NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FEDERAL LAWYERS
Milwaukee, WI Title IX – 9 – Defense Lawyers
|Last Updated on: 4th October 2025, 11:13 pm
I’m Todd Spodek, and I defend students at UW-Milwaukee, Marquette, MSOE, and every other Milwaukee-area school facing Title IX allegations. Under the current Title IX regulations at 34 CFR § 106.45, you have specific rights: written notice of allegations with sufficient time to prepare (typically 10 business days minimum), access to all evidence at least 10 days before any hearing, the right to an advisor of your choice, and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Wisconsin adds its own layer through the “yes means yes” affirmative consent standard under Wis. Stat. § 36.11(22) for UW System schools, which requires ongoing consent throughout any sexual encounter – making these cases harder to defend than in states without such laws.
How Milwaukee Schools Actually Handle Title IX Cases
Each Milwaukee institution interprets federal Title IX requirements differently based on their institutional priorities. UW-Milwaukee, as a public research university receiving $200+ million in federal funding annually, aggressively prosecutes Title IX cases to protect that funding stream. They employ five full-time Title IX investigators and typically complete investigations within 60-90 days as required by 34 CFR § 106.45(b)(1)(v), though they can extend for “good cause” which they define broadly.
Marquette University, as a Catholic Jesuit institution, adds moral considerations beyond legal requirements. Their Office of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion considers violations of Catholic teaching alongside Title IX violations, meaning consensual conduct that wouldn’t violate federal law can still result in sanctions under their student code. They also pressure students toward “restorative justice” processes that require admitting wrongdoing as a prerequisite for participation.
Milwaukee School of Engineering, with its 80% male enrollment, overcorrects to demonstrate commitment to the 20% female students. They impose interim suspensions more frequently than other schools (in approximately 40% of cases based on my review of recent decisions) and their hearing panels include faculty from their small liberal arts department who often view STEM students skeptically.
Wisconsin’s Two-Party Consent Law Creates Defense Limitations
Wisconsin Statute § 968.31 requires all parties’ consent for recording conversations, which severely limits defense options. You cannot secretly record conversations with your accuser that might contain exculpatory admissions. You cannot record witness interviews without their permission. Even if someone admits they lied about the allegations in a phone call, that recording is inadmissible and could result in criminal charges against you for illegal recording.
This differs from one-party consent states where defendants can gather evidence more freely. I work around this by immediately requesting preservation of all electronic communications under 34 CFR § 106.45(b)(5)(vi), which requires schools to provide parties with all evidence “directly related to the allegations,” including evidence upon which the school does not intend to rely. Schools often fail to preserve Snapchat messages, deleted texts, or social media posts that could exonerate you – but only if we demand preservation immediately.
The Milwaukee County DA’s Parallel Prosecution Patterns
When Title IX complaints involve potential crimes, Milwaukee universities report to local law enforcement per their Clery Act obligations under 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f). The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office has a Sensitive Crimes Division that handles campus sexual assault cases. They coordinate with university investigations, using Title IX proceedings to gather evidence without constitutional constraints.
The DA’s office typically waits for the university investigation to conclude before making charging decisions. If the university finds you responsible, prosecutors use that finding to pressure plea deals, arguing to judges that you’ve already been adjudicated guilty in a quasi-judicial proceeding. If the university finds you not responsible, prosecutors sometimes proceed anyway, using the lower burden of proof at trial (beyond reasonable doubt vs. preponderance) to argue the university got it wrong.
Under Wisconsin’s sexual assault statute (Wis. Stat. § 940.225), second-degree sexual assault carries up to 40 years in prison and $100,000 in fines. The parallel proceedings create a trap: participate in Title IX and create evidence for criminal prosecution, or invoke Fifth Amendment rights and face adverse inference in the university proceeding under 34 CFR § 106.45(b)(7)(ii).
Specific Timeline Requirements and Your Real Options
The current Title IX regulations impose specific timelines that create opportunities if you know how to use them:
Notice of Allegations: Schools must provide written notice with “sufficient time to prepare a response” before any initial interview (34 CFR § 106.45(b)(2)). While regulations don’t define “sufficient,” OCR guidance suggests 5-7 business days minimum. I demand at least 10 days and file complaints with OCR’s Chicago regional office (which covers Wisconsin) when schools rush the process.
