State Bar of Wisconsin

Published by the Government Lawyers Division of the State Bar of Wisconsin - September 2006

GLD Web Page | Board Roster | Archive | Contact Us

• President’s Message
• Limited “Jargonese” at ABA Technology Conference
• Ethics 2000: Highlights of Pending Changes to the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct Affecting Government Lawyers
• Kudos for Pro Bono Work go to Cari Anne Renlund
• Federal Attorneys: Dual Obligations Under Federal Ethics Laws and Regulations and State Professional Responsibility Rules – Some Thoughts
• State Bar Law Office Management Assistance Program Benefits Government Lawyers
• State Government Lawyers Reach Bargaining Agreements
• National Child Support Enforcement Association Conference Wrap Up
• Deep In Our Hearts

President’s Message

By James Godlewski, GLD President

Leadership change at the Government Lawyers Division

James Godlewski

Earlier this summer, the division received both bad news and good news. First, the bad news: GLD President-elect Bruce Munson, unfortunately, resigned his position with the division due to his concern that there was a potential conflict of interest with his position as Revisor of Statutes.

Bruce began his service with the GLD board in 1999. He actively contributed to the division’s programs and significantly contributed to the development and redesign of the division’s home page on wisbar.org.

He also actively promoted and planned division-sponsored CLE training that helped Wisconsin lawyers assist military personnel with their legal needs. His contributions to the division over the years have been great, and his participation will be sorely missed! Thanks, Bruce, for your contributions. On behalf of the GLD; we wish you continued good fortune!

The good news is that the GLD board appointed board member William Domina to fill the remainder of the President-elect term. Bill is currently Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel. Previously, he served in the same capacity in Waukesha County. Bill has been on the GLD board since 2005. He is also very active in State Bar of Wisconsin governance. He serves as a Board of Governor representative from District 2 (Milwaukee County) and is currently a member of the Executive Committee in addition to his duties as chair of the Bar’s Finance Committee. As the GLD Board navigates the new State Bar budget rules and strategic planning requirements, Bill’s leadership experience already is proving valuable to the Government Lawyers Division.

Under our division bylaws, the president-elect assumes the position of president of the division at the end of the two-year term. Consequently, Bill will assume the division presidency at the conclusion of my term June 30, 2007. Thank you, Bill, for your willingness to step up and serve!

Needs Study Committee Moves Forward with Survey

As I reported in my last column, the division’s strategic plan includes assessing the professional needs of division members and developing strategies for the division and State Bar to help meet those needs. The Needs Study Committee, chaired by Attorney Mike Kernats, currently is busy developing an online survey that will be sent to division members later this fall. Be watching for that survey – your input is vital to the division in its efforts to develop programs that help meet government lawyers’ professional needs!

CLE Offerings

The First Amendment in Government Practice

Speaking of meeting government lawyer’s professional needs, the Government Lawyers Division is actively developing continuing legal education seminars specifically tailored to the government law practice. The division’s CLE Committee’s fall seminar (Live: September 27, 2006; video replay: October 25, 2006) is “The First Amendment in Government Practice.” We anticipate that it will be a fascinating presentation.

• More information or to register

ABA Section: State & Local Government Law Fall CLE

State Bar Administrative Law Section Chair Dick Lehman and I have been working closely with the ABA’s State & Local Government Law Section on its fall section meeting and CLE program in Madison. This event is now scheduled for Friday, Oct. 13, 2006 at the Hilton Madison Monona Terrace.

I am very pleased to report to you that the ABA Section offers reduced registration tuition for Wisconsin lawyers attending its CLE program. Topics range from 4^th Amendment issues to telecommunications law to Wisconsin land use law, including a mobile land use tour.

