State Bar Board of Governors supports electronic filing in appellate court and opposes BBE’s proposed conditional admission petition, among other actions
At its Sept. 12- 13 meeting the Board of Governors took up 10 petitions – from electronic filing to unpublished opinions to Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) rule changes, to citation of unpublished opinions for certain purposes, to reserving the right to file an amicus on Siefert v. Alexander.
Electronic filing petitions. The board supported two petitions filed by the court of appeals regarding electronic filing of appellate briefs, with the recommendation that the court require any electronic copies served by represented parties also be delivered to any unrepresented parties to the litigation.
Petitions 08-15 and 08-18 require that an electronic copy of every brief, no-merit report, or petition to review be filed with the clerk of the supreme court or the clerk of court of appeals, and they change the current rules with respect to filing paper copies. The rule also would permit filing an electronic copy of the appendices of those documents.
The petition as it is drafted requires attorneys to file electronic copies but does not require unrepresented parties to do so. The rule also does not allow unrepresented parties to access electronic copies of the briefs that have been filed.
The Appellate Practice Section takes no position on either petition, but recommended the changeadopted by the Board of Governors. The supreme court has set a public hearing on both petitions for Oct. 28.
BBE petitions. The board opposed one and supported five Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) petitions, currently pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The board opposed petition 08-13, relating to conditional admission to the Bar, unless a confidentiality provision is included.
“Currently the BBE, in considering an applicant for Bar admission, has only two options available – to recommend for or against,” BBE Review Committee Chair Bob Asti told the board. “Conditional admission would give the BBE a third alternative and would allow appropriate admission on a temporary basis to individuals who may have a problem that is under control.
“A confidential conditional admission program provides an
incentive for applicants to continue their treatment, particularly when
compared to a petition for review, where the supreme court issues a
written opinion that may contain sensitive information about the
applicant,” said
Citing the
In December 2007, the board approved in principle the concept of conditional bar admission and directed the State Bar BBE Review Committee to work with the BBE and the State Bar to draft a petition for submittal to the supreme court. The rule, drafted by members of the State Bar BBE Review and Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program committees and the BBE, would give the BBE flexibility to approve the admission of applicants otherwise qualified who have difficulties such as alcohol or drug abuse, a criminal record, financial mismanagement issues, or mental or emotional issues. However, the BBE petition submitted to the court on May 1, 2008 does not include a confidentiality provision.
The supreme court has not set a hearing for this petition.
The board unanimously supported BBE petition 08-04, relating to procedures for reporting CLE credits. The State Bar BBE Committee unanimously supports this petition. The supreme court has set a public hearing for Oct. 14.
The board supported petitions 08-05, 08-06, and 08-14, relating to noncompliance with CLE requirements and reinstatement, filing documents relating to CLE requirements, and applications for admission under the diploma privilege. The State Bar BBE Review Committee supports petitions 08-05 and 08-06. The supreme court has set a public hearing for Nov. 10.
The board supported petition 08-07, petition relating to admitting lawyers upon proof of practice elsewhere. The supreme court has set a public hearing date for Nov. 18.
Administrative law judges State Bar membership categories. The board unanimously supported a petition to revise SCR 10.03(3), regarding State Bar classes of membership.
The petition was submitted by the Membership Categories Study Committee, which was appointed in September 2007 by then President Tom Basting in response to petition 06-09 filed in December 2006 by U.S. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Ronald G. Bernoski. Petition 06-09 requested that, even though they are employees of the executive branch of government, ALJs should be classified as judicial members of the State Bar rather than as attorney members.
Following a public hearing in April 2007, the Wisconsin Supreme Court asked the State Bar to investigate the various classes of membership and how those classes interacted with the various disciplinary rules and continuing education rules.
Under the State Bar’s proposed rule, the types of members
classified as judicial members would include only those members who
serve in a judicial capacity and are not allowed to practice law in
addition to their adjudicative responsibilities. The new rule specifies
with more clarity who are judicial members and adds supreme court
commissioners, court of appeals staff attorneys, and federal
administrative law judges to that category. The petition also specifies
that inactive members may not transfer to emeritus status if they have
not actively practiced law in
Appointment/elections. The board approved President Diel’s Nomination Committee appointments for the FY 09 elections.
Wayne Arnold,
The board approved the reappointment of John Bermingham,
To read petitions pending before the Wisconsin Supreme court or to listen to the public hearings, visit the Supreme Court Website.
Minutes will be posted to WisBar after approval at the December meeting.
The State Bar