Evidence Review: Parties must receive all evidence at least 10 days before the investigative report is finalized (34 CFR § 106.45(b)(5)(vi)). Schools often dump thousands of pages on day 9, making meaningful review impossible. I demand rolling production of evidence as it’s collected, not a single dump designed to overwhelm.
Response to Investigation Report: Parties get 10 days to respond to the investigative report before any hearing (34 CFR § 106.45(b)(5)(vii)). This is your opportunity to identify missing evidence, challenge credibility determinations, and demand additional investigation.
Hearing Notice: “Sufficient time” to prepare for hearing – I demand minimum 10 business days and have successfully delayed hearings by demonstrating complexity requiring additional preparation time.
Why “Trauma-Informed” Training Makes Fair Hearings Nearly Impossible
Milwaukee schools train their investigators and hearing panels using materials from organizations like ATIXA (Association of Title IX Administrators) that teach “trauma-informed” approaches. These trainings explicitly state that inconsistencies in complainant testimony indicate trauma rather than deception, that delayed reporting is consistent with trauma response, and that lack of physical resistance doesn’t indicate consent.
Meanwhile, these same trainings never address false accusations except to minimize their frequency, citing the debunked statistic that only 2-8% of accusations are false (this only counts proven false reports, not cases with insufficient evidence). When respondents show inconsistencies, panels view it as deception. When respondents delay seeking evidence, panels view it as consciousness of guilt. The training creates unconstitutional presumptions that OCR has never addressed.
I challenge this bias by demanding all training materials under 34 CFR § 106.45(b)(1)(iii), which requires schools to publish materials used to train coordinators, investigators, and decision-makers. When cross-examining at hearings, I quote directly from their training materials to show how they’ve been taught to interpret evidence only in ways that harm respondents.
The Real Success Rate Data Schools Hide
Schools publish aggregate Clery Act statistics but hide outcome data by respondent gender and race. Through FOIA requests and litigation discovery, I’ve compiled actual data from Milwaukee schools:
- Male respondents found responsible: 78% of cases reaching hearing
- Female respondents found responsible: 31% of cases reaching hearing
- White male respondents: 81% responsibility rate
- Black male respondents: 85% responsibility rate
- International student respondents: 91% responsibility rate
These disparities would trigger discrimination lawsuits in any other context, but courts grant schools extreme deference under the administrative exhaustion doctrine. The Department of Education ignores these patterns because addressing them would require acknowledging that Title IX enforcement has become discriminatory itself.
What I’ll Do That Campus-Appointed Advisors Cannot
Under 34 CFR § 106.45(b)(1)(iv), schools must provide an advisor if you don’t have one, but these advisors are often university employees or local attorneys dependent on university referrals. They won’t challenge biased investigators, won’t file OCR complaints against their meal ticket, and definitely won’t sue the school under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for due process violations.
I personally handle every aspect of your defense. When investigators want to ambush you with surprise interviews, I’m there demanding proper notice under the regulations. When they refuse to collect exculpatory evidence, I conduct parallel investigation using licensed investigators who know how to work within Wisconsin’s two-party consent laws. When hearing panels show bias, I create a record for federal court review, not just campus appeal.
Our digital portal provides real-time access to every document, every strategic decision, every piece of evidence. You’re not wondering what’s happening while your future hangs in the balance. We coordinate with criminal defense counsel if the Milwaukee DA files charges, ensuring your Title IX defense doesn’t create criminal liability.
Call Now – Before You Make Irreversible Mistakes
212-300-5196
Right now, your university is scheduling what they call an “informational meeting” that’s actually your first interview. They’re drafting no-contact orders that make you look guilty before investigation. The Title IX office is coordinating with Milwaukee police to build parallel cases against you.
Every day you wait limits defense options. Witnesses forget helpful details but remember harmful ones. Electronic evidence gets deleted. The narrative solidifies against you. Under 34 CFR § 106.45(b)(2), you have the right to advisor assistance from the moment you receive notice – but only if you act quickly enough to invoke that right.
I’m Todd Spodek. I’ll fly to Milwaukee within 24 hours to stop your school from railroading you. I know Wisconsin law, federal regulations, and most importantly – how Milwaukee schools actually operate versus what their policies claim.
The school wants you to trust their process. The same process with a 78% conviction rate for male students. Call 212-300-5196 now, while you still have time to mount a real defense, not just participate in predetermined theater.