Lawyer-to-lawyer relationships constrain the application of law.


Unlike the police, lawyers do not benefit from qualified immunity. The advantages of their offices, however, provide adequate protection from accountability when errors of omission or commission occur. Stonewalling, denial, push-back or simply wasting time through slow-walking an ethics complaint serve the corrupt or incompetent lawyer when a betrayed client demands accountability. Moreover, lawyers cannot be counted on to expose fellow-lawyer corruption, incompetence or negligence. Too much is at stake. Offending the local legal cult or a “legal community” member entails career risk. A client is a one-time affair; a fellow member in the local legal circle maintains continued influence on a lawyer’s career, depending.

The above circumstances explain how and why this blog originated. The career conflict that arises for a lawyer between serving the needs of corrupt but influential fellow lawyers versus serving the needs of a client plays out in favour of client betrayal. The story below exemplifies this.

While I have encountered more than a fair share of deceitful, negligent or cowardly lawyers in Milwaukee, special acknowledgement must go to Lawyer Jeff Hughes. With regard to the story below, the cliche “you can’t make it up” applies. If the circumstances here were depicted in a movie, the audience would groan about the over-the-top stereotyping.

Lawyer Hughes was hired to protect a small boy who had been severely abused (his head had been forced under water by the mother for the child loving his father.) Hughes agreed to take the case to court, agreed to engage witnesses and evidence. But there emerged a problem. Lawyer Martin Kohler had botched a related trial prior to Hughes’ representation (see posts in this blog). Had evidence of child abuse been subsequently exposed by Hughes, the rigged trial and misconduct by Kohler would have become obvious. Hughes proceeded to conduct the “lawyer-client shuffle,” whereby billable hours accumulated for weeks, but for no practical end. The client in the meantime was assured that the case had merit and would be defended in court. After all payments for services were made, including payment for future representation, the following phone conversation took place:

Lawyer J. Hughes: “I now insist that we settle this case with Elliott (Milwaukee lawyer Robert Elliott). If you do not settle, I will refuse to represent you further.”

“But you promised to expose the abuse; you said we would take this to court and … ,” the hapless client protested.

On this point, Hughes was a man of his word. The client refused to betray the truth of the child’s abuse, and Hughes in turn disappeared. I mean… disappeared. As the client was left lawyer-less for an approaching deposition, Hughes’ office informed the client and a newly acquired lawyer that, “Jeff has gone on a ‘Crusade for Jesus Christ’ in …” (wait for it!) “Scotland.”

“Where are the files for the work we’ve already done, for the upcoming deposition that Jeff was scheduled for?” the naive client wondered.

A banker’s box was provided with files haphazardly dumped therein.

“What Hughes left is a mess; I have to sort through it all and see where we are, and Hughes can’t be reached,” the new lawyer complained.

Even in the seemingly bottomless, ideal-less world of corrupt, incompetent and gold-digging lawyers, the juxtaposition of Hughes’ deceit and negligence with the bagpipes that led him in prayer in Scotland was a shocker. But we need to view it from the lawyer’s perspective: Deceiving clients and insisting on coerced settlements –– while concealing evidence that reflects poorly on the local legal establishment –– is as ordinary and necessary for a successful career in law as yellow fluid in a baby’s diaper.

It should be noted here, throughout the run up to an earlier trial concerning child abuse, no-one questioned whether the child had been abused. A prominent lawyer at the time, Marvin Margolis, suggested that the mother’s problem was Munchausen by proxy. That diagnosis was incorrect, but it showed awareness and acceptance among the concerned lawyers that a child had been severely abused. Exposing this in court, however, would have been inconvenient for certain lawyers and a judge.

Hughes knew when he boarded the plane to Scotland that he was turning his back on a child who depended on him to stop the abuse. He had heard the father’s repeated concern: “ I don’t want my child to have nervous system damage.” But Hughes also knew that no one would hold him accountable if he just dropped the case. Hughes also recalled law school training: don’t get emotionally involved. Win. lose or draw, you go on to the next case.

There are a lot of places on this Earth where God may pay a visit and feel at home, but with Hughes at his Scotland convocation wasn’t likely one of them. If we can anthropomorphise, God may well have wondered… where did it go so wrong? To this day, the sole question that remains among his lawyer colleagues of the Christian faith is: Did Jeff finally get Billy Graham’s autograph?

