Lawyers Shouldn't Spit in Protesters' Faces (and Police Generally Shouldn't Kick in Doors Without Warrants)
By Eugene Volokh · Sep 29, 2026, 11:46 AM CDT
In In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Rapkin , decided Sept. 17 by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Stephanie Rapkin was subjected to discipline by the Wisconsin OLR (Office of Lawyer Regulations) for charging a client "thousands of dollars without a valid written fee agreement in place," "fail[ing] to diligently carry out her duties," and related misconduct, as well as this unrelated o
Excerpt shown under fair-use limits. Full text remains with the original publisher.
People in this coverage
Explore their history and attributable record. Being mentioned does not imply endorsement.
Layer 1 · Claims & fact checks
AI analysisLayer 3 · Reporting analysis
AI analysisMoral framingThe article uses moral language to condemn the attorney’s conduct, reinforcing a negative judgment.
Sensational languageThe phrasing dramatizes police motives without evidence, aiming to provoke emotional response.
Contrast framingThe headline juxtaposes two separate issues to suggest a broader pattern of misconduct, linking them thematically despite limited direct connection.
Context
AI analysisMissing context
The article does not provide details of the court’s reasoning regarding the police‑door‑entry lawsuit beyond the settlement amount, nor does it explain the legal standards applied to evaluate the Fourth Amendment claim or the outcome of any motions (e.g., the motion to suppress evidence). It also omits any response or statement from the police departments or the villages involved.
Important context
The disciplinary sanction is based on ABA Standards 4.42(a), 5.12, and 7.2, which prescribe suspension for conduct that harms clients or reflects poorly on the profession. The settlement of the civil suit does not constitute a judicial finding that the police violated the Fourth Amendment; settlements often occur without admission of wrongdoing.
Opinion vs. reporting
AI analysisThe piece blends factual reporting of court actions with opinionated language and unverified allegations about police intent, moving beyond straightforward reporting into editorializing.