• More information or to register 102 KB

Pro Bono Service and Government Lawyers

In this edition of the GLD News, we are highlighting the pro bono service efforts of Department of Transportation attorney Cari Anne Renlund. You may not know that the State Bar of Wisconsin now offers malpractice insurance coverage to members on matters for pre-screened, low-income clients who are referred by the Bar’s Pro Bono coordinator. Members who volunteer in local legal clinics cosponsored by the State Bar are also covered. The insurance is through the National Legal Aid and Defender Association Insurance Program. Government, in-house, part-time, and retired lawyers can utilize this benefit. Read the article about Attorney Renlund, visit www.wisbar.org/probono for more information, and then contact State Bar Pro Bono Coordinator Jeff Brown at (608) 250-6177 to discuss volunteering.

Top of page

Limited “Jargonese” at ABA Technology Conference

By William Domina, GLD President-elect

Each year a premier legal technology conference is held just to the south of our border. The ABA Tech Show was held last April in Chicago, and I attended on behalf of the Government Lawyers Division. This was my first visit to this annual ABA event; I was very pleased with the amount of useful information that was showcased and applicable to a government law office.

I enjoyed presentations that involved the macro of running a government office including file management and the risks of Metadata when transferring files electronically to the micro of case management including the benefits and detriments of power point and the most useful Web sites. As a relative techno-neophyte, I was very pleased with the lack of techno-“jargonese.” I especially enjoyed the very practical presentation entitled 60 sites in 60 minutes. From the serious to the humorous, I found these Internet tips to be very worthwhile.

In addition to the series of seminars, a complete vendor expo featured products that a government lawyer might find useful. These products spanned the gamut from hardware, such as external hard-drives, to support email and electronic calendar maintenance and software, such as file and record management.

All in all, if you are looking for a good show on technology where many of the nation’s experts are represented, I recommend spending some of your CLE budget on attending all or part of this event. The 2007 ABA TechShow is scheduled for March 22-24, 2007 in the windy city of Chicago.

• More information

Top of page

Ethics 2000: Highlights of Pending Changes to the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct Affecting Government Lawyers

By Vincent D. Moschella, Deputy City Attorney, City of Milwaukee
Stuart S. Mukamal, Assistant City Attorney, City of Milwaukee

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is considering changing the Rules of Professional Responsibility. Here is how those changes, if finally adopted, may affect government practice.

• Informed consent – This old concept would be applied to the attorney-client relationship. Prior to obtaining a client’s consent to act, an attorney’s obligation would be to explain the proposed course of conduct, its alternatives, and its risks and benefits. SCR 20:1.4 & 20:1.0(f)
• Client communication - There would now be an express duty to keep a client reasonably informed about the matter at hand. There would be an express duty to respond to a client’s reasonable requests for information. SCR 20:1.4
• Conflicts of Interest – In a government law office, your conflicts are not imputed to the other lawyers in the office. However, you would have an affirmative duty to timely screen the other lawyer from confidential information in your possession. SCR 20:1.11(f)
• Screening – You and your support staff must not communicate directly with the other lawyer or support staff on the matter at hand. This includes precautions while talking on the telephone and at meetings, and denial of access to paper and computer files. Management will have an institutional obligation to enforce screening and should adopt an appropriate internal policy. SCR 20:1.0(n) and ABA Comment [9]
• Municipal Prosecutors – An amendment to a proposed rule accepted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, makes it explicit that a municipal prosecutor would not be bound by all the same rules that bind a criminal prosecutor. Thus, you would not violate the Code when, while discussing settlement with an unrepresented defendant, you advise a defendant of the law, you advise a defendant not to obtain counsel, you advise a defendant to accept or reject a proposed settlement, you advise a defendant to waive procedural rights, you assist the defendant in completing plea forms, you inform the defendant of how the tribunal usually rules, or you fail to disclose mitigating information to the defendant. SCR 20:3.8(d) & (f)
• Rules apply to all proceedings – The definition of the term “tribunal” will be expanded to include arbitration, administrative, and legislative proceedings when the legislative body acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. Thus, the existing duties of candor and decorum toward a tribunal are extended to these areas. SCR 20:1.0(p)
• Revealing confidential information – The proposed rules state that we may reveal confidential information in order to prevent, mitigate, or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests of the municipality as a result of our individual client’s criminal or fraudulent activity, where the client has used our representation to further these acts. SCR 20:1.6(c)
• Organization as client – If you learn that someone in your government has acted or failed to act in a way that could result in substantial injury to the government, the proposed rules mandate that you discuss the matter with the “highest authority in the organization” and, if that authority fails to act, then you may disclose the confidential information outside of the government. This mandate to first discuss the matter internally would not apply if you “reasonably believe that it is not necessary in the best interest” of the government to do so. The proposed rule does not tell us if the “highest authority” for purposes of this rule is the Mayor, Village President, Town Chair, Common Council, Village Board, or Town Board. SCR 20:1.13(b)

