Wisconsin Lawyer: Supreme Court Orders:

State Bar of Wisconsin

Sign In
    Wisconsin LawyerWisconsin Lawyer

News & Pubs Search

Advanced

    Supreme Court Orders

    In Order 08-27, the Wisconsin Supreme Court amended SCR 10.03 regarding State Bar judicial classes of members, effective March 1, 2010, and dismissed a related petition regarding Rule 06-09. On March 8, the supreme court will hold a second public hearing on Order 07-09 regarding defining the practice of law. In Order 09-05, the supreme court amended SCR 71.01 regarding required reporting of court proceedings, effective Jan. 1, 2010.


    Share This:

    Wisconsin LawyerWisconsin Lawyer
    Vol. 83, No. 2, February 2010

    Order 06-09 and 08-27

    In the matter of amendment of Supreme Court Rule 10.03(3) relating to classes of membership in the State Bar.

    In the matter of the petition of the United States Administrative Law Judges Appointed under 5 U.S.C. § 3105 to Amend SCR 10.03(3)(a). 

    On April 12, 2007, this court asked the State Bar of Wisconsin (State Bar) to study State Bar judicial membership classification and report back to the court with a recommendation.1 On Sept. 1, 2007, then-State Bar President Thomas Basting Sr. appointed a State Bar Membership Categories Committee to study the issue further.2 On May 7, 2008, the committee presented its recommendations to the State Bar’s Board of Governors. On Sept. 12, 2008, the Board of Governors approved the modifications.

    On Oct. 31, 2008, the State Bar, by its then-President, Diane S. Diel, filed this petition asking the court to amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 10.03(3) relating to classes of membership in the State Bar.

    The court conducted a public hearing on the petition on Oct. 29, 2009. At the open administrative conference following the public hearing, the court discussed this petition, together with Rule 06-09, In the Matter of the Petition of the United States Administrative Law Judges Appointed Under 5 U.S.C. § 3105 to Amend SCR 10.03(3)(a). The court voted unanimously to adopt the petition. Therefore,

    IT IS ORDERED that, effective March 1, 2010, the Supreme Court Rules are amended as follows:

    Section 1. SCR 10.03 (3) (a) of the Supreme Court Rules is amended to read:

    SCR 10.03 (3) (a) The members of the state bar are divided into 4 classes: active members, judicial members, inactive members and emeritus members. The class of active members includes all members of the state bar except the judicial members and inactive members. The class of inactive members includes those persons who are eligible for active membership but are not engaged in the practice of law in this state and have filed with the secretary of the association written notice requesting enrollment in the class of inactive members. Judges of courts of record, full time family court commissioners, full-time court commissioners, U.S. bankruptcy judges, U.S. magistrate judges The class of judicial members includes the following persons: supreme court justices, court of appeals judges, circuit court judges, full-time circuit court commissioners, full-time municipal court judges, supreme court commissioners, court of appeals staff attorneys, federal district court judges, federal appellate court judges, federal bankruptcy judges, federal magistrate judges, federal administrative law judges, and retired justices and judges who are eligible for temporary judicial assignment and are not engaged in the practice of law are classed as judicial members, except that any . Any judicial member may elect to become an active member with all rights of active membership except to hold office as an officer or governor or to practice law. The class of emeritus members includes those persons who are either active or inactive members in good standing but who are at least 70 years of age and have filed with the executive director of the association a written notice requesting enrollment in the class of emeritus members. An emeritus member has all the privileges of membership in the state bar and need not pay membership dues for the years following the year in which he or she attains the age of 70.

    Section 2. SCR 10.03 (3) (bm) of the Supreme Court Rules is created to read:

    SCR 10.03 (3) (bm) Any inactive member in good standing may change his or her classification to that of an emeritus member if otherwise qualified to become an emeritus member provided that no inactive member who has not actively practiced law in this state or in another state during the last two years may be transferred to emeritus status until the board of bar examiners certifies that the member has completed the continuing legal education requirements required for transfer to active status and the transfer is approved by the supreme court.

    IT IS ORDERED that notice of the amendment of SCR 10.03(3)(a) and creation of SCR 10.03(3)(bm) be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official state newspaper and in an official publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that rule matter 06-09, In the Matter of the Petition of the United States Administrative Law Judges Appointed Under 5 U.S.C. § 3105 to Amend SCR 10.03(3)(a), is dismissed.

    Dated at Madison, Wis., this 24th day of November, 2009.

    By the court:

    David R. Schanker, Clerk of Supreme Court

    1The court’s request derived from rule petition 06-09, In the Matter of the Petition of the United States Administrative Law Judges Appointed Under 5 U.S.C. § 3105 to Amend SCR 10.03(3)(a). In that petition five federal administrative law judges asked the court to amend SCR 10.03(3) to explicitly provide that they could elect judicial membership status. At the April 12, 2007, public hearing on this petition, questions were raised about judicial membership under SCR 10.03(3). The court requested the State Bar study judicial membership classification under SCR 10.03(3).

