Official Notices of Wisconsin Supreme Court and State Bar of Wisconsin Rules and Bylaws

On July 28, 2020 Attorney William C. Gleisner, III, Acting Secretary, on behalf of the Wisconsin Judicial Council, filed a rule petition asking the court to amend the Rules of Appellate Procedure, Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.85 to establish procedures for pro hac vice admission, substitution, and withdrawal of retained counsel in appellate court proceedings. IT IS ORDERED that the Supreme Court will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, February 24, 2021, commencing at 1:30 p.m. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the public hearing before the court will be conducted via video/audio conferencing. The Supreme Court hearing room will not be open to the public. Procedures for viewing the public hearing and for providing comment on the petition are set forth on the Public Administrative Rules Hearing Instruction sheet which can be accessed at https://www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending/2005.htm. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the hearing be given by a publication of a copy of this order and of the petition in the official No. 20-05 2 state newspaper once each week for three consecutive weeks, 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the full text of the proposed rules, including changes, if any, in existing rules, shall be placed on the Internet site maintained by the director of state courts for the supreme court. See https://www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending.htm. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 11th day of January, 2021. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

On October 19, 2020 by Attorney Kathleen A. Brost, President, State Bar of Wisconsin filed a rule petition asking the court to amend SCR 10.03(6m) to clarify who is an active or inactive emeritus lawyer and to clarify the scope of permitted practice for the various members. IT IS ORDERED that the Supreme Court will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, February 24, 2021, commencing at 1:30 p.m. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the public hearing before the court will be conducted via video/audio conferencing. The Supreme Court hearing room will not be open to the public. Procedures for viewing the public hearing and for providing comment on the petition are set forth on the Public Administrative Rules Hearing Instruction sheet which can be accessed at https://www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending/2006.htm. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the hearing be given by a publication of a copy of this order and of the petition in the official state newspaper once each week for three consecutive weeks, 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. No. 20-06 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the full text of the proposed rules, including changes, if any, in existing rules, shall be placed on the Internet site maintained by the director of state courts for the supreme court. See https://www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending.htm. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 11th day of January, 2021. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Cour

On June 3, 2020, by Attorney Rick Esenberg, on behalf of Scott Jensen and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) filed a rule petition asking the court to amend the "original action" rule (Wis. Stat. § 809.70) to create a mechanism for the court to consider anticipated legal challenges to redistricting plans. IT IS ORDERED that the Supreme Court will conduct a public hearing on Thursday, January 14, 2021, commencing at 9:30 a.m. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the public hearing before the court will be conducted via video/audio conferencing. The Supreme Court hearing room will not be open to the public. Procedures for viewing the public hearing and for providing comment on the petition are set forth on the Public Administrative Rules Hearing Instruction sheet which can be accessed at https://www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending/2003.htm. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the hearing be given by a publication of a copy of this order and of the petition in the official state newspaper once each week for three consecutive weeks, and in an No. 20-03 2 official publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin not more than 60 days nor less than 30 days before the date of the hearing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the full text of the proposed rules, including changes, if any, in existing rules, shall be placed on the Internet site maintained by the director of state courts for the supreme court. See https://www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending.htm. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 9th day of December, 2020.

On July 28, 2020 Attorney Daniel J. Hoff, President, Wisconsin Access to Justice Commission, filed a rule petition asking the court to repeal and recreate Supreme Court Rule (SCR) ch. 50 relating to the practical training of law students. IT IS ORDERED that the Supreme Court will conduct a public hearing on Thursday, January 14, 2021, commencing at 9:30 a.m. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the public hearing before the court will be conducted via video/audio conferencing. The Supreme Court hearing room will not be open to the public. Procedures for viewing the public hearing and for providing comment on the petition are set forth on the Public Administrative Rules Hearing Instruction sheet which can be accessed at https://www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending/2004.htm. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the hearing be given by a publication of a copy of this order and of the petition in the official state newspaper once each week for three consecutive weeks, and in an No. 20-04 2 official publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin not more than 60 days nor less than 30 days before the date of the hearing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the full text of the proposed rules, including changes, if any, in existing rules, shall be placed on the Internet site maintained by the director of state courts for the supreme court. See https://www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending.htm. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 9th day of December, 2020.

You are hereby notified that the court has issued the following order: On September 1, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control ("CDC") issued an order entitled "Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19." ("CDC Order"). The CDC Order was published on September 4, 2020 and remains in effect until December 31, 2020. On September 21, 2020, Legal Action of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Judicare ("Legal Action") filed a request for an "Emergency Order in the Matter of CDC Eviction Moratorium Compliance for Eviction Filings." On September 23, 2020, the court received a letter from Attorney Heiner Giese, on behalf of the Wisconsin Apartment Association (WAA) and the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin, Inc. (AASEW). The WAA/AASEW also seek court guidance regarding the CDC Order, albeit regarding different aspects of the CDC Order. On October 2, 2020, the court received a supplemental filing submitted on behalf of WAA/AASEW requesting the court provide certain specific direction to circuit courts presiding over eviction proceedings, as relating to the CDC Order. On October 12, 2020, the court received a response from Legal Action responding to the WAA/AASEW. The court is mindful of the economic challenges faced by many landlords and tenants during the current health crisis as well as the importance of mitigating the spread of COVID-19. However, we decline to adopt the proposed Emergency Order as proposed by Legal Action or with Page 2 October 21, 2020 In the Matter of CDC Eviction Moratorium Compliance for Eviction Filings the additions proposed by WAA/AASEW. The proposed Emergency Order and the recommendations of WAA/AASEW would impose certain directives on all circuit court judges with respect to the manner in which they preside over eviction proceedings during the pendency of the CDC Order. Some of those directives reflect legal interpretations of the CDC Order, a matter that has not yet come before this court. Some of the concerns identified by WAA/AASEW appear to have arisen in the context of pending cases or controversies that may be subject to review, including, potentially, review by this court. See SCR 60.04(1)(j) ("[a] judge may not, while a proceeding is pending or impending in any court, make any public comment that may reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of the proceeding."). This is an administrative rules proceeding, not a case or controversy and the court does not render advisory opinions. See Grotenrath v. Grotenrath, 215 Wis. 381, 384, 254 N.W. 631 (1934) ("[C]ourts will not ordinarily render advisory opinions where the questions propounded have not arisen and may never arise."). Our decision to deny the request of Legal Action and WAA/AASEW does not preclude an individual circuit court judge presiding over an existing case from making reasonable efforts to facilitate the ability of all litigants, including self-represented litigants, to be fairly heard, consistent with a judge's obligation to perform all judicial duties fairly and impartially. See SCR 60.04(1)(hm) and accompanying Comment. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Legal Action of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Judicare's request for an "Emergency Order in the Matter of CDC Eviction Moratorium Compliance for Eviction Filings" is denied; and Page 3 October 21, 2020 In the Matter of CDC Eviction Moratorium Compliance for Eviction Filings IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no action will be taken on the correspondence filed on behalf of the Wisconsin Apartment Association (WAA) and the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin, Inc. (AASEW), namely a September 23, 2020 letter submitted by Attorney Heiner Giese as supplemented by an October 2, 2020 letter submitted by Attorney Robert S. Driscoll; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that consistent with the court's usual practice in administrative rules matters, all filings in this matter, including a copy of the CDC Order, are public. They are available on the court's website at https://www.wicourts.gov/covid19.htm.

On November 25, 2019, the Honorable D. Todd Ehlers, on behalf of the Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee (JCAC) filed a rule petition asking the court to amend the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct, Supreme Court Rule (SCR), Chapter 60 pertaining to performing the duties of judicial office. IT IS ORDERED that the Supreme Court will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, October 6, 2020, commencing at 9:30 a.m. Due to the COVID 19 pandemic, the public hearing before the court will be conducted via video/audio conferencing. The Supreme Court hearing room will not be open to the public. Procedures for viewing the public hearing and for providing comment on the petition are set forth on the Public Administrative Rules Hearing Instruction sheet which can be accessed at https://www.wicourts.gov/ scrules/1923.htm. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the hearing be given by a publication of a copy of this order and of the petition in the official state newspaper once each week for three consecutive weeks, and in an No. 19-23 2 official publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin not more than 60 days nor less than 30 days before the date of the hearing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the full text of the proposed rules, including changes, if any, in existing rules, shall be placed on the Internet site maintained by the director of state courts for the supreme court. See www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending.htm. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 4th day of September, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

On December 23, 2019, Attorney Benjamin T. Kurten, on behalf of the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (the "Fund"), filed a rule petition asking the court to amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 12.07(2)(a) to increase the annual assessment of attorneys for the Fund to provide sufficient income for payment of eligible claims. By order dated February 25, 2020, the court scheduled a public hearing for April 2, 2020, in the above matter. By order dated March 17, 2020, the public hearing on rule petition 19-25 was cancelled due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. IT IS ORDERED that the Supreme Court will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, October 6, 2020, commencing at 9:30 a.m. Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the public hearing before the court will be conducted via video/audio conferencing. Procedures for viewing the public hearing and for providing comment on the petition are set forth on the Public Administrative Rules Hearing Instruction sheet which can be accessed at https://www.wicourts.gov/ scrules/1925.htm. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of hearing be given by a publication of a copy of this order and of the petition in the official state newspaper once each week for three consecutive weeks, 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the full text of the proposed rules, including changes, if any, in existing rules, shall be placed on the Internet site maintained by the director of state courts for the supreme court. See www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending.htm. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 4th day of September, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

On July 8, 2020, the President and the Chair of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Wisconsin requested the court extend the temporary waiver of State Bar of Wisconsin Bylaw Article III, Section 11(b) due to circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, through Fiscal Year 2021, ending on June 30, 2021.1 This request relates to in-person attendance and voting requirements for regular meetings of the Board of Governors. The petition states that it is the State Bar's intention to resume in-person meetings of the Board of Governors as soon as practicable, but explains the State Bar must also be able to address changing requirements of local governments and ensure the safety of the State Bar’s leadership, while continuing to conduct the business of the organization. IT IS ORDERED that the request of the State Bar of Wisconsin President and the Chair of the Board of Governors is granted, and requirements for in-person attendance and voting requirements for regular meetings of the Board of Governors are waived for the fiscal year 2021 to end on June 30, 2021; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Bar of Wisconsin shall take all reasonable steps to notify its members of the contents of this order. 1 By temporary administrative order dated May 15, 2020, the court granted the State Bar's request for a temporary waiver of the requirements for an annual meeting of the members, requirements associated with that annual meeting and requirements for in-person voting at regular meetings of the Board of Governors for the balance of fiscal year ending on June 30, 2020.

