State Bar of Wisconsin

Meeting Minutes
January 6, 2000
State Bar Center
Madison

Chair Attorney Pam Barker called the meeting to order at approximately 2:00 p.m. Present were Task Force members Attorney Casey Andringa, John Goudie, Marie Koster, Attorney Gene Rankin, Attorney Frank Remington and Attorney Mary Triggiano Hunt. Attending via telephone were Attorney John Frank, Rochelle Lowenhagen and Christine Ouimet-Durow. Also in attendance were guest Patricia Klitzke-Wickersham and staff liaison Linda Barth.

Chair Barker said that her goal was to get the Task Force report before the State Bar Board of Governors at their April 14th meeting as a reporting item. The Task Force can then address any issues raised by the Board in April before their June meeting, where the report will be a voting item on their agenda.

The Chair also asked Ms. Barth to complete a budget request for FY 2001. She noted that funds will be needed if the Board of Governors asks the Task Force to do more work or for implementation if the Board adopts the report.

The Group reviewed the September 14, 1999 minutes and instructed Ms. Barth to correct the spelling of Mr. Goudie's name, correct the use of "cherry-picked" on page two and correct the typo on page one. Attorney Andringa moved and Mr. Goudie seconded approval of the minutes as amended. The motion passed.

Attorney Remington asked if Ms. Klitzke-Wickersham could be added to the mailing list and everyone agreed.

The Task Force then considered the questions posed by a paralegal via email to Ms. Barth. The paralegal asked a question regarding the hours she worked as a paralegal, wondering how she would fit in the proposed grandfather clause.

Mr. Goudie noted that the definition answers her questions. Chair Barker noted that there is no cold objective form, lawyers will use their own judgment in certifying. Attorney Andringa added that the paralegal will then need to get ethics credits and take continuing education classes...the reality is that there may not be a large "run on the bank" to do this.

The Task Force discussed the paralegal's particular circumstances and determined that she would meet the grandfather clause and her employer could sign the affidavit to certify her work as a paralegal under the current proposal. The group asked Ms. Barth to answer the paralegal.

The group looked at the ABA Journal (October 1999) article entitled "Open Season on Paralegal Licenses, N.J. Supreme Court shoots down licensing proposal opposed by ABA, others". Mr. Goudie said there are two differences between the Task Force's efforts and the New Jersey proposal: 1. The New Jersey group worked in a vacuum and did not open the process up like we have. 2. The New Jersey plan was skewed towards independent practice. Chair Barker explained that the article provides the group with an idea of some of the debate around the issue and she asked Ms. Barth to save the article for the next meeting.

Attorney Rankin said that the Massachusetts School of Law sought to have students take the Wisconsin Bar exam. The ABA disapproved vigorously but our Court was sympathetic to opening doors. I think the Court may accept this petition. The grandfathering clause will be the most difficult provision.

The group turned to the report and said that everyone should make any changes and get them to Ms. Barth as an email attachment.

Mr. Goudie distributed a new introduction. The group reviewed the new material which compared ABA paralegal definitions from different years. They all agreed that the comparison was not necessary and Mr. Goudie said he would take the paragraph out.

The group turned to the definition chapter and Chair Barker said that according to the format the group selected, the language should come first and the commentary should follow. She asked Ms. Barth to make the formatting changes. The group discussed the commentary regarding the development of the definition and agreed that the geographic distinctions were not necessary. The group also agreed that there should not be names in the commentary but, instead, names with short biographies will be included as an appendix.

In the standards chapter, Attorney Remington pointed out that there was overlap with this chapter and the ethics chapter. Chair Barker said that the Standards Subcommittee will set up a telephone conference to discuss rewriting the standards chapter so as not to overlap with the ethics chapter.

The group discussed implementation. Attorney Rankin said that this is where the true crunch will come, you will need the blessings of the agencies if you plan to fold paralegal practice into existing programs. Chair Barker explained it is like the chicken and the egg--which comes first. In initial meetings we have been told that we can't take our report to the Board of Governors until we have the blessings of BBE and BAPR. On the other hand, we're told that the BBE Board and BAPR Board do not want to consider our report until we have the blessings of the State Bar Board of Governors. She said that the Task Force will not go to the Supreme Court before going to the BBE Board and BAPR Board.

Mr. Goudie asked if the report would have a conclusion. Attorney Andringa said that the next step, approaching the BBE Board and the BAPR Board, would have to be a recommendation. Chair Barker agreed that without that recommendation the report would be missing a step.

Attorney Andringa said that the introduction should also provide information pertaining to the fact that BBE and BAPR has been kept informed about the Task Force's work.

In the education chapter the group agreed that the reference to "LTC" would be deleted. Some grammatical changes were suggested in the ethics chapter.

Chair Barker indicated that changes should be made to the chapters and sent as attachments to emails to Ms. Barth. She would reformat the chapters and copy them to a disc. In the meantime, the Chair would seek an editor to work on a final draft of the report.

The group set the next meeting for March 1, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. at the State Bar Center.

Paralegal Task Force Main