    2Committee members included: Kent Carnell, Madison, chair; James Alexander, Madison; Ronald Bernoski, Milwaukee; George Brown, Madison; Margaret Carlson, Madison; Lori Gendelman, Milwaukee; G. Jeffrey George, La Crosse; David Hass, Madison; John Kosobucki, Madison; Jacquelynn Rothstein, Madison; and Keith Sellen, Madison.

    Order 07-09

    In the matter of the Definition of the Practice of Law and the Administration of a Rule Defining the Practice of Law. 

    Second Notice

    On June 19, 2007, the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Wisconsin filed a petition asking the court to create a new court rule to define the practice of law and to create a system to administer the rule, subject to supervision and control by the court.1 A public hearing and open administrative conference on this matter were conducted on Dec. 10, 2007. Numerous interested persons appeared at the hearing or submitted written comments. The court further discussed the matter, including additional written comments received, at open administrative conferences on March 14, 2008, and Oct. 28, 2008.

    At its administrative conference on Oct. 28, 2008, the court acknowledged that the “working draft” of the proposed rule now bore little resemblance to the petition originally filed. A majority of the court voted to schedule a second public hearing on the issue of whether this court should adopt a rule defining the practice of law and create a system to administer the rule, subject to supervision and control by the court.

    IT IS ORDERED that a second public hearing on the petition shall be held in the Supreme Court Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wis., on Monday, March 8, 2010, at 9:45 a.m.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court’s conference in the matter shall be held promptly following the public hearing.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court will post the most current working draft of the proposed rule on its Web site by Jan. 1, 2010.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of this second public hearing be given by publication of a copy of this order in an official publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin not more than 60 days nor less than 30 days before the date of the hearing.2

    Dated at Madison, Wis., this 17th day of December, 2009.

    By the court:

    David R. Schanker, Clerk of Supreme Court

    1The petition is available on the court’s Web site at http://wicourts.gov/supreme/
    petitions_audio.htm.

    2Notice of the hearing appeared in the December 2009 Wisconsin Lawyer, the official publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin, approximately 83 days prior to the hearing rather than the required maximum of 60 days, due to the State Bar’s publication schedule. Notice of the hearing will also appear in the February 2010 Wisconsin Lawyer approximately 21 days prior to the hearing rather than the required minimum of 30 days, due to the State Bar’s publication schedule. Notice of the hearing is scheduled to appear in the official state newspaper once each week for three consecutive weeks beginning Jan. 14, 2010. Pursuant to its rule-making authority under Wis. Stat. § 751.12 and its Internal Operating Procedures, the court exercises its discretion to allow this unavoidable deviation from the requirements.

    Order 09-05

    In the matter of amendment of Supreme Court Rule 71.01 regarding required reporting of court proceedings. 

    On June 5, 2009, the Director of State Courts, on the recommendation of the Committee of Chief Judges and District Court Administrators, petitioned this court to amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 71.01(2) governing the reporting of court proceedings. An addendum to the petition was filed Oct. 5, 2009. The petitioners requested expedited review, and a public hearing was conducted on Oct. 29, 2009. Chief Judge Jeffrey A. Kremers presented the petition to the court. Ozaukee County Court Reporter Kathy Jagow spoke in support of the petition. State Public Defender Appellate Division Director Marla Stephens spoke in opposition to the petition. The court also considered written submissions from the Wisconsin District Attorneys’ Association, the Office of the State Public Defender, Attorney David D. Leeper, and Court Reporter Ann Albert on behalf of the official court reporters of the State of Wisconsin. At the ensuing open administrative conference, the court voted unanimously to adopt the petition and order as amended to include a comment regarding Wis. Stat. § 885.42(4). The court also requested that the Committee of Chief Judges and District Court Administrators promptly review Wis. Stat. § 885.42(4) in consultation with appellate practitioners and other interested persons to evaluate whether amendments to Wis. Stat. § 885.42(4) may be warranted.

    The court determined that given the expedited nature of this proceeding, a Jan. 1, 2010, effective date was necessary and appropriate for judicial efficiency. Therefore,

    IT IS ORDERED that, effective Jan. 1, 2010, the Supreme Court Rules are amended as follows:

    Section 1. SCR 71.01 (2) (e) of the Supreme Court Rules is created to read:

    SCR 71.01 (2) (e) Audio recordings of any type that are played during the proceeding, marked as an exhibit, and offered into evidence. If only part of the recording is played in court, the part played shall be precisely identified in the record.

    Section 2. The following Comment to Supreme Court Rule 71.01(2) is created to read:

    Comment: Those seeking to admit at trial videotape depositions or other testimony presented by videotape should consult Wis. Stat. § 885.42(4).

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Comment to SCR 71.01(2) is not adopted, but will be published and may be consulted for guidance.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, at its earliest opportunity, the Committee of Chief Judges and District Court Administrators shall collaborate with appellate practitioners and other interested parties to evaluate whether amendments to Wis. Stat. § 885.42(4) may be warranted.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the creation of SCR
    71.01(2)(e) shall be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official state newspaper and in an official publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin.

    Dated at Madison, Wis., this 11th day of December, 2009.

    By the court:

    David R. Schanker,
    Clerk of Supreme Court




To view or add comment, Login