Sign In
  • December 01, 2004

    Inside the Bar 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.

    Inside the Bar
    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:

    1. What do we know about our members, prospective members, customers, needs, wants, and preferences that is relevant to this decision?
    2. What do we know about the current realities and evolving dynamics of our members, marketplace/industry/profession that is relevant to this decision?
    3. What do we know about the "capacity" and "strategic position" of our organization that is relevant to this decision?
    4. 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


Join the conversation! Log in to comment.
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object. at News.NewsTOCNavigation.NewsTOCNavigationUserControl.Page_Load(Object sender, EventArgs e)

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY