On Feb. 22, at an open administrative conference, the Wisconsin Supreme Court continued its review of proposed rule changes suggested in State Bar Petitions 06-06 (multijurisdictional practice) and 07-06 (changes to the WisTAF assessment).
Inside the Bar
April 2008
Wisconsin Supreme Court addresses multijurisdictional practice and changes to WisTAF assessment
On Feb. 22, at an open administrative conference, the Wisconsin Supreme Court continued its review of proposed rule changes suggested in State Bar Petitions 06-06 (multijurisdictional practice) and 07-06 (changes to the WisTAF assessment).
Multijurisdictional practice (Petition 06-06). At a previous open administrative conference on Jan. 9, the court tentatively adopted a number of amendments to SCR 20:5.5 pertaining to the occasional practice of law in Wisconsin by lawyers not licensed to practice here but who are licensed in another state. At the Feb. 22 conference, the justices focused on the pro hac vice component of the proposed rules. At its next conference on March 14, the court is expected to take up changes to all remaining amendments in the petition.
The court appeared to tentatively support most of the proposed amendments to SCR 10.03(4) on admission pro hac vice. However, the court formally rejected the proposed SCR 10.03(4)(g) that would have required most pro hac vice applicants to pay a $250 annual fee to WisTAF for the Public Interest Legal Services Fund.
The court discussed pro hac vice changes that would include:
- Continuation of the requirement that attorneys admitted pro hac vice must practice “in association with an active State Bar of Wisconsin member who appears and participates in the action or proceeding.”
- Admission in the trial or appellate court will continue in subsequent proceedings on the same matter.
- The court will consider language changes that would allow military lawyers to represent service members without requiring that it be done in association with an active member of the bar. The court will review the language in the bar’s draft and supplement it as needed with models from other states.
- The issue of when and how attorneys may be admitted pro hac vice in administrative agencies was discussed extensively. The bar’s proposal was to allow administrative law judges and hearing examiners to admit attorneys pro hac vice in the same manner as a court with no requirement that the applicant must associate with an active member of the bar. There is likely to be further discussion and comment on this point before the language is finalized.
- Admission may be rescinded for reasons of incompetence or unwillingness to abide by the rules of professional conduct for attorneys or the rules of decorum of the court.
- A short, preferably one-page, application form that attorneys may use to request pro hac vice status will be developed to provide consistency statewide in the circuit and appellate courts. The court did not appear to support language in the bar’s proposal that would require disclosure and documentation of any prior discipline if applicants are otherwise active members in good standing in their home state.
- A majority of the justices voted to require lawyers seeking admission pro hac vice to pay $50 per case to the Office of Lawyer Regulation. It is not clear whether the court’s rejection of a $250 fee to be paid to WisTAF also deleted the exemption in that proposal for pro bono and nonprofit attorneys who want to appear on behalf of an indigent client.
Choice of Law.The court unanimously adopted, with minor language changes, amendments to SCR 20:8.5 (Disciplinary Authority: Choice of Law). A lawyer may be potentially subject to more than one set of rules of professional conduct in more than one jurisdiction. A lawyer admitted to the State Bar of Wisconsin is subject to the disciplinary authority of this state regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs. A lawyer who is not a member of the State Bar of Wisconsin who provides or offers legal services in Wisconsin will also be subject to the disciplinary authority of this state.
The changes presented in these proposed amendments coincide for the most part with the proposed changes to Model Rule 5.5 and Model Rule 8.5 to address the issues of lawyers temporarily providing legal services on behalf of a client in a jurisdiction where the lawyer is not.
The proposed changes to the pro hac vice rule are designed to incorporate the Model Rule and procedures for pro hac vice admission that have been recommended by the ABA to all states
WisTAF Changes (Petition 07-06). The Bar requested that the $50 assessment be extended to all judicial members of the bar and that members be allowed to designate which legal services agency would receive their assessment. The justices voted unanimously during the conference to adopt the following changes:
- Judicial members will be added to the class of members required to pay the annual $50 assessment to WisTAF.
- Reversing an earlier vote, the justices voted unanimously to leave the manner of payment and distribution of the assessment as is (members will not be allowed to designate the recipient of the $50 assessment). The justices were not convinced that the benefit of allowing members to designate recipients would be outweighed by the additional cost and complications of such a system.
Inside the Bar