Top of page

Kudos for Pro Bono Work go to Cari Anne Renlund

By Lennie A. Lehman, GLD Board Member

As a regular feature of this publication, the GLD commends government lawyers who offer pro bono legal services to those who can’t afford the costs of litigation. They are heroes to those whose cases they have championed; and we should not only thank them for their efforts, but follow their lead.

Cari Anne Renlund, an Assistant General Counsel at the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), deserves the praise of her fellows for her pro bono work in the area of adoptions.

In her day-job, Cari Anne provides WisDOT with legal counsel on everything from the drafting, administration, and enforcement of highway construction contracts to internal personnel matters. In her off hours, in addition to her consuming roles as wife and mother of two active boys, ages 6 and 4; she finds time to use her legal skills to help a cause she describes as “rewarding beyond words.”

Renlund joined the legal staff of WisDOT after several years in private practice with a large, Madison-based law firm. As a private bar attorney, she viewed pro bono work as a great opportunity to quickly gain courtroom experience that otherwise might be years in coming. Cari Anne had an interest in adoption issues because both her paternal grandmother and husband were adopted. She decided to set her sights on providing counsel to adoptive parents, birth mothers, and adoption agencies on the legal issues involved in domestic and international adoption, including the handling of contested termination of parental rights proceedings.

Renlund found she loved the work. After joining the ranks of government lawyers two years ago, she continued to provide pro bono services to couples hoping for a child as well as to birth mothers hoping to find better homes and limitless futures for their children. Adoption legal expenses alone often prohibit even middle-class couples from becoming the parents of an available child seeking a good home. Cari Anne says, “That fact just did not sit well with me – adoption ought not to be a privilege reserved only for the wealthy.”  Providing free legal services for potential parents enables Cari Anne to substantially reduce the financial burden of a process that is stressful even under the best of circumstances.

There are pitfalls, she points out, in performing pro bono services while simultaneously working in public service. “The work I perform must be done on my own time utilizing my own resources. I had to invest in home office equipment, and I have to make myself available during time I would otherwise reserve for my own family. It is not always easy.” And, Cari Anne advises, it is good to know your limits. For those cases likely to require too large of a time commitment, she keeps a list of referral sources nearby. Nonetheless, she says, “the rewards are amazing.”

While she does pro bono work in other areas, Cari Anne says “it is adoptions that keep me involved with pro bono cases. Imagine the satisfaction of helping to bring about the creation of two new lives – one for the newborn with a loving family and one for the birth parents, a fresh start.”

We say kudos to you, Cari Anne!

Top of page

Federal Attorneys: Dual Obligations Under Federal Ethics Laws and Regulations and State Professional Responsibility Rules¹ – Some Thoughts

By Paul Conrad, Ethics Attorney, Department of Homeland Security

As a federal ethics attorney I spend most of my days providing ethics advice to the members of my agency via telephone, email and in-person counseling, including my fellow members of the Office of Chief Counsel. I remind my fellow attorneys that their conduct is reviewed not only by their state attorney professional responsibility enforcement board, but also by the agency for violations of federal ethics laws² and regulations.³ I like to think that government attorneys are “extra-ethical,” as we are generally subject to federal, state, and local government ethics statutes and regulations, and our state rules of professional responsibility.

Federal and other government attorneys are held to a higher standard of professional conduct and ethics than our private bar brothers and sisters. Federal employees, including attorneys, are directed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in their professional dealings with the public.⁴ We also have an obligation to report agency waste, fraud and abuse of authority.⁵ We also wear many hats – advisor, litigator, regulator, and administrative decision maker.

