Wisconsin Lawyer: Supreme Court Orders:

State Bar of Wisconsin

Sign In

Top Link Bar

    WisBar.org may be unavailable Sept 17 from 5:00PM until 9:00PM for system maintenance.

    Wisconsin LawyerWisconsin Lawyer

News & Pubs Search

Advanced

    Supreme Court Orders

    Share This:

    Wisconsin LawyerWisconsin Lawyer
    Vol. 84, No. 3, March 2011

    • Order 09-08 – Use of State Bar Dues, public hearing April 11, 2011
    • Order 10-10 – Assessment of Attorneys for the Wisconsin Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, public hearing April 11, 2011
    • Order 10-11 – SCR Chapters 70 and 33 Administration of Municipal Courts, public hearing April 11, 2011

    SCR 10.03(5)(b)1. Use of State Bar Dues

    In the matter of petition to amend Supreme Court Rule 10.03(5)(b)1.

    Order, 09-08

    On Aug. 24, 2009, Jon Kingstad, Steven Levine, James Thiel and 40 other members of the State Bar of Wisconsin petitioned this court to amend Supreme Court Rule 10.03(5)(b)1. On Nov. 16, 2010, this court issued an order holding this petition in abeyance pending final disposition of all federal litigation in Kingstad v. State Bar of Wisconsin. On Dec. 3, 2010, the petitioners filed an amended petition proposing changes the petitioners state are warranted following the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Kingstad, 622 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2010).1

    IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing on the petition shall be held in the Supreme Court Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wis., on Monday, April 11, 2011, 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 amended petition and memorandum in support of the amended petition shall be made available on the Web site of the Wisconsin Supreme Court under Rules.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the hearing be given by a single publication of a copy of this order and of the amended petition in the official state newspaper and 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 1st day of February, 2011.

    By the court:

    A. John Voelker,
    Acting Clerk of Supreme Court

    1The court is advised that petitioners do not intend to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court such that this petition need not be held in abeyance any longer.

    2Notice of the hearing will appear in the March 2011 Wisconsin Lawyer, the official publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin, approximately 27 days prior to the hearing rather than the required minimum of 30 days. 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.

    Amended Petition

    Petitioners Attorneys John Kingstad, Steven Levine, and James Thiel hereby petition the Supreme Court of Wisconsin to amend SCR 10.03(5)(b)1 as follows:

    “The State Bar may engage in and fund any activity that is reasonably intended for the purposes of the association. The State Bar may not use compulsory dues of any member who objects to that use for political or ideological activities that are not reasonably directly, primarily, and substantially intended for the purpose of regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services. The state bar shall fund those political and ideological activities by the use of voluntary dues, user fees or other sources of revenue. The burden of demonstrating that an activity is directly, primarily, and substantially intended for the purposes of regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services shall be on the State Bar and shall be met by clear and convincing evidence.

    Reasons for the petition are as follow:

    1. The stricken language is required to be removed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Kingstad, et. al v. State Bar of Wisconsin (09-4080, September 9, 2010). In that opinion, the court specifically held that the inclusion of the words “political or ideological” made SCR 10.03(5)(b)1 “too narrow.” (Slip opinion at page 22; Judge Sykes’ dissenting opinion at page 31.) The court held that the State Bar must inspect all its expenditures – not just those which are “political or ideological” – to determine whether they were made for purposes of “regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services.”

    2. Addition of the underlined language is requested because of the “deferential” rational basis standard of review adopted by the 7th Circuit in Kingstad in determining whether a State Bar expenditure is intended for the purposes of “regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services.” (Slip opinion at pages 24-25.) In Kingstad the court upheld the State Bar’s public image advertising campaign (to improve the image of lawyers) as reasonably related to the purpose of “improving the quality of legal services.” (That court has also upheld the State Bar’s “Economics of Practice” survey as germane to improving the quality of legal services. Slip opinion at page 28.

    We agree with Judge Sykes’ dissent at page 39 of the Slip Opinion that the 7th Circuit’s standard of review “is not merely generous, it is meaningless.” Petitioners believe that their proposed additional language for SCR 10.03(5)(b)1 is necessary to adequately protect the First Amendment interests of Wisconsin lawyers and that it is germane to and inextricably intertwined with the original amendment proposed in this docket. The proposed additional amendment also offers better guidance and provides a more definite standard for the State Bar to follow when setting its annual budget. Hearing both proposed amendments at the same time is advisable to save time and expense for all parties – and to avoid continued litigation.

    A memorandum in support of this petition is attached.

    Dated: December 3, 2010.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Jon E. Kingstad, Steven Levine, and
    James S. Thiel

    Assessment for Wisconsin Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection

    In the matter of amendment of SCR 12.07 Relating to Assessment of Attorneys for the Wisconsin Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection.

    Order 10-10

    On Dec. 17, 2010, the Wisconsin Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection (“the Fund”) petitioned this court to amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 12.07 relating to the assessment of attorneys for operation of the Fund. The Fund is recommending that the rule be amended to provide for an assessment of $20 per year. The amendment is intended to provide a more reliable and predictable source of income for payment of eligible claims.

    IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing on the petition shall be held in the Supreme Court Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wis., on Monday, April 11, 2011, 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 petition and memorandum in support of the petition shall be made available on the Web site of the Wisconsin Supreme Court under Rules.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the hearing be given by a single publication of a copy of this order and of the petition in the official state newspaper and 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.1

    Dated at Madison, Wis., this 1st day of February, 2011.

    By the court:

    A. John Voelker,
    Acting Clerk of Supreme Court

    1Notice of the hearing will appear in the March 2011 Wisconsin Lawyer, the official publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin, approximately 27 days prior to the hearing rather than the required minimum of 30 days. 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.

    Petition

    The Wisconsin Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, by its chair, Deborah M. Smith, hereby petitions the Supreme Court of Wisconsin for an order amending Supreme Court Rule 12.07 relating to the annual assessment of attorneys for the operation of the Fund. The amended rule would provide a more reliable and predictable source of income for payment of eligible claims. A separate memorandum supporting this requested amendment is attached.

    Requested Amendment

    SCR 12.07 Assessment of attorneys; enforcement.

    (1) Initial assessment. Every attorney shall pay to the fund an initial assessment of $5.

    (2)(a) Annual assessments. Commencing with the state bar’s July 1, 1982 2012 fiscal year, every attorney shall pay to the fund such an annual assessment of $20. as is necessary to maintain a balance in the fund of $250,000, but in no event shall any annual assessment exceed $25. An attorney whose annual state bar membership dues are waived for hardship shall be excused from the payment of the annual assessment for that year. An attorney shall be excused from the payment of the annual assessment for the fiscal year during which he or she is admitted to practice in Wisconsin.

    (b) Reserve. As of May 1 of each year, any funds in excess of those required for payment of approved claims shall be maintained in a reserve account.

    (3) Certificate of sufficiency (a) Sufficiency of the fund. The committee shall determine the net value of the fund as of May 1 of each year. Whenever the value of the fund shall equal or exceed $250,000, The committee shall determine the net value of the fund, including the reserve, after deducting all claims which the committee has determined to pay and which are not disposed of at the date of valuation, deferred claims, claims received but not yet considered by the committee, and all expenses properly chargeable against the fund,.

    (b) Report. t The committee shall file a report of the net value of the fund with the supreme court by May 31 of each year. a certificate of sufficiency to that effect When a certificate of sufficiency is filed with the supreme court, there shall be no annual assessment for the next fiscal year.

    (4) Collection; failure to pay. The initial assessment and annual assessments shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as the annual membership dues for the state bar are collected. An attorney who fails to timely pay the initial assessment or any annual assessment shall have his or her right to practice law suspended pursuant to SCR 10.03(6).

    (5) Periodic Review: The Court shall review SCR 12.07 every five years to determine if the assessment and reserve fund is adequate to timely meet the legitimate claims of clients.

    Dated this 17th day of December, 2010.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Deborah M. Smith, Chair,

    Wisconsin Fund for Client Protection

    SCR Chapters 70 and 33 Administration of Municipal Courts

    In the matter of amendment of SCR Chapters 70 and 33 relating to administration of municipal courts.Order 10-11

    On Dec. 17, 2010, the Director of State Courts, on behalf of the Committee of Chief Judges, petitioned this court for an order amending Chapters 70 and 33 of the Supreme Court Rules relating to rules of judicial administration of municipal courts and continuing education for municipal judges. The amendments are intended to make the Supreme Court Rules consistent with recent legislative changes to Wis. Stat. chs. 755 and 800 (2009 Act 402, eff. Jan. 1, 2011).

    IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing on the petition shall be held in the Supreme Court Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wisconsin, on Monday, April 11, 2011, 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 petition and memorandum in support of the petition shall be made available on the Web site of the Wisconsin Supreme Court under Rules.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the hearing be given by a single publication of a copy of this order and of the petition in the official state newspaper and 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.1

    Dated at Madison, Wis., this 1st day of February, 2011.

    By the court:

    A. John Voelker,
    Acting Clerk of Supreme Court

    1Notice of the hearing will appear in the March 2011 Wisconsin Lawyer, the official publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin, approximately 27 days prior to the hearing rather than the required minimum of 30 days. 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.

    Petition

    The Director of State Courts, on the recommendation of the Committee of Chief Judges, hereby petitions the court to amend SCR chapters 70 and 33 regarding the administration of municipal courts, in keeping with recent legislative changes to Wis. Stats. ch. 755 and 800. This petition is made pursuant to the court’s rulemaking authority under §751.12 and its administrative authority over all courts conferred by Article VII, §3 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

    TEXT OF PROPOSED CHANGES

    Section 1. SCR 70.19(4) is amended to read:

    (4) The chief judge exercises superintending authority over the administration of judicial business of the municipal courts of the judicial administrative district. The chief judge shall assign municipal judges as specified in SCR 70.24.

    Section 2. SCR 70.20 is renumbered 70.20(1).

    Section 3. SCR 70.20(2) is created to read:

    (2) The administrative authority of the chief judge extends to the municipal courts of the judicial administrative district. If a municipal court is located in more than one judicial administrative district, the chief judge whose district includes the county having the largest portion of the population served by the municipal court shall have superintending authority over that court, consistent with Wis. Stats. 755.001(2).

    Section 4. SCR 70.21(15m) is created to read:

    (15m) Section 755.01(1): certification that a new municipal court meets the operational standards set forth in chapter 755.

    Section 5. SCR 70.21(26) is amended to read:

    (26) Sections 48.29(1m), 345.315(1m), 799.205(2), 800.05(3), 800.05(5), 801.58(2), 938.29(1m) and 971.20(8): determination of substitution requests and reassignment of judges.

    Section 6. SCR 70.24 is renumbered as SCR 70.24(1).

    Section 7. SCR 70.24(2) is created to read:

    (2) The chief judge by order may assign a municipal judge from outside the judicial administrative district or a reserve municipal judge. The chief judge may assign a reserve municipal judge to serve in a district other than the judge’s former district. Before making the assignment, the chief judge shall consult with the chief judge of the municipal judge’s district or former district.

    Section 8. SCR 33.01(4) is created to read:

    (4) “Municipal court clerk” means a court clerk appointed by a municipal judge pursuant to sec. 755.10.

    Section 9. SCR 33.04(3) is created to read:

    (3) Each municipal judge shall designate and require a minimum of one municipal court clerk to attend the annual clerk’s training seminar, developed by the judicial education office, at least once every 2 years.

    Respectfully submitted,

    A. John Voelker, Director of State Courts




To view or add comment, Login