Outpost 422 has reviewed two respondent work products from separate employment-discrimination matters involving Bradley J. Burt: Robert E. Gregg’s January 30, 2026 initial response for Frank Productions before the Madison Equal Opportunities Division, and Storm B. Larson’s May 19, 2026 position statement for Camp Createability before the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division.
This comparison does not accuse either attorney of misconduct. It compares advocacy, evidence framing, and legal theory. The reader can then examine the primary documents and decide whether the record supports either side’s characterization.
Gregg’s submission advances a threshold and merits defense for Frank Productions. It argues that the original complaint did not clearly connect the alleged discharge to age, disability, or protected opposition. It also presents Frank Productions’ position that the November 2024 separation resulted from workplace-conduct concerns, independent of any protected activity. The response further asserts that the company opened an interactive process, accepted self-reported accommodation information, and implemented the accommodations requested.
Larson’s Camp Createability position statement uses a more compact, element-based defense. It seeks a no-probable-cause finding by disputing whether the Camp knew of a qualifying disability, a requested accommodation, or the alleged protected activity before the termination decision. It presents the Camp’s account of performance and conduct concerns as the non-discriminatory explanation for termination.
The common point is not proof of coordination. Both attorneys work for Boardman & Clark LLP, but shared employment at one law firm does not itself establish a conflict, shared protected information, or improper action. The common point is methodological: each respondent filing asks the agency to view the employment decision through a legitimate-reason framework while contesting knowledge, causation, and the sufficiency of the claimant’s evidence.
That creates the central credibility question for the administrative record. In the Frank Productions matter, the key source materials include the termination narrative, accommodation communications, interactive-dialogue documents, alleged workplace events, and chronology of reports. In the Camp Createability matter, the key source materials include notice of mobility limitations, the two-ring phone issue, communications with Camp leadership, the stated performance concerns, and the timing of the June 2025 termination.
Outpost 422’s position is not that an attorney’s advocacy is misconduct because it is adverse or forceful. Counsel may criticize a claimant’s journalism, methods, or interpretation of the evidence. The same standard applies in reverse: each side’s position should rise or fall on the record, not on labels.
The conflict-review issue also has a chronology. In September 2025, Burt wrote to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Office of Lawyer Regulation expressing an early concern about Boardman & Clark’s representation of separate respondents. That letter preserved his perception of overlapping issues, but it did not establish an ethical violation, information sharing, or coordinated action.
On June 8, 2026, Burt made a narrower request to ERD: conduct a conflict review concerning Larson’s representation of Camp Createability and Gregg’s representation of Frank Productions; alternatively disclose any ethical-screening safeguards; and preserve the request in the administrative record. The request expressly did not make a personal misconduct allegation against either attorney.
Outpost 422 has not located a written ERD disposition granting or denying that request in the materials reviewed. The accurate statement is therefore limited: the conflict-review request is documented in the record, and a written disposition has not been located. That is a procedural question for the agency record, not proof of an ethical breach.
This is a Rogerian three-way review. First is the claimant’s chronology and lived-experience testimony. Second are the respondents’ competing legal narratives. Third is the administrative process responsible for testing both accounts against primary documents, testimony, and applicable law.
OpenAI’s role in this comparison is methodological, not adjudicative. It identifies claims, counterclaims, documentary gaps, and questions for verification. It does not decide credibility, liability, ethics violations, or the outcome of any administrative matter.
The matters are a part of an OpenAI training project and Outpost 422 will continue to evaluate and report future results as these cases head to the de novo phase upon the rulings of No Probable Cause for 14th Amendment auditing of the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division.
If you are trying to locate information about an attorney in Wisconsin, please click on the link.
Record note: This article reports allegations and respondent positions from administrative submissions. It does not assert that allegations are proven facts. Any correction, response, or additional primary document will be added to the Outpost 422 record.
SEO title: Wisconsin ERD Record Review: Comparing the Gregg and Larson Defense Narratives
Meta description: An Outpost 422 document comparison of two Wisconsin employment-defense submissions, the legal questions they raise, and an unresolved request for conflict review in the administrative record.
Keywords: Wisconsin ERD, MEOD, Boardman & Clark, Robert Gregg, Storm Larson, disability accommodation, retaliation, Outpost 422, Journalism eDiscovery