Let us look at one example of the interplay between the federal ethics rules and state professional responsibility rules. Attorney X is planning to leave federal agency legal practice to join a private law firm specializing in federal acquisition practice. As a federal attorney, Attorney X advised agency officials on numerous agency contract legal questions, and supervised other attorneys who acted as legal advisors on particular agency contracts. The law firm would like Attorney X to use his prior connections with his agency to market his services, advertising that they now have a former agency attorney who understands the inside story on agency contracting, and that current agency contractors should retain the firm to represent them back to the agency.

What are some of the federal agency ethics rules Attorney X must consider?

1. Attorney X may not even discuss employment with a law firm that represents agency contractors, or hand them a resume, unless he or she has first disqualified himself or herself from any further dealings with the law firm, while still an agency employee. Why? The federal conflicts of interest statute, at 18 U.S.C. Section 208, and its implementing regulations at 5 C.F.R. Sections 2635.601-.606, find that such conduct would result in a criminal conflict of interest. Attorney X would be directed to provide his or her supervisor, the agency ethics official, and other interested parties with a formal written notice of recusal to avoid any possible conflict of interest.
   
   
2. Attorney X may not accept post-federal employment with a law firm to work as the firm’s representative to his or her old agency on behalf of one its clients, if the attorney worked on behalf of the agency “personally and substantially” on any such contract, and the contract still exists. Such conduct would violate the federal post-employment restriction law, and he or she would be permanently barred from representing such a client on an existing agency contract, for the life of the contract. The law does not prohibit the attorney from providing “behind the scenes” advice to a contractor, where there would be no contact with the old agency. This post-employment restriction is found at 18 U.S.C. Section 207(a) (1), with implementing regulations at 5 C.F.R.Chapters 2637 and 2641.
   
   
3. Attorney X may not accept post-employment with a law firm to work as the firm’s representative to his or her old agency on a current agency contract on behalf of one of its clients, if the attorney, while not directly working on the contract while a federal employee, did have “official responsibility” as a supervisor over other attorneys who did work directly on the agency contract during his or her last year of agency service. There is a two-year ban from the last day of federal service for such employment. The law does not prohibit the attorney from providing “behind the scenes” advice, as noted above for this attorney. This post-employment restriction is found at 18 U.S.C. Section 207 (a) (2), with implementing regulations at 5 C.F.R. Chapters 2637 and 2641.
   
   
4. If Attorney X was a high wage grade Senior Executive Service (SES) agency employee, he or she would be potentially subject to another post-federal employment restriction that would not allow him or her to represent clients to his or her old agency for one year no matter if he or she worked on contracts for the agency or not. This post-employment restriction has a number of exceptions for work with state and local governments, universities, medical facilities, and others. Again, “behind the scenes” work is allowed. This employment restriction is found at 8 U.S.C. Section 207 (c), and the exceptions at 207 (j), with implementing regulations at 5 C.F.R. Chapters 2637 and 2641.
   
   
5. If Attorney X looked only to the ABA Rules on Professional Conduct, at Model Rule 1.11(d), he or she would find the Model Rules state:

   A government lawyer cannot participate in a matter that he personally and substantially participated in as a government employee unless the lawyer obtains the consent of the former clients (appropriate government supervisor or official).

As you can see from the above examples, the federal ethics rules and statutes put another level of restrictions on federal attorney post-employment options, not required by the ABA Model Rules. Truly, federal attorneys are required to avoid the appearance of impropriety!

Top of page

State Bar Law Office Management Assistance Program Benefits Government Lawyers

By Nerino Petro, State Bar of Wisconsin LOMAP Consultant

The Law Office Management Assistance Program of the State Bar of Wisconsin assists all Wisconsin attorneys practice more effectively and more efficiently. There is a perception, unfortunately, that the LOMAP program benefits only private practice attorneys, not those in the governmental sector. This perception is not true.

