

“Sheriff David Clarke’s post is yet another effort to intimidate and dissuade Dan Black from pursuing his complaint. SCR 20:3.6 states that “a lawyer may state: (1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;; (2) information contained in a public record; (3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress; (4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation; (5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto; [and] (6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest. . . .” The rule also provides that “a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial likelihood of undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client.” My communications were consistent with the rules.”

1 Comment

  • P. Treder

    If Clark knew about ethics he would have never used his position to intimidate someone for merely shaking their head. Who’s the real fragile little snowflake?

Comments are closed.

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.