Wisconsin Lawyer Who Spit on Black Teenager During Protest Receives One-Year License Suspension

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has handed down a one-year suspension of the law license of Stephanie Rapkin, a Wisconsin attorney whose criminal conviction for spitting in the face of a Black teenager during a Black Lives Matter protest shocked the legal community and the public. The disciplinary action, issued on Thursday, follows a thorough investigation and subsequent disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation.

In its ruling, the state’s highest court concluded that "a period of suspension is clearly in order," bluntly adding that "the incident is an embarrassment to the bar." The suspension underscores the judiciary’s stance on professional misconduct and personal behavior that undermines public trust in the legal profession, even when such actions occur outside the direct practice of law.

The disciplinary measure stems from a high-profile altercation that occurred in June 2020 in Shorewood, Wisconsin, a suburb of Milwaukee. Rapkin’s actions, which were captured on video and circulated widely across national news and social media platforms, drew widespread condemnation and sparked prolonged local protests demanding accountability. Beyond the criminal conviction tied to the protest, the disciplinary case also incorporated separate allegations of professional malpractice involving the mishandling of an estate and the collection of unauthorized fees.

The Chronology of an Incident and Its Legal Aftermath

The timeline of events leading up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s recent decision spans several years, marked by escalating legal battles, a criminal trial, and professional disciplinary inquiries.

In May 2020, the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer triggered global demonstrations demanding racial justice and police accountability. Communities across the United States, including suburban Milwaukee, saw frequent gatherings and marches organized under the banner of Black Lives Matter.

On June 6, 2020, roughly one month after Floyd’s death, a peaceful demonstration took place in Shorewood, Wisconsin. Stephanie Rapkin, who was then a practicing attorney in the area, encountered the group of predominantly young demonstrators. According to court filings and video evidence, a verbal confrontation ensued between Rapkin and several teenagers participating in the protest.

During the altercation, Rapkin stepped toward a 17-year-old Black teenager and spat directly in his face. The moment was filmed by bystanders and quickly drew the intervention of local law enforcement. In the immediate aftermath, Rapkin faced intense public backlash, leading local authorities to review the evidence for potential criminal charges.

By June 2020, Rapkin was criminally charged. However, the legal process moved slowly through the state court system, exacerbated by various procedural motions and continuances. It was not until April 2023—nearly three years after the incident—that Rapkin was formally convicted of misdemeanor disorderly conduct in connection with the spitting episode.

Parallel to the criminal proceedings, the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) launched an investigation into Rapkin’s conduct to determine whether her actions violated professional ethics rules governing members of the state bar.

Estate Management Allegations and Regulatory Noncompliance

The disciplinary complaint brought forward by the OLR was not limited to the criminal conviction stemming from the Shorewood protest. Regulators also uncovered separate ethical and professional violations tied to Rapkin’s active law practice, specifically concerning her handling of probate and estate matters.

According to reports from Wisconsin Public Radio and official OLR filings, Rapkin was accused of grossly mismanaging a client’s estate. Investigators found that she had charged nearly $19,000 in what were categorized as "improper fees." Under Wisconsin Supreme Court rules governing attorneys, charging unreasonable or unauthorized fees constitutes a direct violation of professional conduct standards.

Furthermore, the disciplinary process was complicated by Rapkin’s failure to cooperate with investigators and the court-appointed referee assigned to her case. During the investigation, the referee repeatedly attempted to contact Rapkin to address the allegations regarding the estate management and the criminal conviction. Rapkin largely ignored these inquiries, responding only with a brief email stating that she had retired from the practice of law.

Legal experts note that an attorney’s attempt to withdraw or claim retirement does not absolve them of accountability for past professional misconduct or shield them from disciplinary proceedings initiated by the state bar. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s final order reflected this principle, factoring her lack of cooperation and separate financial improprieties into the ultimate severity of the one-year suspension.

Broader Context and Professional Standards for Attorneys

The case of Stephanie Rapkin highlights the complex intersection between personal conduct and professional licensure for attorneys in the United States. While lawyers are granted substantial privileges through admission to the bar, they are simultaneously held to rigorous ethical standards designed to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.

Under the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct—upon which many state bar rules are modeled—attorneys can be disciplined for criminal acts that reflect adversely on their honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. Conduct involving violence, dishonesty, or a reckless disregard for the safety and dignity of others is frequently viewed by state disciplinary boards as a direct breach of the oath of admission.

When attorneys engage in high-profile misconduct, it often triggers wider conversations within the legal community regarding systemic biases, accountability, and the public perception of justice. The Black Lives Matter protests of 2020 served as a crucible for such discussions, as members of various professions—including medicine, law enforcement, and law—faced scrutiny for their public reactions to the racial justice movement.

In Wisconsin, as in other jurisdictions, the Office of Lawyer Regulation operates as an arm of the state supreme court to investigate grievances, protect the public, and deter future misconduct. The imposition of a one-year suspension is a significant sanction, signaling to the legal community that actions bringing public disrepute to the profession carry severe professional consequences.

Official Responses and Implications for Future Practice

While formal public statements from defense counsel or Rapkin herself regarding the specific details of the supreme court’s final order have been limited, the implications of the ruling are clear. A one-year suspension means that Rapkin is entirely prohibited from practicing law, counseling clients, or representing interests in any legal capacity within the state of Wisconsin for the duration of the penalty period.

To resume practicing law after a suspension of this magnitude in Wisconsin, an attorney must typically satisfy rigorous reinstatement requirements. These often include proving rehabilitation, demonstrating compliance with all continuing legal education requirements, paying the costs of the disciplinary proceedings, and satisfying any restitution orders related to financial improprieties, such as the disputed estate fees.

Legal analysts point out that cases involving non-client-related criminal conduct combined with active client mismanagement rarely result in leniency from state high courts. By explicitly stating that Rapkin’s actions were an "embarrassment to the bar," the Wisconsin Supreme Court reinforced the principle that membership in the legal profession is a revocable privilege tied to high standards of personal and professional conduct.

As the legal system continues to grapple with the fallout from the social tensions of recent years, rulings of this nature serve as a benchmark for how state judiciaries intend to police the conduct of officers of the court. The conclusion of this disciplinary case officially closes a lengthy chapter of litigation arising from a single volatile afternoon in the summer of 2020, leaving a permanent record of accountability within the annals of the Wisconsin bar.