There are certain constants that impact attorneys regardless of whether they are in the private or public sector. While many of the features of the LOMAP program are more helpful to those attorneys in private practice, governmental attorneys can benefit from information and help on such issues as time management, paper and e-mail overload, and quality of life and technology issues.

Recently, an attorney for a small municipality sought assistance from the LOMAP program on strategies and techniques for improving office workflow and efficiency.

Government attorneys, and all attorneys, are dealing with a deluge of documents. LOMAP can provide document management and scanning technology information.

Government lawyers can also freely take advantage of the many online resources by visiting the LOMAP WisBar web page.

Housed at the State Bar Center, LOMAP maintains a lending library of both printed and audio materials for checkout. Titles such as The Lawyer's Guide to Balancing Life and Work, “Time Mastery - 68 Ways to Maximize Your Productivity & Satisfaction” (audio CD-ROM, audio cassette) and the Lawyer's Guide to Adobe Acrobat, Second Edition are just a few examples of the resources that are pertinent to governmental sector lawyers available from the lending library. Go online to find information on the lending library, including borrowing applications, frequently asked questions and the collection list.

• More information

In addition, the Practice411 e-list is available to government attorneys. This e-list resource is open to all attorneys, legal administrators and law firm IT personnel. You can subscribe by sending an email to join-Practice411@elists.wisbar.org (leave the subject line and the body blank) or by following the instructions at www.wisbar.org/lomap.

Finally, you can contact Nerino Petro the Practice Management Advisor directly at (800) 444-9404, extension 6012.

Top of page

State Government Lawyers Reach Bargaining Agreements

By C. Mike Kernats, GLD Board Member

Editor Note: This article summarizes the most recent collective bargaining agreements negotiated by State Government lawyers. Thanks to William Gansner and Jacquelynn Rothstein for information on the Wisconsin State Attorneys Association contracts, to Diane Rondini for information on the Wisconsin Public Defenders Association contracts, and to Catharine White for information on the Wisconsin Association of State Prosecutors contracts.

State Government lawyers belong to three separate unions, or collective bargaining units. The Wisconsin State Attorneys Association (WSAA) represents most non-management lawyers employed by the Wisconsin Department of Justice and by Wisconsin State Agencies like the Departments of Transportation, Natural Resources, Workforce Development, Corrections, and Revenue. The Wisconsin Public Defenders Association (WPDA) represents most assistant state public defenders. The Wisconsin Association of State Prosecutors (WASP) represents all assistant state district attorneys.

The collective bargaining process is complex. The State of Wisconsin, through the Office of State Employment Relations (OSER) negotiates separately with each of the three government attorney unions.

After reaching tentative agreement, the collective bargaining agreements are submitted to each union’s membership for ratification. The agreements are then submitted to the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Employment Relations (JOCER) for review. If approved by JOCER, each agreement is presented to the full legislature as a separate bill. If approved by the full legislature, the collective bargaining agreements are forwarded to the governor for his approval. If approved by the governor, each collective bargaining agreement is ratified and published as a separate Wisconsin Act.

The collective bargaining agreements for all three state attorneys unions survived this full review and approval process.

Earlier this year, the three state attorney unions agreed to cooperate with each other by consulting and monitoring their separate negotiations with OSER. As a result, all three unions obtained essentially similar terms.

Wisconsin State Attorneys Association (WSAA) Contracts

I am a member of WSAA and am most familiar with the terms of that agreement. The terms for the 2005—2007 WSAA contract are:

• A 2% general wage adjustment effective June 27, 2005,
• A 2% general wage adjustment and a market adjustment of approximately $1.00 per hour effective June 25, 2006,
• A 2.25% general wage adjustment effective April 1, 2007,
• An increase in the minimum salary to $46,000 per year effective June 25, 2006.

WSAA members also received more time off:

• 3 days per year for “professional development activities” (this was in exchange for length of service payments),
• 1 additional “personal holiday” per year (for a total of 3 days to be taken by the end of 2006, for 2004, 2005, and 2006). Although this additional personal holiday is for Veterans Day, it can be taken any time during the year,
• 5 days for state bar related activities (up from 3 days in the previous agreement).
• In exchange for these terms, WSAA agreed to pay for health insurance premiums, and to have unpaid health insurance premiums for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 deducted from members’ retroactive back pay checks.