This story is obviously relevant today because Hughes is a family law lawyer. At least his website makes the claim. The somewhat unique aspect to the world of the corrupt lawyer is that there is seldom an occasion that requires an apology or an admission, reversal or rectitude. Familiarity with the misuse of law and willingness by fellow lawyers to protect a local member can defeat the vast majority of annoying complainers who never really understand how law is actually practiced in the first place.

Some months after his failed representation, after he had returned from Scotland, the client phoned Hughes. Hughes was in no mood.

“You’re just a crazy fugitive; no on will listen to you,” Hughes proclaimed.

He was close to the mark on the “no one will listen” observation.

In the remaining regard Hughes made good use of the calculated, circulating slur that appeared on the internet and that was distributed amply in media circles: that the claims of corruption and incompetence directed at Lawyer Martin Kohler were simply absurd ramblings of the sick mind of his client. When all else fails, claims of mental illness can always scapegoat a victim. This strategic messaging came straight out of the playbook favoured by Martin Kohler and fostered by lawyer Robert Elliott. After all, mental health reports had been falsified and laundered through the court to assert exactly what Hughes parroted. The original reports, all ruling out negative mental issues and actually confirming likely veracity on the part of Kohler’s accuser, never reached two judges. Indeed, media reported at the time that the client was an “international fugitive,” with Interpol involved in the hunt for an armed and dangerous Milwaukee felon.

If Interpol had been involved in the case (no certainty that it ever was), it would have lasted only as long as it took for them to ascertain that the accusations of armed and dangerous etc. were contrived, that there had been no criminal record prior to the client exposing Martin Kohler on corruption in essays and booklets. Indeed, as recently as two weeks previous to this posting, Interpol verified in writing (again) that there is no record of or search for a Mark Inglin, from anywhere at any time through their organisation. U.S. Marshalls in Milwaukee, however, had not dared push back against the political needs of Kohler and his associates, including Judge D. Hansher.

It is widely recognised that governments, for example Russia, Saudi Arabia, use Interpol to intercede political enemies and prevent them from travelling. Someone of responsible authority in Milwaukee either attempted to enlist Interpol, or else such was merely claimed for public consumption, purely as a political move intended to protect corrupt lawyers from the shame of their own deeds.

Even though Jeff Hughes possibly established a new low mark for fecklessness and depravity in legal practice, he was simply a symptom of a circle of influence that keeps truth and reality at a distance when such threatens local lawyer cohesion.

The lawyers described in this blog proclaim themselves qualified as immune from doing their sworn, legal duties. They have given their loyalty to the legal influencers who can advance –– or at least choose not to impede –– their careers.

It would have taken tremendous courage for Lawyer Hughes to stand up to Lawyers Elliott and Kohler, to be that special, standout lawyer who blows the whistle on violations of the most fundamental principles of law.

Of course he couldn’t do it.

“Maybe the mother did have Munchausen by proxy,” it was speculated. “Or clinical postpartum depression, or she was just an ordinary nut case…but…. hey….Marty and Dave have been kicking around the courthouse for years together; they have influence. The client was a nobody. What’s one more abused kid? Even the Catholic Church says it’s okay to protect cherished members from exposure at the expense of the young. What do they want? We should be more catholic than the Pope?”

Please come back in the future for more information on how Milwaukee lawyers recognise few limits in their efforts to conceal local lawyer misconduct.

Also, see short Illegal Moment videos on




Nota bene: Some in the legal field may recall that. following the distribution of essays critical of Lawyer Kohler, this author received letters from lawyers who agreed that Kohler was corrupt. Many also agreed with the sentiments as expressed here. But action? No. However, there was action taken to silence critics of Kohler. One was Lawyer Mark Murphy. Robert Elliott, Kohler’s appointment, hauled Murphy in front of a judge, warning him to stop sending letters of support and to keep his mouth shut about problems in the Milwaukee legal system. Murphy quickly learned that you don’t go “counter-culture or, better said, “counter-cult.”

This lesson was not lost on Lawyer Jeff Hughes.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *