December 2004
Board deliberates on WisTAF petition using knowledge-based
decision-making process
At its Nov. 5 meeting, the Board of Governors
used a knowledge-based decision-making process to analyze the Wisconsin
Trust Account Foundation (WisTAF) petition. The petition seeks mandatory
payment of $50 per attorney to WisTAF to provide funding for civil legal
services for people who cannot afford an attorney. (See page 2.)
The board was introduced to knowledge-based decision making in
September. The process includes answering a series of questions, that,
once answered, are used to suggest alternative responses to the problem.
The body further narrows the alternatives to help determine the
recommendation that most clearly meets the needs of the intended
audience.
"The process ensures that board members have good information and
insight on which to base their decision," says State Bar President
Michelle Behnke. "By working in this manner, we can have greater
confidence that all board members have the same knowledge base when
actually making the decision."
At the September meeting, Gov. John Macy, who chaired a committee
appointed by Behnke to study the WisTAF petition, presented the
committee's report addressing several specific issues and examining how
other states had addressed similar issues. Gov. Deb Smith, immediate
past president of WisTAF also spoke about the impetus for the petition.
Following the presentations, the board answered four key questions about
the WisTAF petition:
- What do we know about our members, prospective members, customers,
needs, wants, and preferences that is relevant to this decision?
- What do we know about the current realities and evolving dynamics of
our members, marketplace/industry/profession that is relevant to this
decision?
- What do we know about the "capacity" and "strategic position" of our
organization that is relevant to this decision?
- What are the ethical implications of our choices?
At the November meeting, the board identified alternatives to the
petition by answering the following questions: What could we do with
regard to this issue? What strategies could we employ? Are there
alternatives or choices among the strategies we have identified in
formulating our response to this issue?
Governors proposed more than 30 alternative responses to the
petition, which were narrowed down to several options for consideration
and discussion. The final position was developed from the discussion of
those options.
The board eventually came to a consensus that the Bar should:
acknowledge that there is a problem with access to justice in Wisconsin;
acknowledge the WisTAF petition presents a problem and a need but is
only a stop-gap measure; provide the study committee report to the
supreme court as background information; conduct a comprehensive study
on the unmet legal needs of persons who cannot afford lawyers; and
determine how to address these needs and their future funding.
After considerable discussion, the board concluded there would not be
60 percent support for a proposal that included a mandatory assessment.
The board then approved the final proposal opposing the petition as
filed and supporting a voluntary $50 opt-out contribution for a two-year
period.
"The knowledge-based process worked. We were able to bring the issues
into focus so that more than four-fifths of the governors were able to
agree upon how to proceed," says Behnke. "The board will use the
knowledge-based decision-making process at its January meeting when it
votes on the Wisconsin Supreme Court's Ethics 2000 Committee's proposed
amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys."
For more information and to give feedback on the ethics petition