The terms for the 2003—2005 WSAA contract are:

• A 1% general wage adjustment
• A $.10/ hour general wage adjustment
• A $250 lump sum payment, effective June 27, 2004.

The Wisconsin State Attorneys Association’s (WSAA) 2005-2007 contract is ratified and published as 2005 Wis. Act. 488, effective July 22, 2006, and is available online. 6 KB

The Wisconsin State Attorneys Association’s (WSAA) 2003-2005 contract is ratified and published as 2005 Wis. Act. 489, effective July 22, 2006, and is available online. 6 KB

The text of the Wisconsin State Attorneys Association’s (WSAA) 2005-2007 collective bargaining agreement is available online. 186 KB

The text of WSAA’s 2003—2005 collective bargaining agreement is available online. 194 KB

Wisconsin Association of State Prosecutors (WASP) Contracts

The terms for the 2005-2007 WASP contract are:

• A 2% increase effective June 26, 2005,
• A 2% increase effective June 25, 2006,
• An increase in the minimum salary to $46,000 per year effective June 25, 2006,
• A market adjustment averaging about $7,000 for each member over the life of the agreement, effective June 25, 2006,
• A 2.25% increase effective April 1, 2007,
• An agreement to reimburse members for salaries lost due to 3-day temporary layoffs in 2003.

The terms for the 2003-2005 WASP contract are:

• A 1% general wage adjustment
• A $.10/ hour general wage adjustment
• A $250 lump sum payment, effective June 27, 2004,
• 1 additional personal holiday per year. Although this additional personal holiday is for Veterans Day, it can be taken any time during the year.

In exchange for these terms, WASP agreed to pay for health insurance premiums.

The Wisconsin Association of State Prosecutors’ 2005-2007 contract is ratified and published as 2005 Wis. Act. 429, effective May 27, 2006, and is available online. 6 KB

The Wisconsin Association of State Prosecutors’ 2003-2005 contract is ratified and published as 2003 Wis. Act. 114, effective January 24, 2004, and is available online. 5 KB

The text of WASP’s 2005—2007 collective bargaining agreement is available online. 206 KB

The text of WASP’s 2003—2005 collective bargaining agreement is available online. 260 KB

Wisconsin Public Defender Association (WPDA) Contracts

The terms for the 2005-2007 WPDA contract are:

• A 2% increase effective June 26, 2005,
• A 2% increase effective June 25, 2006,
• An increase in the minimum salary to $46,000 per year effective June 25, 2006,
• A market adjustment of approximately $1.00 per hour effective June 25, 2006,
• A 2.25% increase effective April 1, 2007.

The terms for the 2003-2005 WPDA contract are:

• A 1% general wage adjustment
• A $.10/ hour general wage adjustment
• A $250 lump sum payment, effective June 27, 2004
• A new job transfer policy.
• Staff attorneys will now be notified when a vacancy occurs anywhere in the state, and they will be given the opportunity to apply for transfer to those positions. When applicants are deemed equally qualified, seniority will govern. The union will be allowed to grieve in behalf of those denied transfer. (WPDA considered this term to be the most significant in the 2003-2005 contract negotiation.
• 1 additional personal holiday per year. Although this additional personal holiday is for Veterans Day, it can be taken any time during the year.

In exchange for these terms, WPDA agreed to pay for health insurance premiums.

The Wisconsin Public Defenders Association’s (SPDA) 2005-2007 contract is ratified and published as 2005 Wis. Act. 370, effective May 13, 2006, and is available online. 6 KB

The Wisconsin Public Defenders Association’s (WPDA) 2003-2005 contract is ratified and published as 2005 Wis. Act 369, effective May 13, 2006, and is available online. 6 KB

The text of WPDA’s 2005-2007 collective bargaining agreement is available online. 169 KB

The text of WPDA’s 2003—2005 collective bargaining agreement is available online. 190 KB

Top of page

National Child Support Enforcement Association Conference Wrap Up

By Sally-Anne Danner, Family Court Commissioner, Fond du Lac County

Thanks to the award of the 2006 Marc Dorfman Scholarship, a collaborative grant from the Wisconsin Family Court Commissioners’ Association and the Government Lawyer’s Division, I was able to experience some Southern hospitality at the National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) 55^th Annual Training Conference & Expo, in Dallas, Texas. The conference, held July 30-August 3, 2006, attracted child support professionals from all 54 states and territories, tribal nations and nation states, as well as international government agency members.

NCSEA’s mission is to promote the well-being of children through advocacy by promoting public policy and allocation of resources toward child support initiatives, to instill public trust and confidence in the child support system, and to provide accurate information about child support services to public officials, child support agencies, the general public and parents. 

The conference included over 80 workshops divided into ten workshop tracks, including Essential Skills, Career Development, Practical Analysis, Policy, Legislation and Advocacy, Technology, International, Judicial and Legal, Interjurisdictional, TSL (Talk, Share, Learn), and Texas Track. Although I focused mostly on the judicial/legal tracks, in order to get a balanced view; I also attended workshops from several other tracks.

The conference focused on two primary, but related, topics. One topic was how the integration of custody and placement services with child support services may impact child support payment rates. Several workshops, for example, focused on how providing parenting coordination services may positively impact child support payment and collection. Generally, child support and custody/placement are legally distinct. Programs in Colorado and Texas, however, are looking at ways in which child support agencies can partner with other agencies to address these issues together in order to improve child support payment and collection. The hope is that by promoting positive parental relationships and helping parents move past their anger regarding child support, non-custodial parents will be motivated to think about their children and, consequently, will be more motivated to pay child support.

A secondary focus was improving child support collection from parents who present unique challenges, such as incarcerated, undereducated, chronically unemployed, undocumented, disabled, and drug or alcohol dependent individuals. These workshops focused on analyzing the characteristics of certain payers and developing different enforcement strategies, such as intensive outreach and case management to help payers navigate the legal system, enhanced employment activities, or modified payment schedules. Several speakers, including Attorney Janet Nelson from Milwaukee County Child Support Agency, discussed ways in which counties and states have developed services targeting incarcerated individuals in order to promote the payment of child support and reduce arrears.

Many workshops focused on administrative issues, such as the effects of child support pass-through, medical support measures, federal performance guidelines and technology issues. Although most of these issues may not directly affect me as a court commissioner, I now have a better understanding of the challenges facing child support agencies and how these challenges impact policies and recommendations made by the agency to the court.

In addition to the workshops, the conference provided numerous opportunities to meet with colleagues from across the country. One such networking opportunity was the Power Lunch. Tables were divided among participants with similar interests: newbies, bean counters, legal eagles, the bench, policy folks, Ivy Dees (IV-D Directors), etc. This event provided participants with a great opportunity to talk one-on-one with other commissioners, magistrates, special masters, hearing officers and judges. I found it interesting to discuss problems and issues that are common to other states, as well as to compare different procedures, duties and approaches unique to each state.

Many of the new initiatives being proposed by child support agencies rely on building partnerships between courts, human service agencies, community service providers and child support agencies in order to effectively address the needs of families and to increase child support collection. The goal is to provide families with “one-stop shopping.” By partnering with other programs and agencies, child support agencies have forged opportunities to improve parenting skills, to create forums for parents to resolve issues and to encourage stronger relationships between non-custodial parents and children. By building strong collaborative relationships with other agencies and service providers, child support agencies are beginning to expand their role beyond that of simply enforcing a financial obligation.

The Marc Dorfman Award seeks to honor past Jefferson County Family Court Commissioner Marc Dorfman by facilitating educational opportunities that encourage creativity, interdisciplinary cooperation and a commitment to improving fairness and access to the courts for families and children. Certainly, with its focus on innovative partnerships between government, human services and community agencies, as well as on innovative strategies to improve family relationships and child support collection, the National Child Support Enforcement Association’s 55^th Annual Training Conference & Expo, met the challenge.

Top of page

Deep In Our Hearts

By Elaine E. Richmond, Jefferson County Child Support Agency

The National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) 55^th Annual Training Conference & Expo promoted the theme of Commitment to Children in more than 80 workshops offered at the Dallas conference. There was ample opportunity for attendees from across the country and around the world to share their common experiences and discover each other’s best practices. There was no shortage of hospitality and lively discourse as we gathered “Deep in the Heart” of Texas to mingle with some new and many familiar faces in child support.

If I had to identify the overlying purpose of the conference, it would be borrowed from the mission statement of the National Judicial-Child Support Task Force mission statement:

To engage federal, state and tribal child support programs and judicial/legal systems in collaborative efforts to better serve the needs of children and families.

With a choice of ten different tracks being offered, I made a decision to look for presentations that offered content focused on interdependence and collaboration between those entities that provide services for our IV-D customers, mothers and fathers and their children.

A study being conducted in Colorado identified the problems inherent in the separation of access and visitation (A/V) issues from that of child support when the IV-D program is mandated to deal with one but not the other. Preliminary findings indicate that increased time spent on getting “parenting time” orders while processing the support orders for cases increased the percentage of child support payments made.

They also noted a “perception of fairness” by non-custodial parents toward child support enforcement where there was early attention to the A/V issue even if the parenting agreements were not accomplished.

A second part of the Colorado project exploring early intervention techniques was to reduce default orders. Obligors in a group who received a more thorough explanation of the process of establishing support and met with the case manager that would follow their case reduced their default rate to 16% after 14 months of the new and increased emphasis on early intervention.

A similar study in California addressed the issue of collectibility of arrears. It found the contributing factors of interest charges, orders too high for low-income obligors, retroactive support and infrequent downward modifications adversely affected the relationships in families and created uncollectible arrears. California instituted a 3-prong approach of legislative change, improvement of child support program practices, and a change in data reporting as a way of accomplishing some reforms in the collection of arrears. By shortening the time for retroactive support, eliminating some court fees for filing documents in IV-D cases and updating data matches that provided improved locate and income data, California improved collection of arrears. Judicial counsel data from the study shows that it has fewer default orders with more orders based on actual income information and fewer orders based on imputed or presumed income. Also reported is a greater use of adjustments for low-income payers in setting the child support orders.

Presumably, all of these measures have contributed to better collection of arrears which of course benefits the children and families who depend on receiving their support payments in full and on time.

A plethora of other programs were offered exploring the many facets of child support enforcement. They included, but were not limited to, such concerns as inter-jurisdictional legal issues, paternity disestablishment, dispute resolution, ethics for child support professionals, international recovery of child support and the new bankruptcy law. I was constantly reminded how important it is for child support attorneys to stay abreast of the rapidly-changing picture in child support enforcement.

It is not that long ago that the majority of child support orders were established by applying a simple application of the guideline standards; or a minimum wage default order was obtained without very much argument from anyone and scant information from the case participants. A record with huge arrears challenged us to come up with ever more coercive ways to get payments made. It is of utmost importance that all the partners in child support be cognizant of the fact that the federal performance measures may be inconsistent with the goals of the child support program. It remains to be seen whether or not we can be creative enough to reconcile the inconsistencies. Through their research, many IV-D agencies are discovering that the challenge is to reconcile their responsibility to get orders that the payer can afford against the need for children to be cared for and supported. Custodial parents need to be able to rely upon receiving child support in a regular and timely manner. The need for new training technology, employment of best practices, and a coordinated effort between all the partners in the child support program must be recognized despite federal funding reductions. I believe that the underlying concepts of cooperation and collaboration between all programs and interests will lead to improvements that ensure that children come first.

Top of page

---

Endnotes

Federal Attorneys: Dual Obligations Under Federal Ethics Laws and Regulations and State Professional Responsibility Rules – Some Thoughts