State Bar of Wisconsin

Teleconference - Meeting Minutes
December 11, 2002
State Bar Center and Various Locations

Members Attending by Teleconference: Pam Barker, John Decker, Dean Dietrich, John Goudie, Patricia Klitzke-Wickersham, Marie Koster, Shawn Olley

Non-Member Participants Also Attending by Teleconference: Barb Morin, Keith Sellen,

Also Attending by Teleconference: Dan Rossmiller

The conference call was called to order at 4:00 p.m.

Attorney Dean Dietrich began the conversation by outlining the differences between the two competing drafts of the proposed ethical rules for paralegals. (Atty. Dietrich had developed the language of both drafts.)

He explained that the longer of the two drafts reflects in large part the rules originally drafted and submitted by the task force in June 2000, with a number of deletions in certain subject areas where lawyers' duties are enumerated by the attorneys' code of professional responsibility in SCR 20. As currently drafted, this version parallels chapter SCR 20 but only with respect to matters relating to paralegal practice.

Atty. Dietrich explained that the shorter version is a less formal version that attempts to capture areas of obligation where a paralegal's obligation would be the same as those to which attorneys would be subject. This shorter version was presented to the task force and reviewed in some detail at the last task force meeting held on July 31, 2002. Much of that review was to make sure that the proposed paralegal rules were consistent with the same standards by which lawyers are governed.

A discussion ensued among the members as to which of the versions was preferred and which should be recommended for inclusion in the final report. Although it was suggested that the short version might be preferred by regulators because it would set up a discrete set of standards for paralegals that would not so closely parallel the framework for lawyer regulation, Atty. Keith Sellen, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), indicated that in his view, the longer form of the rule might be preferable. (The Office of Lawyer Regulation would be charged under either version of the proposed rules to regulate conduct of paralegals.) Atty. Sellen noted, however, that his office would administer and could administer whatever set of rules were to be adopted.

Mr. John Goudie suggested that regardless of which version of the ethics rules the task force included in the final draft, the task force should impress upon the court the time and effort that had been involved in developing the proposal and the serious deliberation that have been given the proposal.

Through the course of a discussion by members, a consensus gradually developed that the long form version of the ethical rules should be included in the task force's report as the preferred version.

Chairperson Pam Barker followed up on the thought of Mr. John Goudie and suggested that the task force include the long form version of the ethics rules in the proposed rule but also put the short form version in the appendix with a note indicating that it (the short form version) had been considered by the task force. This, she noted, would not preclude the court from seeing the short version. She further noted that the court will read the appendices to the report and petition.

Ms. Shawn Olley recommended that the task force report show all the versions that the task force has gone through. This would demonstrate the thoughtful nature of the deliberations. She also recommended that this be expressed in a cover letter to accompany the report.

Motion for Inclusion of Ethics Provisions

A motion was made by Ms. Shawn Olley and to adopt the long version of the ethics rule as part of the text to be presented to the court and to include the short version in a revised appendix to the report. The motion was seconded by Atty. John Goudie and was adopted unanimously.

Task Force Chairperson Pamela Barker outlined for members the next steps in the process, which she noted will be try to secure the support of the OLR and the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) so the Bar, the Task Force and the OLR and BBE can come before the Court and say that all are united. She wants to come to Madison to visit with Atty. Sellen to discuss strategy. She said it is her impression that the OLR knows something of the proposal but is not familiar with the specifics of it. She noted that OLR has been reluctant to look at the proposal until it is drafted in final form. She indicated that OLR will be concerned with the ethical component of the rules and the conduct regulating components, which BBE will be concerned with the provisions detailing the educational component.

Atty. Sellen noted that the OLR Board of Administrative Oversight next meets in March and that is when he would present whatever he has. He anticipates it would be an action item in June to support whatever petition might be filed. He noted that the OLR Board is composed of completely different members than the former Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR). Atty. Sellen indicated that if the petition were prepared, it would be appropriate to send a copy of it to the Chair, Bill Levit. He indicated that the Board likes to come to consensus on matters and said, "We almost always do."

The Task Force then considered a request by Mr. David Dies, Executive Secretary of the Educational Approval Board, that the task force include language in the proposed rules to allow an individual who has successfully completed a paralegal program at an institution approved by the state Educational Approval Board (EAB) to meet the criteria required for initial licensure. The EAB is an independent state agency responsible to regulating and monitoring for-profit postsecondary schools; out-of-state, non-profit colleges and universities; and in-state, nonprofit institutions incorporated after 1991. Mr. Dies' letter indicates the EAB currently oversees three schools that offer paralegal programs.

Several members requested information about the EAB's role in supervising these schools. Several other members expressed concerns about problems that had arisen with respect to certain paralegal programs in the state and wanted to know which specific schools were under EAB supervision. Dan Rossmiller accessed information on the EAB website and relayed it to the task force members. Particular concern was expressed over the inclusion of the MBTI Business Training Institute on the list of EAB-approved schools. Although that particular school is apparently going out of business, there were a number of problems reported with its program and the fact that it had been approved by the EAB raised concerns about the standards used by the EAB to approve schools and to monitor approved schools and their curricula.

A consensus developed that the rule should be left as it is with no change. Without objection, the rule will remain as is.

Chair Pam Barker indicated that a letter should be sent to the Educational Approval informing them of the Task Force decisions and letting them know that we will keep the Board informed as to when the petition will be taken to the Court. The EAB will have an opportunity to make its case to the court at that time. She requested that staff prepare such a letter to Mr. Dies, the Executive Secretary of the Educational Approval Board.

The conference call was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Daniel Rossmiller, Reporter

Paralegal Task Force Main