Aug. 27, 2025 – The Wisconsin Rules of Civil Procedure have their supplement in nearly all circuit courts – local rules specific to that court or its subdivisions.

These rules, varying in length and detail, could be a procedural trap for the unwary lawyer in a new county.

They also challenge circuit court judges and the chief judges of Wisconsin’s nine judicial administrative districts to stay current.

Rules in some counties have fallen behind, but initiatives from the most populous county to the rural northwest promise revision.

69 Sets of Rules

Circuit courts, with the approval of the chief judge of the judicial administrative district, according to Wis. Stat. section 753.35(1), may adopt “rules governing practice in that court … that are consistent with” rules approved by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Local rules govern in 69 circuit courts. Only circuit courts in Door, Columbia, and Menominee counties operate without local rules.

Within these 69 counties, the rules vary. Some are basic. Some provide special procedures for certain types of actions, such as family law, evictions, or small claims. Counties may include various addenda, standing orders, and forms in addition to their set of local rules.

At least once, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revised the Rules of Civil Procedure to remove local rule variations, as noted in the same case that held that local rules cannot contradict the state rules.

Although the circuit court’s website often includes the local rules, “the best repository for local rules is actually the State Bar’s website,” said Paul Thielhelm, regional managing attorney for collections firm Rausch Sturm LLP in Brookfield.

Repositories for local rules listed in Wis. Stat. section 753.35(3) include the State Law Library, clerks of court, and the State Bar.

Although the circuit court’s website often includes the local rules, 'the best repository for local rules is actually the State Bar’s website'

Evolving Variations

Local rules had greater impact before eFiling’s standardized rules, said Thielhelm, whose career has focused on collections throughout Wisconsin.

For example, local rules varied on whether the circuit court allowed filings by fax instead of the slower process of mail delivery, Thielhelm said.

“Now the biggest difference is … counties will have different requirements for their small claims appearances. Some counties authorize us to appear by letter. Some authorize us to appear remotely,” or require in-person appearances, Thielhelm explained.

Statute authorizes local rules to allow for service by mail in small claims matters, but some counties set limits to that cost-effective means of service, Thielhelm said.

“Some local rules will have, for example, limits on interrogatories,” he continued. “Some will have timing limits that vary from the statutes.” Some circuit courts “require the parties to meet and confer” to try to resolve discovery disputes before one can file a motion to compel.

“Early in my career, I remember challenging some local rules when I was a little bit more feisty. Not as much anymore. I just kind of roll with it now,” said Thielhelm, who relied upon Hefty v. Strickhouser, 2008 WI 96 for his challenges.

Hefty, citing Wis. Stat. section 753.35(1) authorizing local rules, emphasized that “local rules may not be inconsistent with state rules or statutes.”

“A lot of counties changed their local rules after that” case, Thielhelm remembers.

“Local rules are definitely something that someone who is not familiar with practice in a particular county can get tripped up on,” Thielhelm said.

“Because we practice in all the counties, we have cheat sheets, especially for small claims, about service and appearances for small claims calendars,” which are updated as needed, Thielhelm said.

Two Wisconsins

Nearly two-thirds of counties with local rules have revised them starting in 2022 – 43 out of 69 (see Table 1).

Sixteen counties, in contrast, haven’t touched their rules since 2016. That’s nearly one-fourth of the counties with local rules.

Although each of Wisconsin’s nine judicial administrative districts have their newest rules from the past three years, disparities arise from the oldest extant rules. (See Table 2.) It’s a tale of two Wisconsins.

The oldest rules exist in the northwest (District 10) and southwest (District 7), dating from 2007.

In northeastern Wisconsin, the oldest rules are from 2014 in District 8 and 2015 in District 9, and within the east-central counties of District 4, from 2015.

The range from oldest to newest rules extends beyond 10 years in those districts. These districts also contain the largest number of counties per district, as many as 15 in District 7.

The dividing line is more than between urban and rural counties.

The difference is more striking between west and east. One is far more likely to find rules last revised before 2017 in western Wisconsin.

Thirteen of the 29 counties in districts 7 and 10 have rules that are that old, compared with three out of 40 counties with rules in the other judicial districts.

That may be changing. While Milwaukee County is concluding its comprehensive revision process begun in 2019, an initiative is underway in Wisconsin’s northwestern Tenth Judicial District to bring its circuit court local rules consistently up to date.

Urban Case Study

Milwaukee County’s unique needs and elaborate circuit court offers a case study about the revision process and its challenges.

Efforts began in 2019, starting with local rules for felony, misdemeanor, family, and children’s court areas, said First Judicial District Chief Judge Carl Ashley. Some rules hadn’t been touched since 2000.

The project has grown. “We’re trying to do a comprehensive redo of the local rules,” Ashley said, “and we are right in the midst of doing that now.”

The initiative has involved meetings and extensive discussions with judges, the clerk of circuit court office, and lawyers to shape the new rules, said Ashley, who is appreciative of their time-consuming efforts.

The hard work of rule revision, Ashley explained, promises efficiencies “for the lawyers, the litigants, and the courts.

“There are new ways to do things and also just refining areas that previously were going on, and again, it’s also taking in consideration some of the changes that have gone on,” such as electronic filing and remote hearings.

The process doesn’t always result in agreement, Ashley said. The goal is “trying to make sure that as a practical matter, we get the revisions that we need and to the extent we can listen to input but also follow the law and the changes in the law.”

It’s not change for the sake of change, Ashley explained. Part of the work requires studying the current rules, asking whether the rules need changing, and “is the change going to benefit those folks and the system as you envision it to?”

Among the work remaining, Milwaukee County will introduce comprehensive formatting, renumbering rules as needed, and references to explain the rules that have been removed or changed, said Ashley, who is the final person to approve the rules.

But that’s not the end. “By the time we get it all out, [we'll] need to change something, but that’s just the way it goes.”

Northwestern Wisconsin Initiative

In the vast, rural Tenth Judicial District, conversations have recently begun to revise local court rules.

“We’re trying to encourage the 14 counties in our district here to take a look at them,” said the district’s Chief Judge John Anderson, who is Bayfield County circuit court judge in Washburn.

“Local rules are kind of the forgotten stepchild of the court system. Sometimes … they aren’t looked at or updated, after years and years sometimes,” Anderson explained.

Although the issue has “always been under the radar,” Anderson said rule revision will be a part of discussions in the judicial district’s October meeting.

Anderson doesn’t expect he can force a busy circuit court judge to revise local rules, but judges are conscientious about wanting to keep the rules accurate to current practice.

He knows from experience. Years ago, his desk had a copy of the local rules “with red marks all the way through, and they sat there for 24 months” before Anderson could get back to revision.

“I’m not proud of that, but I think that’s pretty common,” he explained.

The pandemic exacerbated the challenge of rule revision.

“We made so many changes during COVID, on the fly, and we issued orders and the whole bit, and you know a lot of us just simply didn’t go back and take a look at our local rules and modify them based on that,” Anderson said.

The changes that happened because of the pandemic, such as remote appearances and a lawyer shortage in rural communities, were building up, he said.

“COVID, I think, just moved, just tipped the needle and made things happen faster.”

Even now, with more witnesses appearing remotely, Anderson said, “technology in the court system is moving way faster than the law is.”

There’s also a question of whether a rule should exist. “Maybe the statute is good enough on this, maybe we don’t need to have a local rule on it,” Anderson explained.

“You have to take into consideration local culture and how things are done, but things shouldn’t be done wildly different from county to county,” Anderson said. “Little differences are fine. Wild differences probably are not fine, because that’s not the way the law should be.”​