It does not seem like it was worth it.

To paraphrase Jane Austen: It is a truth universally acknowledged, that sometimes one wonders whatever happened to sexting attorney Kenneth Kratz.  Longtime Reader(s)™ may recall that Mr. Kratz is a former district attorney for Calumet County, Wisconsin who lost his job when it was revealed that he had propositioned a domestic abuse victim when she came to see him about her case.  After these revelations surfaced it turned out that other women had also been inappropriately approached by Mr. Kratz.

Anyway, last month Mr. Kratz pled no-contest to charges by the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation that Mr. Kratz's actions violated the rules of professional conduct. The Appleton Post-Crescent's coverage of Mr. Kratz's plea is here and here. 

As a result Mr. Kratz's plea, the only issue that will need to be decided is what punishment Mr. Kratz will receive.  Who decides the punishment?  That paragon of professionalism and totally not dysfunctional group known as the Wisconsin Supreme Court (if anyone does not recognize this as sarcasm, please see our coverage of the Wisconsin Supreme Court for examples of unprofessional and dysfunctional behavior). 

The Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation wants Mr. Kratz's law license to be suspended for six months.  According to the Post-Crescent, the number is significant because a suspension longer than six months requires an attorney to petition the Wisconsin Supreme Court to be reinstated and a public hearing is held that requires the attorney to show by "clear, satisfacotry and convincing evidence" that the attorney has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin.  To provide some context for the suspension time, these guys got suspensions of 60 and 30 days.

Mr. Kratz testified that he has been punished enough and should not have his license suspended.  His punishment has included: (a) the loss of his job as a district attorney (Mr. Kratz called seems to have called this the loss of his career but the fact that he can still practice law seems to suggest he has not lost his career);(b) his divorce; (c) a bankruptcy filing; (d) reposession of his car and; (e) the fact that he gets recognized when he goes the grocery store.

One might suggest that Mr. Kratz is confusing punishment with the natural consequences of his actions.  Moreover, one might also question whether Mr. Kratz understands causation.  After all, his car was not repossessed because he sent inappropriate text messages. Also, Mr. Kratz neglected to mention that his bankruptcy filing had the benefit of staying the lawsuit that one of his victims brought against him. You can read more about the bankruptcy filing here.      

The upshot of all this is that Mr. Kratz is currently able to practice law in Wisconsin.  Although, oddly, Google Maps (which is the best) thinks that the street adress listed for Mr. Kratz does not exist.  So it may be difficult to hire him.