You are hereby notified that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has issued the following order: On July 20, 2020, this court issued an administrative rule order effective January 1, 2021, increasing the educational requirements for guardians ad litem appointed in family court cases and requiring education on the topic of the dynamics and impact of family violence. S. Ct. Order 19-13, 2020 WI 72 (issued July 20, 2020, eff. Jan. 1, 2021), (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., dissenting, joined by Daniel Kelly and Brian Hagedorn, J.J.). However, the Court recognizes that the public health emergency relating to COVID-19 may impact lawyers' ability to complete the education required for a lawyer to be eligible to serve as a guardian ad litem under Supreme Court Rule chs. 35 and 36. Many continuing legal education (CLE) seminars have been cancelled or postponed and many lawyers may need to self-isolate or avoid public gatherings because of the risk of acquiring and/or transmitting the virus.1 Accordingly, the court will temporarily permit lawyers, in their discretion, to fulfil guardian ad litem educational requirements from repeated on-demand programs through December 31, 2020.2 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that effective immediately and until December 31, 2020, lawyers may use on-demand programs to satisfy educational requirements needed as a prerequisite to accept an appointment as a guardian ad litem under Supreme Court Rule (SCR) chs. 35 or 36, provided those guardian ad litem educational requirements are completed on or before December 31, 2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because this temporary measure is effective immediately, there may be a delay before the board of bar examiner’s electronic filing system can accept electronic reports documenting attendance of on-demand courses in satisfaction of guardian ad litem educational requirements. In this event, lawyers are directed to submit a statement of their request for continuing legal education credit in writing, together with documentation of the on-demand course(s) for which credit is claimed. 1 By order dated March 17, 2020, the court, at the request of the State Bar of Wisconsin, elected to temporarily increase the number of credits from on-demand programs that lawyers may use to satisfy the requirements of SCR 31.02. See S. Ct. Order 20-01, 2020 WI 30 (issued March 17, 2020). See also In the Matter of Judicial Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic, S. Ct. Order (issued Apr. 3, 2020) (modifying judicial education requirements). 2 "Repeated on-demand program" means an on-line program delivered over the Internet, consisting of a program previously approved by the board of bar examiners. SCR 31.01(6m). Page 2 July 21, 2020 In re the Matter of Guardian ad Litem Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Bar of Wisconsin shall take all reasonable steps to notify its members of the contents of this order.

On April 9, 2019, Senator Roger Roth and Representative Robert Brooks, on behalf of the Joint Legislative Council Study Committee on Child Placement and Support ("Study Committee"), filed a rule petition asking this court to amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 35.015 pertaining to the educational requirements for guardian ad litem appointments under ch. 767. The petition asks the court to require all guardians ad litem appointed in family court cases to receive education on the dynamics and impact of family violence. At a closed administrative rules conference on June 6, 2019, the court voted to solicit written comments and schedule a public hearing. On August 14, 2019, a letter was sent to the standard interested persons list and to the Wisconsin Family Court Commissioners Association, inviting comment on the proposed changes. The court received written comments in support of the petition from: Korey C. Lundin, Family Law Priority Coordinator, and Deedee D. Peterson, Executive Director, Legal No. 19-13 2 Action of Wisconsin; Delores Bomrad, Judicial Court Commissioner, Washington County Circuit Court; and Mark Fremgen, Circuit Court Commissioner, Dane County Circuit Court. The court received comments opposing the petition from: Tony Bickel, President, Wisconsin Fathers for Children and Families; Kay A. Johnson, Executive Director, the National Alliance for Targeted Parents; and Professor Gretchen G. Viney, University of Wisconsin Law School, together with Attorney Tiffany L. Highstrom, Stafford Rosenbaum, LLP. The court conducted a public hearing on October 22, 2019. Representative Robert Brooks, Chair of the Study Committee, presented the petition to the court along with Attorney Maureen Atwell, a member of the Study Committee. Professor Gretchen G. Viney, University of Wisconsin Law School, and Kay A. Johnson, Executive Director, the National Alliance for Targeted Parents, spoke in opposition to the petition. Several citizens appeared in support of the petition, sharing personal testimony about challenges they faced navigating the family court system as survivors of domestic violence: Ms. Amy Berens; Ms. Jennifer Mauston; Ms. Megan Paulson; and Ms. Carrie Patzer. Korey C. Lundin, Legal Action of Wisconsin, Inc., Jenna Gormal, Public Policy Coordinator, End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin; and Sue Moen, Safe Harbor of Sheboygan County; also spoke in support of the petition. The court discussed the petition in a closed administrative conference following the public hearing and again on May 14, 2020, and voted to grant the petition, with the modifications described herein. A guardian ad litem may be appointed in family court proceedings to serve as an advocate for the best interests of a minor child. Wis. Stat. § 767.407(4). To fulfill this critically important role, the No. 19-13 3 guardian ad litem must be informed on a myriad of important issues that may affect a family. See Wis. Stat. § 767.407(4) (outlining the responsibilities of a guardian ad litem for minor children in ch. 767 cases). Indeed, a family court guardian ad litem must consider numerous factors that will bear on the court's determination of custody and placement for the minor children. See Wis. Stat. § 767.41(5)(am). The array of issues arising in family court cases is reflected in our current educational requirements for guardians ad litem under ch. 767. Our current rule requires completion of six "guardian ad litem" education credits, approved by the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE). At least three of those six hours must be approved "family court guardian ad litem education" on any of the following subjects: 1. Proceedings under chapter 767 of the statutes; 2. Child development and the effects of conflict and divorce on children; 3. Mental health issues in divorcing families; 4. The dynamics and impact of family violence; and 5. Sensitivity to various religious backgrounds, racial and ethnic heritages, and issues of cultural and socioeconomic diversity. SCR 35.03(1m)(a). At the public hearing, Professor Viney favored continuing to give guardians ad litem discretion to select the educational opportunities best suited for their practice. The petitioners acknowledged that a guardian ad litem should be informed on a myriad of issues. Informed by the recommendations of the Study Committee, however, the petitioners maintain that all guardians ad litem in family cases should be required to have some training and education pertaining to family violence. They emphasized that when family violence exists, the No. 19-13 4 consequences pervade many aspects of a family court proceeding. For example, a finding of interspousal battery as defined in Wis. Stat. § 940.19 or Wis. Stat. § 940.20(1m), or domestic abuse as defined in Wis. Stat. § 813.12(1)(am), is highly relevant to the legal standards applicable to a court's determination of appropriate custody, placement, and visitation. See, e.g., Wis. Stat. § 767.41(2). The petition proposes that for a lawyer to be eligible to accept an appointment as a guardian ad litem for a minor in a family law action, the lawyer must have taken at least three hours of education specifically addressing the dynamics and impact of family violence. For subsequent appointments, at least one of six required education hours should be on the topic of the dynamics and impact of family violence. We are persuaded that additional education on the topic of family violence is appropriate to better ensure that guardians ad litem appointed in family law cases are prepared to advocate for the best interests of the child. We opt to increase, by three credit hours, the requirements for accepting an initial appointment as a guardian ad litem under ch. 767, and to require that these three additional credit hours address the topic of family violence. SCR 35.03(1m)(a)4. Therefore, for guardian ad litem appointment orders issued after January 1, 2021, before the lawyer accepts the appointment the lawyer must have completed at least nine "guardian ad litem" education credits, approved by the BBE. Of these nine credit hours three must be approved education on the topic of family violence, and three more of these credit hours must be approved "family court guardian ad litem education" on any of the topics in SCR 35.03(1m)(a). The final three credit hours can be any No. 19-13 5 type of approved "guardian ad litem" or "family court guardian ad litem" education. After the lawyer has met this nine credit threshold educational requirement, thereafter, on the date a lawyer accepts a subsequent family court guardian ad litem appointment the lawyer must have completed at least six approved hours of guardian ad litem education during the applicable reporting period. Of these, at least one credit must be approved education on the topic of family violence, and at least two additional credits must be approved family court guardian ad litem education on any of the subjects identified in SCR 35.03(1m). The remaining hours can be any approved "guardian ad litem" or "family court guardian ad litem" education. The existing provisions in SCRs 35.01(3) and 35.015(2), permitting an appointing court to deem a lawyer "otherwise qualified by experience or expertise" to represent the best interests of a minor, remain unchanged. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that, effective January 1, 2021: SECTION 1. Supreme Court Rule 35.01 (title) and (intro.) is amended to read: SCR 35.01 Eligibility to accept an appointment under chapter 48 or 938. Commencing on July 1, 1999, a A lawyer may not accept an appointment by a court as a guardian ad litem for a minor in an action or proceeding under chapter 48 or 938 of the statutes unless one of the following conditions has been met: SECTION 2. A Comment to SCR 35.01 is created to read: Continuing legal education approved under SCR 35.03(1m) may be used to satisfy the educational requirements of SCR 35.01. No. 19-13 6 SECTION 3. Supreme Court Rule 35.015 (title) and (intro.) is amended to read: SCR 35.015 Eligibility to accept an appointment under chapter 767. Commencing on July 1, 2003 For guardian ad litem appointment orders issued after January 1, 2021, a lawyer may not accept an appointment by a court as a guardian ad litem for a minor in an action or proceeding under chapter 767 of the statutes unless one or more of the following conditions has been met: SECTION 4. Supreme Court Rule 35.015(1) is amended to read: (1) For a lawyer's first appointment commencing on or after January 1, 2021, The the lawyer has attended at least 6 9 hours of guardian ad litem education approved under SCR 35.03 during the combined current reporting period specified in SCR 31.01(7) at the time he or she accepts an appointment and the immediately preceding reporting period. At least 3 of the 6 hours shall be family court guardian ad litem education approved under SCR 35.03(1m). The 9 hours shall be allocated as follows: (a) At least 3 of the 9 hours shall be approved education addressing the topic of family violence. (b) In addition to the requirement of (1)(a), at least 3 of the 9 hours shall be approved education on any topic identified in SCR 35.03(1m)(a). (c) The remaining 3 hours may be any type of approved "guardian ad litem" or "family court guardian ad litem" education. SECTION 5. Supreme Court Rule 35.015(1m) is created to read: (1m) After a lawyer has satisfied the initial 9 credit threshold in 35.015(1) and for any subsequent appointments, the lawyer has No. 19-13 7 attended at least 6 hours of guardian ad litem education approved under SCR 35.03 during the combined current reporting period specified in SCR 31.01(7) and the immediately preceding reporting period. The 6 hours shall be allocated as follows: (a) At least one of the 6 hours shall be approved education on the topic of family violence. (b) In addition to the requirement of SCR 35.015(1m)(a), at least 2 more of the required 6 hours shall be approved education on any of the topics identified in SCR 35.03(1m)(a). (c) The remaining hours can be any type of approved "guardian ad litem" or "family court guardian ad litem" education. SECTION 6. Supreme Court Rule 35.02 is amended to read: A lawyer's acceptance of appointment as a guardian ad litem for a minor in an action or proceeding under chapter 48, 767, or 938 of the statutes constitutes the lawyer's representation to the appointing court that the lawyer is eligible to accept the appointment under SCR 35.01 or 25.015 35.015, whichever is applicable, and is governed by SCR 20:3.3. SECTION 7. Supreme Court Rule 35.03(1m)(a)2. is amended to read: Child development and the effects of conflict and divorce on children. SECTION 8. Supreme Court Rule 35.03(1m)(a)2m. is created to read: The effects of conflict and divorce on children. SECTION 9. Supreme Court Rule 35.03(2) is amended to read: The board of bar examiners shall designate, under SCR 31.05(3) and 31.07 the number of hours applicable to SCR 35.01(1) and (2) and No. 19-13 8 35.015(1) and (1m) for each approved course of instruction and continuing legal education activity. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the above amendments be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official publications designated in SCR 80.01, including the official publishers' online databases, and on the Wisconsin court system's web site. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall provide notice of this order. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 20th day of July, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court No. Rule 19-13.rgb 0 ¶1 REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J. (dissenting). In many actions affecting the family, the court must appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) to represent the best interests of a minor child. The law requires the GAL to consider 17 statutory factors in advocating for the child's best interests. Wis. Stat. § 767.407(4). Those 17 factors are: 1. The wishes of the child's parent or parents, as shown by any stipulation between the parties, any proposed parenting plan or any legal custody or physical placement proposal submitted to the court at trial. 2. The wishes of the child, which may be communicated by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem or other appropriate professional. 3. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parent or parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interest. 4. The amount and quality of time that each parent has spent with the child in the past, any necessary changes to the parents' custodial roles and any reasonable lifestyle changes that a parent proposes to make to be able to spend time with the child in the future. 5. The child's adjustment to the home, school, religion and community. 6. The age of the child and the child's developmental and educational needs at different ages. 7. Whether the mental or physical health of a party, minor child, or other person living in a proposed custodial household negatively affects the child's intellectual, physical, or emotional well-being. 8. The need for regularly occurring and meaningful periods of physical placement to provide predictability and stability for the child. No. Rule 19-13.rgb 1 9. The availability of public or private child care services. 10. The cooperation and communication between the parties and whether either party unreasonably refuses to cooperate or communicate with the other party. 11. Whether each party can support the other party's relationship with the child, including encouraging and facilitating frequent and continuing contact with the child, or whether one party is likely to unreasonably interfere with the child's continuing relationship with the other party. 12. Whether there is evidence that a party engaged in abuse, as defined in s. 813.122 (1) (a), of the child, as defined in s. 813.122 (1) (b). 12m. Whether any of the following has a criminal record and whether there is evidence that any of the following has engaged in abuse, as defined in s. 813.122 (1) (a), of the child or any other child or neglected the child or any other child: a. A person with whom a parent of the child has a dating relationship, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (ag). b. A person who resides, has resided, or will reside regularly or intermittently in a proposed custodial household. 13. Whether there is evidence of interspousal battery as described under s. 940.19 or 940.20 (1m) or domestic abuse as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (am). 14. Whether either party has or had a significant problem with alcohol or drug abuse. 15. The reports of appropriate professionals if admitted into evidence. 16. Such other factors as the court may in each individual case determine to be relevant. No. Rule 19-13.rgb 2 Wis. Stat. § 767.41(5)(am). As this comprehensive list illustrates, a GAL undertakes a heavy responsibility to explore the complexities of a child's family relationships and every facet of a child's life and circumstances impacting the child's well being, and after investigating all of that, to synthesize, digest and draw conclusions from innumerable details in order to construct a recommendation for the court regarding the best interests of the child. ¶2 As a prerequisite for a GAL to serve in this consequential capacity, this court wisely requires a minimum amount of education in topics pertinent to the GAL's responsibilities. Until now, each GAL retained the discretion to select from a number of relevant subject matters. While I support the majority's decision to increase the mandatory minimum number of education credits from six to nine (it should be even higher), the court errs in now requiring GALs to devote one-third of those hours to "family violence." Doing so places a disproportionate emphasis on one factor that certainly impacts some cases, at the expense of the GAL's instruction on a myriad of other considerations the GAL is statutorily required to investigate and weigh in advocating for children's best interests. ¶3 The law recognizes the seriousness of family violence issues in chapter 767 cases. As a former Milwaukee circuit court judge presiding in children's court, I too recognize that family violence is a significant problem for some families in Wisconsin. I appreciate the concerns motivating the recommendation of the No. Rule 19-13.rgb 3 Study Committee on Child Placement and Support, which prompted the filing of this rule petition by the Joint Legislative Council. Requiring more education for Wisconsin GALs is a sensible idea given the monumentally important responsibility these attorneys undertake to advocate for the best interests of children who must adjust to the dissolution of their families. With respect to GALs who encounter family violence as an issue in their caseloads, I trust those attorneys will pursue education designed to assist them in meeting their obligations to the children whose interests they represent. Forcing every Wisconsin GAL to take initial and continuing courses on "family violence," however, will not produce the beneficial change Rule 19-13's proponents desire. Instead, it will hinder the ability of GALs to obtain the education necessary to meet all of their statutory obligations. The law requires GALs to be well-versed in a multitude of complex areas in order to act as effective advocates for the best interests of children. Because I would continue to afford these professionals the discretion to select those courses most pertinent to their practices, I respectfully dissent. ¶4 Wisconsin Stat. § 767.407(4) describes the responsibilities of a GAL as follows: The guardian ad litem shall be an advocate for the best interests of a minor child as to paternity, legal custody, physical placement, and support. The guardian ad litem shall function independently, in the same manner as an attorney for a party to the action, and shall consider, but shall not be bound by, the wishes of the minor child or the positions of others as to the best interests of the minor child. The guardian ad litem shall consider the factors under s. 767.41 (5) (am), No. Rule 19-13.rgb 4 subject to s. 767.41 (5) (bm), and custody studies under s. 767.405 (14). The guardian ad litem shall investigate whether there is evidence that either parent has engaged in interspousal battery, as described in s. 940.19 or 940.20 (1m), or domestic abuse, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (am), and shall report to the court on the results of the investigation. The guardian ad litem shall review and comment to the court on any mediation agreement and stipulation made under s. 767.405 (12) and on any parenting plan filed under s. 767.41 (1m). Unless the child otherwise requests, the guardian ad litem shall communicate to the court the wishes of the child as to the child's legal custody or physical placement under s. 767.41 (5) (am) 2. The guardian ad litem has none of the rights or duties of a general guardian. Under the previous GAL educational rule,1 an attorney was eligible to accept a court appointment to serve "as a guardian ad litem for a minor in an action or proceeding under chapter 767" if one of the following two conditions were met: (1) The lawyer has attended 6 hours of guardian ad litem education approved under SCR 35.03 during the combined current reporting period specified in SCR 31.01(7) at the time he or she accepts an appointment and the immediately preceding reporting period. At least 3 of the 6 hours shall be family court guardian ad litem education approved under SCR 35.03(1m). (2) The appointing court has made a finding in writing or on the record that the action or proceeding presents exceptional or unusual circumstances for which the lawyer is otherwise qualified by experience or expertise to represent the best interests of the minor. SCR 35.015 (emphasis added). Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 35.03(1m)(a) directs the Board of Bar examiners to "approve, as 1 This matter addresses only GAL appointments in ch. 767 cases. SCR 35.01 covers GAL appointments in chs. 48 and 938 cases. See SCR 35.01. No. Rule 19-13.rgb 5 family court guardian ad litem education, courses of instruction . . . on any of the following subject matters:"  "Proceedings under chapter 767";  "Child development and the effects of conflict and divorce on children";  "Mental health issues in divorcing families";  "The dynamics and impact of family violence";  "Sensitivity to various religious backgrounds";  "Racial and ethnic heritages"; and  "[I]ssues of cultural and socioeconomic diversity." SCR 35.03(1m)(a). Until the court granted this rule petition, the court's GAL education requirement afforded GALs the discretion to choose training on whichever topics the GAL perceived to be particularly relevant to the GAL's practice and cases. ¶5 Under Rule 19-13, the court substantially alters the requirements. Instead of six hours of GAL education with at least three of the six hours falling under any of the "family court" topics listed in SCR 35.03(1m), a GAL taking chapter 767 appointments must now complete a total of nine hours with: (1) at least three hours on "family violence," (2) at least three hours on "family court" approved topics listed in SCR 35.03(1m), and (3) the remaining three hours covering any court-approved education. This increases the initial GAL-required education hourly credits by 33 percent, with 100 percent of the increase dedicated to "family violence education." Rule 19-13's requirements continue in perpetuity, with one of the six maintenance credits for every No. Rule 19-13.rgb 6 succeeding reporting period committed to the topic of family violence. ¶6 The court received three letters objecting to this educational rule change. One letter was jointly submitted by two lawyers: Tiffany L. Highstrom, a practitioner and member of the 2018 Legislative Council Study Committee on Child Placement and Support; and Gretchen Viney, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School who teaches a course on "Guardian ad Litem Practice in Wisconsin." Attorney Highstrom and Professor Viney strongly opposed the imposition of additional course-specific requirements, pointing out that doing so would eliminate a GAL's ability to "choose the topics of greatest interest or need" from the many listed in Wis. Stat. § 767.407(4) and SCR 35.03(1m)(a). Attorney Highstrom and Professor Viney identified other problems with imposing additional mandatory family violence credits, including the difficulties GALs will have in finding topic specific seminars to satisfy the new training requirements. Attorney Highstrom and Professor Viney expressed further concerns about mandating family violence education because this directive reduces a GAL's opportunity to become educated on the many other topics a GAL needs to learn. ¶7 Importantly, Attorney Highstrom and Professor Viney explain that the new mandatory training in family violence is not tied to the statutory provisions for "interspousal battery" or "domestic abuse" found in one of the 17 factors, each of which are narrowly defined compared to the much broader concept of "family No. Rule 19-13.rgb 7 violence"——a term the court elects to leave undefined. It is, after all, the obligation of the GAL to address the factors set forth in the statute, as defined by the law. Finally, these objectors remind us that a GAL is an attorney, "not a social worker, private investigator, or law enforcement officer" and "certainly, the [GAL] is not an expert witness." I agree with Attorney Highstrom and Professor Viney that "[w]e may make better use of training time to teach guardians ad litem how to be litigators, not witnesses." The legally prescribed role of the GAL is to be an advocate for the best interests of a child, not an expert on family violence. ¶8 Tony Bickel, the President of Wisconsin Fathers for Children and Families (WFCF) and a member of the Legislative Study Committee, also opposed the GAL educational rule change. He asserted that requiring three hours of family violence training is disproportionate to the overall training GALs must undergo in order to perform their roles effectively, and would detract from a GAL's ability to receive education on the many other factors used in determining the best interest of a child. While noting that domestic violence "is a significant factor in a relatively small percentage of family courts decisions," WFCF is "very much in favor of providing WI GALs with additional training in all of the factors that define a child's best interests." I agree, but imposing too many educational requirements on GALs "could have the unintended effect of dissuading guardians ad litem from taking appointments" given the costs associated with continuing legal education and in No. Rule 19-13.rgb 8 light of the relatively low county pay rates, as Attorney Highstrom and Professor Viney mentioned. ¶9 Kay Johnson submitted the third letter opposing the petition. She commented on her own experience as well as the experiences of five other parents who went through "high-conflict" divorces with a GAL. Ms. Johnson asserted that three hours of additional family violence training will not improve GAL performance because the statutes already reflect the importance of family violence, most GALs already have attended three or more hours of training in family violence, and the issues in these cases are much broader than what can be taught in a three-hour class. Johnson advocates that the solution is not more mandatory training for GALs but instead the involvement of advocates "whose primary profession already includes education in child development and trauma on children who are exposed to the common adversities seen in family court such as parental conflict, parental mental health, loyalty binds, dysfunctional family dynamics and family violence." Emphasizing the importance of the GAL as "the one person who can alert the court to concerns that impact the mental and physical well-being of the child," Ms. Johnson notes that the GAL's role "absolutely includes domestic violence, but it includes much more." ¶10 I agree with the objectors. Requiring three family violence credits as a prerequisite for appointment as a GAL and then requiring one family violence credit every reporting period thereafter may be detrimental to children in many cases. Requiring No. Rule 19-13.rgb 9 a significant portion of initial and maintenance credits on a single topic will prevent GALs from securing education in the other topic areas they must master, which may be more prevalent in their practices and in which they may need more training. Mandating family violence education representing one-third of all education requirements removes the discretion GALs need to properly educate themselves with classes relevant to their caseload, thereby impeding their ability to effectively advocate for the best interests of the children they are appointed to serve. While family violence is undoubtedly a serious problem in some chapter 767 cases, requiring every GAL to obtain these additional hours will hinder a GAL's ability to obtain education on the many other topics necessary to advocate for the best interests of the child. As Attorney Highstrom and Professor Viney put it, "[m]andatory domestic abuse training, while important, should not be required at the expense of a guardian ad litem's training in other areas, such as child development, mental health, and other legal skills such as negotiation and rules of evidence." ¶11 The proposal and the resultant rule are undoubtedly well-intentioned. Family violence is a serious societal problem warranting attention in family court proceedings. Nonetheless, the additional mandatory family violence credits imposed by Rule 19-13 will not solve issues with family violence in chapter 767 matters. The rule change will weaken the overall legal proficiency of GALs in Wisconsin by preventing them from broadening and expanding the knowledge they need to competently serve the children No. Rule 19-13.rgb 10

In 2016, the Wisconsin Supreme Court established the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Procedure Review Committee ("Committee").1 The Committee was charged with examining the OLR procedures and structure and reporting to this court recommendations intended to increase the efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness of the OLR process. On March 13, 2019, the Committee filed nine administrative rule petitions asking the court to amend certain Supreme Court Rules (SCR) in furtherance of the Committee's mission. 1 The Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek was appointed as the Committee's chair. The Committee included: Attorney Michael Apfeld, Mr. Mark Baker, Attorney Rick Esenberg, Attorney Ed Hannan, Attorney Amy Jahnke, Attorney Terry Johnson, Attorney Catherine LaFleur, Attorney Frank Lo Coco, University of Wisconsin Law School Professor Marsha Mansfield, Attorney David Meany, Attorney Jennifer Nashold, Attorney Joseph Ranney, Attorney Rod Rogahn, Attorney Jacquelynn Rothstein, the Honorable Carrie Schneider, Attorney Paul Schwarzenbart, Attorney Christopher Sobic, the Honorable David Wambach, and the Honorable Michael Waterman. Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 2 In addition to the extensive work of the Committee, the court benefitted from comments and testimony offered at the public hearings by Attorney Michael Ablan; Attorney Michael B. Apfeld; Mr. Mark Baker; Attorney Donald J. Christl, Board of Administrative Oversight; Attorney Dean R. Dietrich, on his own behalf and on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors; Ms. Elizabeth Esser; Attorney Stephen E. Kravit; Attorney Joseph M. Russell, Chair, Board of Administrative Oversight; Dr. Majid Sarmadi; Attorney Paul W. Schwarzenbart; Attorney Raymond E. Schrank, II; Attorney John Nicholas Schweitzer; Attorney David C. Rashid; and the OLR Director, Keith Sellen. Rule Petitions 19-04 and 19-05 On June 26, 2019, following a June 6, 2019 public hearing and a closed administrative rules conference, the court issued an order granting Rule Petition 19-04 (Referee Training).2 S. Ct. Order 19-04, 2019 WI 77 (issued June 26, 2019, eff. Jan. 1, 2020). The court opted to hold Rule Petition 19-05 (Referee Authority) in abeyance until further order of the court. S. Ct. Order 19-05 (issued June 26, 2019).3 Rule Petitions 19-06 and 19-07 On September 16, 2019, at a closed administrative rules conference following a public hearing, the court approved, in part, Rule Petition 2 The Referee Training Subcommittee was chaired by Attorney Jacquelynn Rothstein. 3 The Referee Authority Subcommittee was chaired by the Honorable Gerald Ptacek. The court will revisit rule petition 19-05 after it has had an opportunity to evaluate the work of the new referee panel established and trained pursuant to rule petition 19-04. Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 3 19-06 (Reinstatements)4 and Rule Petition 19-07 (OLR Confidentiality).5 S. Ct. Order 19-06 (issued Oct. 10, 2019); S. Ct. Order 19-07, (issued Oct. 10, 2019). Rule Petitions 19-08, 19-09, 19-10 On October 29, 2019, at a closed administrative rules conference following a public hearing, the court voted to approve, in part, two more of the Committee's proposals: Rule Petition 19-08 (OLR Process)6 and Rule Petition 19-09 (Enforcement of Orders)7. S. Ct. Order 19-08 (issued Dec. 18, 2019); S. Ct. Order 19-09 (issued Dec. 18, 2019). The court voted to deny Rule Petition 19-10 (Permanent Revocation), but voted to add a comment to clarify that revocation under SCR 21.16 is not permanent in Wisconsin.8 S. Ct. Order 19-10 (issued Dec. 18, 2019, Ziegler, J., dissenting). A working draft of the amendments was posted to the court's rules website. Rule Petitions 19-11 and 19-12 On December 9, 2019, at a closed administrative rules conference following a public hearing, the court approved, in part, the final two 4 The OLR Reinstatement Subcommittee was chaired by Attorney Jacquelynn Rothstein. 5 The OLR Confidentiality Subcommittee was chaired by Attorney Joseph Ranney. 6 The OLR Process Subcommittee was chaired by Professor Marsha Mansfield. 7 The OLR Enforcement Subcommittee was chaired by Attorney Paul Schwarzenbart. 8 The Permanent Revocation Subcommittee was chaired by Attorney Jacquelynn Rothstein. Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 4 rule petitions: Rule Petition 19-11 (OLR Charging Process)9 and Rule Petition 19-12 (Reporting Misconduct).10 S. Ct. Order 19-11 (issued Dec. 18, 2019); S. Ct. Order 19-12 (issued Dec. 18, 2019). An updated working draft of the amendments was posted to the court's rules website. At several closed administrative rules conferences in the spring of 2020, the court resolved certain outstanding questions regarding the various petitions. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that effective January 1, 2021: SECTION 1. Consistent with the court's decision in the matter of rule petition 19-06, a Comment to Supreme Court Rule 10.03(6m) is created to read: WISCONSIN COMMENT Costs regarding the petition for reinstatement under subsection (6m)(b) may be assessed against the petitioner, as provided in SCR 22.24. SECTION 2. Consistent with the court's decision in the matter of rule petition 19-06, a Comment to Supreme Court Rule 10.03(7) is created to read: WISCONSIN COMMENT Costs regarding the petition for readmission under subsection (7)(b) may be assessed against the petitioner, as provided in SCR 22.24. SECTION 3. Consistent with the court's decision in the matter of rule petition 19-12, Supreme Court Rule 20:1.8(h)(3) is amended to read: 9 The OLR Charging Process Subcommittee was chaired by Attorney Paul Schwarzenbart. 10 The OLR Reporting Misconduct Subcommittee was chaired by the Honorable Gerald Ptacek. Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 5 (3) make an agreement limiting the client's a person's right to report the lawyer's conduct to disciplinary authorities. SECTION 4. Consistent with the court's decision in the matter of rule petition 19-12, the Comment to Supreme Court Rule 20:1.8(h)(3) is amended to read: WISCONSIN COMMENT This rule differs from the Model Rule in four respects. Paragraph (c) incorporates the decisions in State v. Collentine, 39 Wis. 2d 325, 159 N.W.2d 50 (1968), and State v. Beaudry, 53 Wis. 2d 148, 191 N.W.2d 842 (1971). Paragraph (f) adds a reference to an attorney retained at government expense and retains the "insurance defense" exception from prior Wisconsin law. But see SCR 20:1.2(e). Paragraph (h) prohibits a lawyer from making an agreement limiting the client's a person's right to report the lawyer's conduct to disciplinary authorities. Paragraph (j)(2) includes language from ABA Comment [19]. SECTION 5. Consistent with the court's decision in the matter of rule petition 19-12, the Comment to Supreme Court Rule 20:8.3 is amended to read: WISCONSIN COMMENT The change from "having knowledge" to "who knows" in SCR 20:8.3(a) and (b) reflects the adoption of the language used in the ABA Model Rule. See also SCR 20:1.0(g) defining "knows." The requirement under paragraph (c) that the lawyer consult with the client is not expressly included in the Model Rule. A lawyer who consults with a client pursuant to subsection (c) should not discourage a client from consenting to reporting a violation unless the lawyer believes there is a reasonable possibility that it would compromise the attorney-client privilege or Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 6 otherwise prejudice the client. Lawyers should also be mindful of the obligation not to use the threat of a report as a bargaining chip (see Wisconsin Ethics Opinion E-01-01) and the obligation not to seek to contractually limit a person from reporting professional misconduct. See SCR 20:1.8(h)(3). SECTION 6. Consistent with the court's decision in the matter of rule petition 19-08, Supreme Court Rule 21.01(1)(bg) is created to read: (1)(bg) Special investigators and the special preliminary review panel, provided in SCR 22.25. SECTION 7. Consistent with the court's decision in the matter of rule petition 19-07, Supreme Court Rule 21.18(1) is amended to read: (1) Information, an inquiry, or a grievance concerning the conduct of an attorney shall be communicated to the director within 10 six years after the person communicating the information, inquiry or grievance knew or reasonably should have known of the conduct, whichever is later earlier, or shall be barred from proceedings under this chapter and SCR chapter 22. SECTION 8. Consistent with the court's decision in the matter of rule petition 19-07, Supreme Court Rule 21.18(2) is amended to read: (2) The time during which a person who knew or should have known of the attorney's conduct is under a disability as provided in Wis. Stat. § 893.16 (1997-98) and the time during which the attorney acted to conceal the conduct from or mislead the person who knew or should have known of the conduct regarding the conduct are not part of the time specified in sub. (1). SECTION 9. Consistent with the court's decision in the matter of rule petition 19-07, Supreme Court Rule 21.19 is amended to read: Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 7 SCR 21.19 Privileges, immunity. Communications with the director, staff of the office of lawyer regulation, a district committee, a special investigator, retained counsel, the preliminary review committee, and a special preliminary review panel alleging attorney misconduct or medical incapacity and testimony given in an investigation or proceeding under SCR ch. 22 are privileged, except as provided under SCRs 22.03, 22.21, 22.34 and 22.40. No lawsuit predicated on these communications any privileged or non-privileged communications referenced in this section may be instituted against any grievant or witness. The director, staff of the office of lawyer regulation, members of a district committee, special investigators, retained counsel, members of the preliminary review committee, members of a special preliminary review panel, referees, members of the board of administrative oversight, and persons designated by the director to monitor compliance with diversion agreements or with conditions imposed on the attorney's practice of law, shall be immune from suit for any conduct in the course of their official duties. SECTION 10. Consistent with the court's decision in the matter of rule petition 19-08, Supreme Court Rule 22.02(2)(d) is amended to read: (2)(d) Refer the matter to the director with a recommendation that the matter be investigated by staff, or diverted, or resolved by a consensual reprimand. SECTION 11. Consistent with the court's decision in the matter of rule petition 19-11, Supreme Court Rule 22.02(4) is amended to read: (4) The staff shall notify the grievant in writing that the grievant may obtain review by the director of the staff's closure of a matter under sub. (2)(c) by submitting to the director a written Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 8 request. The request for review must be received by the director within 30 days after the date of the letter notifying the grievant of the closure. The director may, upon a timely request by the grievant for additional time, extend the time for submission of additional information relating to the request for review. If the director affirms the closure, the director shall provide to the grievant a brief written statement of reasons for affirmation. The decision of the director affirming the closure or referring the matter to staff for further evaluation is final, and there shall be no review of the director's decision. SECTION 12. Consistent with the court's decision in the matter of rule petition 19-11, Supreme Court Rule 22.02(6)(a) is amended to read: (6)(a) Close the matter for lack of an allegation of possible misconduct or medical incapacity or lack of sufficient information of cause to proceed. The director shall notify provide to the grievant written notice of the decision to close, accompanied by a brief written statement of reasons for the director's decision. The notice shall inform the grievant in writing that the grievant may obtain review by a preliminary review panel of the director's closure by submitting a written request to the director. The request for review must be received by the director within 30 days after the date of the letter notifying the grievant of the closure. The director shall send the request for review to the chairperson of the preliminary review committee, who shall assign it to a preliminary review panel. Upon a timely request by the grievant for additional time, the director shall report the request to the chairperson of the preliminary review Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 9 committee, who may extend the time for submission of additional information relating to the request for review. SECTION 13. Consistent with the court's decisions in the matter of rule petitions 19-08 and 19-11, Supreme Court Rule 22.02(6)(d) is created to read: (6)(d) Obtain the respondent's consent to the imposition of a public or private reprimand and proceed under SCR 22.09. SECTION 14. Consistent with the court's decision in the matter of rule petition 19-08, Supreme Court Rule 22.03(4) is repealed and recreated to read: (4)(a) If respondent fails fully and fairly to disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct within the deadline established pursuant to par. (2), including any extension granted by the director or special investigator, or fails to cooperate in other respects with an investigation, the director or special investigator shall notify respondent by personal service that respondent's license to practice law will be automatically suspended unless, within 20 days after receiving such personal service, respondent: 1. Fully and fairly discloses all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct or otherwise cooperates with the investigation, to the reasonable satisfaction of the director or special investigator; or, 2. Submits evidence to the director or special investigator demonstrating, to the reasonable satisfaction of the director or special investigator, respondent's inability to disclose the facts and circumstances or otherwise cooperate with the investigation; or, Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 10 3. Files a motion with the supreme court showing cause why respondent's license to practice should not be suspended for willful failure to respond or cooperate with the investigation. (b)1. If respondent satisfies the condition of par. (a) 1., the director or special investigator shall proceed with the investigation. 2. If respondent satisfies the condition of par. (a) 2., the director or special investigator may establish a new deadline for respondent to disclose fully and fairly all facts and circumstances or otherwise cooperate with the investigation. If respondent fails to disclose fully and fairly all facts and circumstances or otherwise cooperate with the investigation, to the reasonable satisfaction of the director or special investigator, before expiration of the deadline established pursuant to this par. 2, respondent's license to practice law is automatically suspended. 3. If respondent files a motion with the supreme court pursuant to par. (a) 3., the supreme court shall act upon respondent's motion, following its own procedures. All papers, files, transcripts, communications, and proceedings on the motion are confidential until the supreme court has acted upon the motion. If the supreme court grants respondent's motion, the record shall remain confidential. If the supreme court denies respondent's motion, the record shall become public information unless the supreme court, upon its discretion and for cause shown, directs otherwise. (c)1. If respondent fails to satisfy any of par. (a) 1., 2., or 3., or fails to meet a deadline established pursuant to par. (b) 2., or if the supreme court rejects respondent's motion submitted pursuant to par. (b) 3., respondent's license is suspended and the director shall Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 11 promptly notify the state bar of Wisconsin, and all judges in the state of the suspension. 2. SCR 22.26(2) applies immediately upon suspension to a respondent whose license to practice law is suspended pursuant to this rule. If respondent's suspension hereunder extends beyond 30 days, SCR 22.26 in its entirety applies to the respondent beginning on the 31st day. (d)1. Notwithstanding SCR 22.28, if, within 18 months of the date of suspension pursuant to SCR 22.03(4), a respondent whose license was suspended for failure to satisfy a condition of par. (a) 1. to 3., or failure to meet a deadline established pursuant to par. (b) 2., discloses fully and fairly all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct, or otherwise cooperates with the investigation, to the reasonable satisfaction of the director or special investigator, respondent's license to practice law shall be automatically reinstated. Upon reinstatement of a license pursuant to this subsection, the director or special investigator shall promptly notify all judges in the state of such reinstatement. 2. Respondent, following suspension of respondent's license pursuant to par. (4) and whose license was not automatically reinstated pursuant to par. (d) 1. above, may apply for reinstatement pursuant to SCR 22.28(3). SECTION 15. Consistent with the court's decision in the matter of rule petition 19-07, Supreme Court Rule 22.03(5)(c) is created to read: (5)(c) The director may, in the director's discretion, provide the respondent a copy of the grievance and of any information supplied by Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 12 the grievant that is not included in the grievance. In exercising such discretion, the director shall consider: 1. The grievant's interest in privacy. 2. The respondent's interest in being fully informed of the basis for the grievance and of any proceedings taken against him or her pursuant to the grievance. 3. Any effect that supplying or withholding a copy of the grievance and information supplied by the grievant may have upon the public interest. SECTION 16. Supreme Court Rule 22.03(6) is amended to correct a typographical error to read: (6) In the course of the investigation, the respondent's willful failure to provide relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted in the grievance. SECTION 17. Consistent with the court's decision in the matter of rule petition 19-11, Supreme Court Rule 22.05(1)(e) is created to read: (1)(e) With the mutual consent of the attorney and the director to waive presentation of the matter to the preliminary review committee, proceed in any manner authorized by SCR 22.08(2). SECTION 18. Consistent with the court's decision in the matter of rule petition 19-11, Supreme Court Rule 22.05(2) is amended to read: (2) The If the director dismisses the matter under sub. (1), the director shall notify provide to the grievant in writing written notice of the decision to dismiss, accompanied by a brief written statement of reasons for the director's decision. The notice shall inform the Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 13 grievant that the grievant may obtain review by a preliminary review panel of the director's dismissal of a matter under sub. (1) by submitting to the director a written request. The request for review must be received by the director within 30 days after the date of the letter notifying the grievant of the dismissal. The director shall send the request to the chairperson of the preliminary review committee, who shall assign it to a preliminary review panel. Upon a timely request by the grievant for additional time, the director shall report the request to the chairperson of the preliminary review committee, who may extend the time for submission of additional information relating to the request for review. SECTION 19. Consistent with the court's decision in a closed administrative rules conference on January 22, 2020, Supreme Court Rule 22.09(2) is amended to read: (2) The director shall request the appointment of a referee by providing in confidence to the clerk of the supreme court the names of the grievant and respondent, the address of the respondent's principal office, and the date of the consent agreement. The clerk or deputy clerk of the supreme court shall select an available referee shall be selected from the panel provided in SCR 21.08, based on the location of the respondent's principal office. The chief justice or, in his or her absence, the chief justice's delegee shall appoint the referee selected by the clerk or deputy clerk. The director shall submit the agreement, accompanied by the respondent's public and private disciplinary history, to the appointed referee for review and approval. The director shall send a copy of the agreement to the grievant. The grievant may submit a written response to the director within 30 days after being Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 14 notified of the agreement, and the director shall submit the response to the referee. The respondent and the director may submit comments to the referee regarding the grievant's response. The agreement, the grievant's response, and the comments of the respondent and director shall be considered by the referee in confidence. SECTION 20. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-11, Supreme Court Rule 22.10(4) is amended to read: (4) Diversion agreement. If the attorney agrees to diversion to an alternatives to discipline program, the terms of the diversion shall be set forth in a written agreement between the attorney and the director. The agreement shall specify the program to which the attorney is diverted, the general purpose of the diversion, the manner in which the attorney's compliance with the program is to be monitored, and the requirement, if any, for payment of restitution or costs. If the diversion agreement is entered into after the director has reported the matter to the preliminary review committee, pursuant to SCR 22.06(1), the agreement shall be submitted for approval to the preliminary review panel to which the matter has been assigned. If the preliminary review panel rejects the agreement, the matter shall proceed as otherwise provided in this chapter. SECTION 21. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-11, Supreme Court Rule 22.10(7) is amended to read: (7) Breach of a diversion agreement. (a) If the director has reason to believe that the attorney has breached a diversion agreement entered into prior to a report of the matter to the preliminary review committee, pursuant to SCR 22.06(1), the attorney shall be given the opportunity to respond, and the director parties may modify the Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 15 diversion agreement or the director may, in the director's sole discretion, terminate the diversion agreement and proceed with the matter as otherwise provided in this chapter. SECTION 22. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-11, Supreme Court Rule 22.10(7)(b) and (c) are repealed. SECTION 23. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-11, Supreme Court Rule 22.11(2) is renumbered 22.11(2)(a) and amended to read: (2)(a) The Except as provided in sub. (b) or (c), the complaint shall set forth only those facts and misconduct allegations for which the preliminary review panel determined there was cause to proceed. and The complaint may set forth the discipline or other disposition sought. Facts and misconduct allegations arising under SCR 22.20 and SCR 22.22 may be set forth in a complaint without a preliminary review panel finding of cause to proceed. SECTION 24. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-11, SCR 22.11(2)(b) and (c) are created to read: (b) A complaint may set forth facts and misconduct allegations arising under SCR 22.20 and SCR 22.22 without a preliminary review panel finding of cause to proceed. (c) A complaint may set forth facts and misconduct allegations without a preliminary review panel finding of cause to proceed if presentation to the preliminary review committee is waived under SCR 22.05(1)(e). SECTION 25. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-06, Supreme Court Rule 22.12(1) is amended to read: Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 16 (1) The director may file with the complaint a stipulation of the director and the respondent to the facts, conclusions of law regarding misconduct, and discipline to be imposed, together with a memorandum in support of the stipulation. The respondent may file a response to the director's memorandum within 14 days of the date of filing of the stipulation. The supreme court may consider the complaint and stipulation without the appointment of a referee, in which case the supreme court may approve the stipulation, reject the stipulation, or direct the parties to consider specific modifications to the stipulation. SECTION 26. Consistent with the court's decision in a closed administrative rules conference on January 22, 2020, Supreme Court Rule 22.13(3) is amended to read: (3) Except as provided in SCR 22.12, upon receipt of proof of service of the complaint, the clerk or deputy clerk of the supreme court shall select an available referee shall be selected from the panel provided in SCR 21.08, based on the location of the respondent's principal office. The chief justice or, in his or her absence, the chief justice's delegee shall issue an order appointing the referee selected by the clerk or deputy clerk to conduct a hearing on the complaint. SECTION 27. Consistent with an amendment to Supreme Court Rule, Chapter 71, S. Ct. Order 19-01, 2019 WI 44 (issued April 22, 2019, eff. July 1, 2019), Supreme Court Rule 22.16(1) is amended to read: (1) The referee has the powers of a judge trying a civil action and shall conduct the hearing as the trial of a civil action to the court. The rules of civil procedure and evidence shall be followed. Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 17 The referee shall obtain the services of a court reporter to make a verbatim record of the proceedings, as provided in SCR, 71.01 to 71.03 Chapter 71. SECTION 28. A Comment to Supreme Court Rule 22.16 is created to read: COMMENT Wis. Stat. ch. 785 defines "contempt" and provides that a "court of record" may find a person in contempt and impose sanctions. A referee presiding over a lawyer disciplinary proceeding is not a "court of record." See also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Strasburg, 217 Wis. 2d 318, 577 N.W.2d 1 (1998) (setting forth procedure to address contempt scenario in disciplinary proceeding). SECTION 29. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-09, Supreme Court Rule 22.185 is created to read: SCR 22.185 Enforcement of Disciplinary Orders. (1) The supreme court, on its own motion, upon the motion of the director, or upon the motion of a special investigator acting under SCR 22.25 filed in the disciplinary proceeding in which an order was issued, may enforce any disciplinary order where the respondent has failed to substantially comply with the order. (2) Upon filing of a motion under sub. (1), the supreme court may order the respondent to show cause why the relief requested in the motion should not be granted. Within the time set forth in the order, the respondent shall have the right to file with the supreme court a written response to the order to show cause, and respondent shall serve a copy of such response on the director, or special investigator. The Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 18 director, or special investigator, may file a reply memorandum within 10 days after filing of the response. (3) The supreme court may decide the motion upon the submissions of the parties, or may refer the matter to the referee appointed in the proceeding, who shall promptly conduct a hearing and file a report with the supreme court containing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation for disposition of the motion. Unless otherwise directed by the supreme court, the referee shall follow the procedures in SCR 22.15 and SCR 22.16, and may conduct the hearing by telephone. A report issued by the referee is reviewable under SCR 22.17. (4) Upon the submissions of the parties, or upon receipt of the report of the referee, the supreme court shall decide the motion, and may either deny or dismiss the motion, or issue such orders as are necessary to enforce the order. (5) Nothing in this rule shall: (a) Limit the authority of the director, or a special investigator, to initiate an investigation or proceeding for misconduct or medical incapacity under these rules. (b) Limit the constitutional, statutory, or inherent authority of the supreme court to enforce an order issued in a disciplinary proceeding. SECTION 30. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-07, Supreme Court Rule 22.21(2) is amended to read: (2) Before entering an order suspending an attorney's license under sub. (1), the supreme court shall order the attorney to show cause why the license to practice law should not be suspended temporarily. The attorney shall file with the supreme court a written response to Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 19 the order and serve a copy of the response on the director within the time set forth in the order. The director, or special investigator acting under SCR 22.25, may file a memorandum in support of or in opposition to the temporary license suspension within 10 days after the attorney's response is filed. All Except as provided in sub. (2m) and (3), SCRs 22.03, 22.34 and 22.40, all papers, files, transcripts, communications, and proceedings, including those pertaining to investigations, shall be confidential and shall remain are confidential until the supreme court has issued an order to show cause. SECTION 31. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-07, Supreme Court Rule 22.21(2m) is created to read: (2m) Following the issuance of the order to show cause under sub. (2), the motion under sub. (1), and the order to show cause are public information, except as follows: (a) The name of the special investigator or any person alleging that the attorney committed an act of misconduct. (b) Medical information regarding the attorney who is the subject of the order to show cause. (c) Financial information regarding the attorney who is the subject of the order to show cause, or of any person alleging the attorney committed an act of misconduct, if the financial information is unrelated to the order to show cause. (d) Information that is subject to legal privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, unless such privilege is waived in writing by the person or persons holding such privilege. (e) As otherwise expressly provided in this chapter or by law or by order of the supreme court. Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 20 SECTION 32. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-07, Supreme Court Rule 22.21(3) is amended to read: (3) Filing of complaint. The director, or a special investigator acting under SCR 22.25, shall file the complaint in the disciplinary proceeding within 4 months of the effective date of the temporary suspension imposed under this section, or shall show cause why the temporary suspension should continue. The respondent attorney may file a response with the supreme court within 10 days of service. The statement of cause to continue the temporary suspension and the attorney's response are public information, subject to the same exceptions set forth in sub. (2m) (a) to (e). Reinstatement under this section shall not terminate any misconduct investigation or disciplinary proceeding pending against the attorney. SECTION 33. Supreme Court Rule 22.23(2) is amended to read: (2) The director shall send notice of a public reprimand or a license suspension or revocation to the state bar of Wisconsin and to a newspaper of general circulation in each county in which the attorney maintained an office for the practice of law. SECTION 34. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-09, Supreme Court Rule 22.24(1) is amended to read: (1) The supreme court may assess against the respondent all or a portion of the costs of a disciplinary proceeding in which misconduct is found, a medical incapacity proceeding in which it finds a medical incapacity, or a reinstatement proceeding, or a motion to enforce an order issued in a disciplinary proceeding, and may enter a judgment for costs. The director may assess all or a portion of the costs of an Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 21 investigation when discipline is imposed under SCR 22.09. Costs are payable to the office of lawyer regulation. SECTION 35. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-08, Supreme Court Rule 22.25(3) is amended to read: (3) If the special investigator determines that there is not sufficient information to support a possible finding of cause to proceed an allegation of possible misconduct, the special investigator may close the matter. The special investigator shall notify the grievant in writing that the grievant may obtain review by the special preliminary review panel of the closure by submitting a written request to the special investigator. The request for review must be received by the special investigator within 30 days after the date of the letter notifying the grievant of the closure. The special investigator shall send the request for review to the special preliminary review panel consisting of 4 lawyers and 3 public members appointed by the supreme court and having a quorum of 4 members. Members of the special preliminary review panel serve staggered 3-year terms, as described in sub. (3m). A member may serve not more than 2 consecutive 3-year terms. Upon a timely request by the grievant for additional time, the special investigator shall report the request to the chairperson of the special preliminary review panel, who may extend the time for submission of additional information relating to the request for review. If the panel affirms the investigator's determination, the special preliminary review panel shall inform the grievant. The panel's decision affirming closure of the matter is final. If the panel does not concur in the investigator's determination, it shall direct the investigator to initiate an investigation of the matter. Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 22 SECTION 36. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-08, Supreme Court Rule 22.25(3m) is created to read: (3m) The special preliminary review panel consists of 4 lawyers and 3 public members, appointed by the supreme court and having a quorum of 4 members. Members of the special preliminary review panel serve staggered 3-year terms. A member may not serve more than 2 consecutive 3-year terms. SECTION 37. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-08, Supreme Court Rule 22.25(4) is amended to read: (4) If the special investigator determines that the information provided is sufficient to support a possible finding of cause to proceed an allegation of misconduct, the special investigator shall conduct an investigation of the matter. Upon commencing an investigation, the special investigator shall notify the respondent of the matter being investigated unless in the opinion of the special investigator the investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct with 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a request for a written response. The special investigator may allow additional time to respond. Except in limited circumstances when good cause is shown and a response summary is more appropriate, the special investigator shall provide the grievant a copy of the respondent's response and the opportunity to comment in writing on the respondent's response. Following receipt of the response, the special investigator may conduct further investigation and may compel the respondent to answer questions, furnish documents, and present information deemed relevant to the investigation. In the course of the investigation, the Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 23 respondent's willful failure to provide relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure are misconduct, regardless of the matters asserted in the grievance. Upon completion of the investigation, the special investigator shall do one of the following: SECTION 38. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-07, Supreme Court Rule 22.26(4) is created to read: (4) Except as provided in SCRs 22.03, 22.21, 22.34 and 22.40, all papers, files, transcripts, and communications with the office of lawyer regulation regarding an attorney's compliance with a suspension or revocation order are to be held in confidence. The director may disclose relevant information in a motion for enforcement pursuant to SCR 22.185, or in reinstatement and readmission proceedings pursuant to Chapter 10, Chapter 31, or this chapter. SECTION 39. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-08, a Comment to Supreme Court Rule 22.26 is created to read: COMMENT SCR 22.26 has been applied to administrative suspensions. In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Scanlan, 2006 WI 38, 290 Wis. 2d 30, 712 N.W.2d 877. SECTION 40. For purposes of renumbering, Supreme Court Rule 22.29(4m) is renumbered as Supreme Court Rule 22.29(4)(m). SECTION 41. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-06, Supreme Court Rule 22.29(4x) is created to read: (4x) At the time that the petitioner serves a copy of the petition for reinstatement on the director, the petitioner shall also submit to the director a completed reinstatement questionnaire. Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 24 SECTION 42. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-06, a Comment to Supreme Court Rule 22.29(4x) is created to read: COMMENT A blank copy of the reinstatement questionnaire may be obtained from the office of lawyer regulation. The questionnaire is used by the office of lawyer regulation to assist in its investigation. The questionnaire is not to be filed with the court. SECTION 43. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-06, Supreme Court Rule 22.30 is repealed and recreated to read: SCR 22.30 Reinstatement Procedure. (1) Promptly following the filing of the petition for reinstatement, the director shall publish a notice on the website of the office of lawyer regulation, and in an official publication of the state bar of Wisconsin. The director may publish the notice in a newspaper of general circulation in counties in which the petitioner resided or maintained an office for the practice of law prior to suspension or revocation. (2) The notice shall contain all of the following: (a) The name of the petitioner, the date on which the petition for reinstatement was filed, the case number assigned to the petition, a brief statement of the nature and date of suspension or revocation, and the matters required to be proved for reinstatement. (b) The office of lawyer regulation will be investigating the eligibility of the petitioner for reinstatement. (c) This notice is the only published notice regarding the petition for reinstatement. Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 25 (d) Interested persons may submit written comments regarding the petitioner and the reinstatement petition, the address (physical and electronic) to which written comments may be submitted, and the deadline for submitting written comments, which shall be 60 days following the date on which the petitioner for reinstatement was filed. All formal written comments regarding the petition shall be forwarded to a referee, if any, and to the supreme court. (e) Individuals may request that notice of any reinstatement hearing regarding the petition be sent to an address they provide to the office of lawyer regulation. (f) Individuals who provide their address and ask to have notice of a reinstatement hearing will have a notice of a reinstatement hearing sent to them at the address provided. (g) The office of lawyer regulation may contact individuals who submit written comments to obtain further information. (h) Upon completion of the investigation, the director will file with the court a response to the petition stating either that the director does not oppose reinstatement and will negotiate a stipulation with the petitioner, which will be considered by the supreme court without the appointment of a referee or that the director opposes reinstatement and a referee will be appointed and a reinstatement hearing take place. (i) Information regarding the status of the petition and any hearing will be available on the website of the office of lawyer regulation. (3) Within 75 days after the filing of the petition, the board of bar examiners shall determine the attendance and reporting requirements Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 26 of the petitioner, as required by SCR 31.06, and file with the court a report regarding the petitioner's compliance. Upon motion of the board of bar examiners or the petitioner for good cause shown, the court may grant the board of bar examiners an extension of time to complete the assessment of compliance and file the report regarding compliance. Failure of the petitioner to prove compliance within the time allowed, including any extension thereof, may subject the petition to immediate dismissal. (4) Within 75 days after the filing of the petition, the director shall investigate the eligibility of the petitioner for reinstatement and shall file with the court a response to the petition stating whether the petitioner has demonstrated to the director satisfaction of all of the criteria for reinstatement or the director opposes the petition. Except as provided in SCRs 22.03, 22.21, 22.34 and 22.40, all papers, files, transcripts, and communications with the office of lawyer regulation regarding the investigation are to be held in confidence. Papers filed in the reinstatement proceeding are public, except where expressly provided otherwise in this chapter, by court order, or by law. Upon motion of the director or the petitioner for good cause shown, the court may grant the director an extension of time to complete the investigation and file the response to the petition. (5)(a) If the director's response states that the petitioner has demonstrated to the director satisfaction of all of the criteria for reinstatement, the director and the petitioner shall prepare and file a stipulation containing all facts and conclusions of law necessary to satisfy the standards for reinstatement, identifying all conditions to be imposed on the petitioner or the petitioner's practice of law Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 27 following reinstatement, and requesting that the court reinstate the petitioner's license to practice law in this state. The director shall also file a memorandum in support of the stipulation, which shall include a discussion of any material issue potentially adverse to the petition and an explanation as to why the director concludes that the issue does not prevent reinstatement. At the time of filing the stipulation and memorandum, the director shall also file with the court all formal written comments that have been received regarding the petition. The petitioner may file a response to the director's memorandum within 14 days of the date of filing of the stipulation. (b) The supreme court shall consider the petition and stipulation without the appointment of a referee. The court may approve the stipulation, adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law, and reinstate the petitioner's license to practice law in Wisconsin; the court may reject the stipulation and refer the petition to a referee for a hearing and consideration under sub. (6) as if no stipulation had been filed; or the court may direct the parties to consider modifications to the stipulation. (c) If the supreme court directs the parties to consider specific modifications to the stipulation, the parties may, within 20 days of the date of the order, file a revised stipulation, in which case the supreme court may approve the revised stipulation, adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law, and reinstate the petitioner's license to practice law in Wisconsin; or the court may reject the stipulation and refer the petition to a referee for a hearing and consideration under sub. (6) as if no stipulation had been filed. If the parties do not file a revised stipulation within 20 days of the date of the order or Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 28 if the parties so request in writing, a referee shall be appointed and the petition shall be referred to the referee for a hearing and consideration under sub. (6) as if no stipulation had been filed. (d) A stipulation rejected by the supreme court has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to the petitioner's prosecution of the petition for reinstatement or the director's response to the petition. (6)(a) If the director opposes the petition for reinstatement, an available referee shall be selected from the panel provided in SCR 21.08, based on the location of the petitioner's place of residence. The chief justice or, in his or her absence, the chief justice's delegee shall issue an order appointing the referee to conduct a hearing and prepare a report on the petition for reinstatement. (b) The referee shall have the powers of a judge trying a civil action and shall conduct the proceedings regarding the petition pursuant to the rules of civil procedure, except where these rules provide a different procedure. (c) Following the appointment of a referee, the parties shall file all papers and pleadings with the supreme court and serve a copy on the referee. (d) Following the appointment of a referee, the director shall transfer to the referee all formal written comments regarding or in response to the petition. The director shall also provide the referee with a list of all individuals who requested notice of the hearing on the petition. (e) The referee shall establish a schedule for proceedings and a hearing on the petition, which hearing shall be held at the earliest feasible date. Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 29 (f) At least 20 days prior to the hearing, the director shall provide written notice of the date, time, and location of the hearing to all individuals who requested notice of the hearing on the petition. If the hearing is rescheduled, the director shall provide written notice of the date, time, and location of the rescheduled hearing to all individuals who requested notice of the hearing on the petition. The director shall advise the referee that the director has complied with this notice requirement. (g) The reinstatement hearing shall be public. (h) The referee shall appoint a person to act as the court reporter to make a verbatim record of the proceedings as provided in SCR, Chapter 71. (i) The petitioner and the director or a person designated by the director shall appear at the hearing. The petitioner may be represented by counsel. (j) The referee shall conduct the hearing as the trial of a civil action to the court. The hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the rules of civil procedure, but the rules of evidence shall not apply, and the referee may consider any relevant information presented. The director, petitioner, and interested persons may present information in support of or in opposition to reinstatement. COMMENT Wis. Stat. ch. 785 defines "contempt" and provides that a "court of record" may find a person in contempt and impose sanctions. A referee presiding over a lawyer disciplinary proceeding is not a "court of record." See also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Strasburg, Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 30 217 Wis. 2d 318, 577 N.W.2d 1 (1998) (setting forth procedure to address contempt scenario in disciplinary proceeding). SECTION 44. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-06, Supreme Court Rule 22.31 is repealed. SECTION 45. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-06, Supreme Court Rule 22.305 is created to read: SCR 22.305 Standard for Reinstatement. At all times relevant to the petition, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating, by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, all of the following: (1) That he or she has the moral character to practice law in Wisconsin. (2) That his or her resumption of the practice of law will not be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest. (3) That his or her representations in the petition, including the representations required by SCR 22.29(4)(a) to (m) and 22.29(5), are substantiated. (4) That he or she has complied fully with the terms of the order of suspension or revocation and with the requirements of SCR 22.26. SECTION 46. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-06, a Comment to SCR 22.33 is created to read: COMMENT Costs regarding the petition for reinstatement may be assessed against the petitioner, as provided in SCR 22.24. SECTION 47. Consistent with the court's decision in a closed administrative rules conference on January 22, 2020, Supreme Court Rule 22.34(10) is amended to read: Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 31 (10) The petition may be accompanied by a stipulation of the director and the respondent to a suspension or to the imposition of conditions on the respondent's practice of law. The supreme court may consider the petition and stipulation without the appointment of a referee. If the supreme court approves the stipulation, it shall issue an order consistent with the stipulation. If the supreme court rejects the stipulation, the clerk or deputy clerk of the supreme court shall select an available referee shall be selected from the panel provided in SCR 21.08, based on the location of the respondent's place of residence,. The chief justice or, in his or her absence, the chief justice's delegee shall issue an order appointing the referee selected by the clerk or deputy clerk, and the matter shall proceed as a petition filed without a stipulation. A stipulation rejected by the supreme court has no evidentiary value and is without prejudice to the respondent's defense of the proceeding or the prosecution of the petition. SECTION 48. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-07, Supreme Court Rule 22.34(12) is amended to read: (12) All papers, files, transcripts, communications and proceedings, including those pertaining to investigations, shall be confidential and shall remain confidential until the supreme court has issued an order revoking, suspending indefinitely, or imposing conditions on the attorney's license to practice law, except as provided in sub. (12m) and except that acknowledgement that a proceeding is pending and notification to another court before which a similar petition is pending may be made when considered necessary by the Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 32 director and that any publication the supreme court considers necessary may be made. SECTION 49. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-07, Supreme Court Rule 22.34(12m) is created to read: (12m) Following the issuance by the supreme court of an order revoking, suspending indefinitely, or imposing conditions on the attorney's license to practice law, the petition and all papers relating to the petition that are filed with the supreme court are public information, except as expressly provided in this chapter, by court order, or by law. SECTION 50. Consistent with the court's decision in a closed administrative rules conference on January 22, 2020, Supreme Court Rule 22.36(5) is amended to read: (5) Following the investigation, the petition shall be submitted to a referee. The clerk or deputy clerk of the supreme court shall select an available referee shall be selected from the panel provided in SCR 21.08, based on the location of the respondent's place of residence, and the chief justice or, in his or her absence, the chief justice's delegee shall issue an order appointing the referee selected by the clerk or deputy clerk to review the petition. SECTION 51. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-09, Supreme Court Rule 22.38 is amended to read: SCR 22.38 Standard of proof. Allegations of misconduct in a complaint, allegations of medical incapacity in a petition, allegations of noncompliance with an order of the supreme court issued in a disciplinary proceeding, and character and fitness to practice law shall be established by evidence that is clear, satisfactory and convincing. Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 33 SECTION 52. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-07, Supreme Court Rule 22.40(1) is amended to read: (1) Prior to the filing of a misconduct complaint, medical incapacity petition, or petition for temporary license suspension Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, all papers, files, transcripts, and communications in any matter relating to an allegation of attorney misconduct, an investigation pursuant to SCR Chapters 10, 22, and 31, and monitoring compliance with conditions, suspension, or revocation imposed by the supreme court, involving the office of lawyer regulation are to be held in confidence by the director and staff of the office of lawyer regulation, the members of the district committees, special investigators, the members of the special preliminary review panel, and the members of the preliminary review committee. Following the filing of a complaint or petition, the proceeding and all papers filed in it are public, except where expressly provided otherwise in this chapter, by court order, or by law. SECTION 53. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-06, a Comment to SCR 31.11(1m) is created to read: COMMENT Costs regarding the petition for reinstatement under subsection (1m) may be assessed against the petitioner, as provided in SCR 22.24. SECTION 54. Consistent with the court's decision on rule petition 19-06, a Comment to SCR 31.11(4) is created to read: COMMENT Costs regarding the petition for reinstatement under subsection (4) may be assessed against the petitioner, as provided in SCR 22.24. Nos. 19-06, 19-07, 19-08, 19-09, 19-10, 19-11, and 19-12 34 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rules amended pursuant to this order shall apply to all grievances pending or filed on or after the effective date of this order; and to disciplinary, medical incapacity, reinstatement or motion for enforcement proceedings commenced after January 1, 2021. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Comments to SCRs 10.03(6m)(b), 10.03(7)(b), 22.26, 22.29(4x), 22.305 and 31.11 are not adopted, but will be published and may be consulted for guidance in interpreting and applying the rules. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the above amendments be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official publications designated in SCR 80.01, including the official publishers' online databases, and on the Wisconsin court system's website. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall provide notice of this order. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 30th day of June, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court No. 19-08.pdr 1 ¶1 PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, C.J. (dissenting in part to the court's decision on Rule Petition 19-08). The supreme court convened the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Procedure Review Committee to study the structure of the OLR and its procedures and to make recommendations for improvement. The Review Committee studied OLR's structure and operations and lawyer disciplinary structures and operations of other jurisdictions for more than a year. The Review Committee then made numerous recommendations to the supreme court as rule petitions. In Rule Petition 19-08, the Review Committee recommended discontinuance of OLR District Committees. ¶2 The court discussed this recommendation; had a public hearing on it; and initially, held its decision in abeyance on whether to discontinue District Committees. ¶3 On February 19, 2020, a supreme court commissioner sent a memorandum to the justices identifying the outstanding issues in regard to the Review Committee's rule petition recommendations. My judicial assistant created a chart of outstanding issues from the commissioner's memorandum. I asked the justices to indicate their positions on those issues, using the chart, in advance of our court conference scheduled for March 16, 2020. No further discussion was had on the fate of the District Committees. A majority of justices voted to retain the OLR District Committees. ¶4 In advance of our March 16 conference, I requested that Keith Sellen, Director of OLR, attend the conference to facilitate the court's discussion of OLR matters. Mr. Sellen appeared as requested. No. 19-08.pdr 2 ¶5 Mr. Sellen explained why he agreed with the Review Committee's recommendation that the District Committees be discontinued. First, he said that the OLR had "no meaningful work" for the District Committees to do. He explained that investigation of grievances by committee was ineffective and uneven among the District Committees. OLR currently uses professionals to do grievance investigations, creating a more even approach to investigations throughout the state. This change has significantly reduced the time required to complete investigations. ¶6 Second, the rules under which OLR operates have changed significantly since the District Committees were formed. For example, in 1999, the court decided to institute the Preliminary Review Committee (PRC). SCR 21.07 established the PRC as a 14- member committee, consisting of 9 lawyers and 5 public members, appointed by the supreme court. The PRC reviews investigations of alleged misconduct or medical incapacity that the Director presents and makes the initial adjudication on whether there is cause to proceed. ¶7 Since 2000, the OLR has employed centralized intake, which has reduced matters that go to formal investigation. During intake, the use of diversion programs is now available. They afford increased ethics education and review. The OLR also has a temporary suspension procedure for attorneys who do not cooperate in grievance investigations, which was not available when noncooperation was referred to the District Committees. In 2016, the court enacted a rule that granted OLR discretion to dismiss No. 19-08.pdr 3 de minimis matters. Very small matters had been referred to District Committees; there is no need to do that now. ¶8 In addition, the court created the Board of Administrative Oversight (BAO). It monitors the fairness, productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency of the OLR. SCR 21.10(2)(a). The BAO has 12 members, 8 lawyers and 4 public members appointed by the supreme court. The BAO assesses the public's and the bar's perception of the integrity of the OLR. SCR 21.10(2)(c). The PRC confers periodically with the BAO about the operation of the PRC. SCR 21.07(3)(c). As Director Sellen explained, because of the changes in the structure of the OLR through supreme court rules, there is no longer "any meaningful work" for District Committees to do. ¶9 I am opposed to requesting public members and lawyers to give of their time to committees that have no meaningful work to do. The supreme court seeks volunteers to maintain its many committees, most of which are comprised of lawyers and public members. In the past few years, lawyers and public members who have volunteered and been chosen to serve on District Committees and have had no disciplinary matters to address. For example, RCH, a man whom I recruited to volunteer for service to the court, was appointed to the District Committee that includes Dane County. During his entire term of service, the District Committee did not have one disciplinary matter to investigate or review. ¶10 We rely on volunteers for all our many committees. I am opposed to the court requesting volunteers for District Committees that we are not using due to the court's prior changes to the OLR's No. 19-08.pdr 4 structure. District Committee volunteers start out enthusiastic, but end up disappointed. Furthermore, the court could use those volunteers for committees where there is ample work to do and often too few volunteers to fill all the committee positions. ¶11 Accordingly, I agree with the Review Committee's recommendation to discontinue OLR District Committees, and I dissent from the court's decision to retain them. ¶12 I am authorized to state that Justices ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER and BRIAN HAGEDORN join this dissent.

You are hereby notified that the Court has issued the following order. On May 15, 2020, Legal Action of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Judicare filed an emergency request for a temporary rule requiring "landlord plaintiffs in residential eviction[] actions to affirmatively allege, and demonstrate through documentary evidence easily obtained by them, that [the] subject property is not a Covered Property" for purposes of the temporary moratorium on eviction filings against residential tenants for nonpayment of rent provided for in the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act"). See CARES Act, Public Law No. 116-136, § 4024. We decline to impose these requested pleading requirements. While the court is mindful of the economic challenges faced by many tenants during the current health crisis, the legislature has set forth the pleading requirements for complaints for eviction. See Wis. Stat. § 799.41. We will not add language that the legislature did not see fit to write. See, e.g., Dawson v. Town of Jackson, 2011 WI 77, ¶42, 336 Wis. 2d 318, 801 N.W.2d 316. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the emergency request by Legal Action of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Judicare is denied. ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (concurring). The emergency motion filed by the petitioners, Legal Action of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Judicare, seeks to address the imminent concerns of Wisconsin tenants facing eviction for non Page 2 June 5, 2020 In re the Matter of Emergency Procedures Related to the Federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act's Temporary Moratorium on Eviction Filings payment of rent in light of the financial hardships brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. They seek an emergency rule adding a temporary pleading requirement in residential eviction actions. I concur with the majority's denial of the request to add a temporary pleading requirement.1 Nevertheless, I write separately to remind circuit courts of the necessary compliance with the federal moratorium that the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act") places on residential eviction actions. Without awareness of the CARES Act moratorium and with the expiration of the statewide moratorium on evictions, we may see an influx of unlawful evictions in our court system. I The request before us arises as the statewide moratorium on residential evictions has expired.2 Yet, the federal moratorium under the CARES Act remains in force. Awareness of the Act is important lest unlawful evictions are sought against specific tenants who in fact retain the federal protections provided by the Act. On March 27, 2020, the federal "CARES Act" was enacted. See CARES Act, Public Law No. 116-136, § 4024. The legislation imposed a 120-day moratorium on certain residential evictions for non-payment of rent as well as a moratorium on fees and penalties for non-payment 1 I acknowledge, however, that the regulation of pleading, practice and procedure represents shared powers between the judicial and legislative branches. "We have consistently recognized that the legislature and the judiciary share the power to regulate practice and procedure in the judicial system." E.B. v. State, 111 Wis. 2d 175, 181, 330 N.W.2d 584 (1983); see also Wis. Stat. § 751.12(1) and (4). 2 The moratorium on evictions and foreclosures expired on May 26, 2020. Temporary Ban on Evictions and Foreclosures, Wis. Emergency Order No. 15 (Mar. 27, 2020), https://evers.wi.gov/Documents/COVID19/EO15BanonEvictionsandForeclosures.pdf. Page 3 June 5, 2020 In re the Matter of Emergency Procedures Related to the Federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act's Temporary Moratorium on Eviction Filings of rent. The federal moratorium under the CARES Act remains in effect through July 25, 2020. Specifically, CARES Act § 4024(b) prohibits landlords of certain rental "covered dwellings" from initiating eviction proceedings or "charg[ing] fees, penalties or other charges" against a tenant for nonpayment of rent. The lengthy definition of "covered dwellings" is set forth in the CARES Act. See § 4024(a). The Congressional Research Service has provided a useful summary of what the term encompasses: "covered dwellings" . . . are rental units in properties: (1) that participate in federal assistance programs; (2) are subject to a "federally backed mortgage loan"; or (3) are subject to a "federally backed multifamily mortgage loan." Covered federal assistance programs include most rental assistance and housing grant programs, including public housing, Housing Choice Vouchers, Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, rural housing programs, and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. A "federally backed mortgage loan" is a single-family (1-4 units) residential mortgage owned or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or insured, guaranteed, or otherwise assisted by the federal government. The term includes mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Agriculture's direct and guaranteed loans. See Congressional Research Service, CARES Act Eviction Moratorium (April 7, 2020), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11320. Researchers estimate that roughly 12.3 million rental units have federally backed financing, representing 28% of renters. Id. Other data show more than 2 million housing vouchers along with approximately 5 million federally assisted rental units. Id. Page 4 June 5, 2020 In re the Matter of Emergency Procedures Related to the Federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act's Temporary Moratorium on Eviction Filings I fear that a lack of direction about how to handle residential evictions under the CARES Act will ostensibly shift the burden to our circuit courts to ferret out the necessary information in order to ensure compliance with the Act. There is a better way. I suggest that we look to our sister states of Iowa, Michigan and Illinois for a workable alternative, as well as to other courts that have addressed this COVID-19 generated emergency. Rather than placing the burden of initial inquiry onto the circuit courts and risking delay of the case in order to obtain the necessary information, the use of a verification form similar to those used by other states can be employed. This would place the burden of production on the litigants— where it belongs. Attached to this concurrence are the verification forms used in Illinois, Iowa and Michigan courts.3 Presently, local courts are left on their own to enact their own rules to ensure compliance with the federal CARES Act moratorium on residential evictions. Hopefully, the attached forms will provide some assistance. I am authorized to state that Justice REBECCA FRANK DALLET joins this concurrence. 3 The verification forms can be found as follows: Iowa: CARES Act Landlord Verification Form, https://www.iowacourts.gov/browse/files/ 448a966296ab4d52b25be646c4619aba/download; Michigan: Verification of Compliance with CARES Act, https://courts.michigan.gov/ Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/rules/court-rules-admin-matters/Comments%20library%204% 20recvd%20from%20Sept%202017%20and%20beyond/dc504.pdf; Illinois: "In re: Illinois Courts Response to COVID-19 Emergency", M.R. 30370, (2020) https://courts.illinois.gov/SupremeCourt/Announce/2020/052220.pdf. APPENDIX A IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ____ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR ____________COUNTY, ILLINOIS _______________________________ ) Plaintiff(s) ) ) v. ) Case. No. ______________ _______________________________ ) Defendant(s) ) PLAINTIFF’S CARES ACT EVICTION CERTIFICATION NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF: Through August 24, 2020, Section 4024 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act prohibits filing certain evictions from “covered dwellings” if those dwellings are in “covered properties.” In general, a “covered property” is any property that receives a federal rental subsidy or has a federally-backed / insured mortgage (such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or the FHA). If unsure, read the actual language of the Act before completing this certification. I, [name], hereby state as follows: 1. I am [ ] the named plaintiff (or) [ ] an Agent of the named plaintiff. 2. The filing of this eviction case does not violate the CARES Act because: (check one) A. [ ] The property is not a “covered property;” or B. [ ] The property is a “covered property,” but the eviction is otherwise allowed under the Act. I certify that everything in this certification is true and correct. I understand that making a false statement is perjury and has penalties provided by law under 735 ILCS 5/1-109. Sworn: ___________________________ ____________________________ Plaintiff (or Agent) Plaintiff’s attorney (if any) CARES Act Landlord Verification Instructions: • This verification provides the court information related to additional temporary requirements imposed by the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, 15 U.S.C. section 9058, on certain eviction actions for nonpayment of rent. • This verification must be completed and filed in any eviction action filed from March 27, 2020 until further order of the Iowa Supreme Court. If you do not understand how to use this form, or if you are unsure whether you should use this form, talk to an attorney. In the Iowa District Court for County County where the case is filed Case no. ________________________________________ CARES Act Landlord Verification If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the disability coordinator (information at www.iowacourts.gov/Administration/Directories/ADA_Access/). Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call Relay Iowa TTY (1-800-735-2942). Disability coordinators cannot provide legal advice. ______________________________ Plaintiff Full name of Plaintiff: first, middle, last vs. ______________________________ Defendant Full name of Defendant: first, middle, last I certify the following: Read, complete, and check each item that applies. 1. This eviction is based on a landlord–tenant relationship:  Yes  No 2. The current tenancy is now or has in the past been subject to either a Section 8 or USDA Housing Choice voucher:  Yes  No  Not applicable 3. The property involved in this matter is subject to the following federal programs: Check each that applies if any. A.  Public housing B.  Project Based Section 8 housing C.  Section 202 elderly housing D.  Section 811 housing for people with disabilities E.  Section 236 multifamily rental housing F.  Section 221 Below Market Rate (BMR) housing G.  HOME Investment Partnership Program H.  Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program I.  McKinney-Vento Act housing J.  Section 515 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) rural housing K.  Section 514/516 USDA farm labor housing L.  Section 533 USDA housing preservation M.  Section 538 USDA multifamily housing N.  Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program CARES Act Landlord Verification, continued 4. The property involved in this matter was subject to a mortgage issued or guaranteed by the following federally connected entities: Check each that applies if any. A.  Federal Housing Administration (FHA) B.  Veterans Administration (VA) C.  United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) direct loan D.  USDA guaranteed loan E.  Fannie Mae F.  Freddie Mac 5. I received a mortgage forbearance on the property involved in this matter between March 27, 2020 and December 31, 2020: Complete this section only if you checked a box or boxes in section 4 above.  Yes  No  Not applicable 6. I received a mortgage forbearance on the property involved in this matter between the following dates: Complete this section only if you checked “Yes” in section 5 above. 7. Additional information: Additional information may also be provided to the court at the time of the hearing. Attorney Help Check one A.  An attorney did not help me prepare or fill in this form. B.  An attorney helped me prepare or fill in this form. If you check B, you must fill in the following information: ____________________________________________________________________ Name of attorney or organization, if any __________________________________________________________________________________ Business address of attorney or organization City State ZIP code ( ) Phone number Fax number – optional Email address Additional email address, if applicable CARES Act Landlord Verification, continued Oath and signature I, , have read this Verification, and I certify under Print your name penalty of perjury and pursuant to the laws of the State of Iowa that the information I have provided in this Verification is true and correct. , 20 City State ZIP code ( ) Phone number Email address Additional email address, if applicable *Handwrite your signature on this form. Scan the form after signing it and file it electronically.

On April 17, 2020 Paige Papandrea, Corissa Pennow, and Tommy Hansfield ("the Petitioners") filed an "Emergency Request for Modification of Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 40.03 Due to COVID-19." The petitioners anticipated that the July 2020 Wisconsin bar examination might be postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. They asked the court to approve a mechanism whereby recent qualified law school graduates from law schools outside of Wisconsin may be fully admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin after completing 360 hours of supervised work and after taking certain state law education requirements.1 Under the proposed procedure, applicants would not take a bar exam. On April 20, 2020, the court sent a letter directing the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) to file a response and invited a response from the deans of the Wisconsin law schools and from the State Bar of Wisconsin. Director Jacquelynn B. Rothstein, BBE; Dean Margaret Raymond, 1 Wisconsin is unique in that qualified graduates of Wisconsin's two law schools may be admitted pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 40.03 (Legal Competence Requirement; Diploma privilege). Applicants who have been licensed to practice law in other jurisdictions and have practiced law for a sufficient period of time may be admitted pursuant to SCR 40.05 (Legal Competence Requirement; Proof of Practice). However, many applicants to the Wisconsin bar must take and pass a bar examination to satisfy the "legal competence" requirement which is a prerequisite to admission to the practice of law in Wisconsin. SCR 40.04. These applicants include: recent law school graduates from law schools outside Wisconsin; bar applicants who have failed a bar exam; bar applicants who are admitted to practice law in another jurisdiction but cannot satisfy the "proof of practice" requirements for admission under SCR 40.05; and certain graduates of law schools from other nations, SCR 40.055. Page 2 June 1, 2020 In re the Matter of the Modification of SCR 40.03 Due to COVID-19 Pandemic University of Wisconsin Law School; Dean Joseph Kearney, Marquette University Law School; and President Jill M. Kastner, State Bar of Wisconsin, all filed responses, generally expressing certain concerns about the petition, as drafted. The petitioners filed a reply on April 29, 2020. On May 28, 2020, this court determined that Wisconsin's July bar examination will proceed, as scheduled. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition as moot. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that because the court has determined that the Wisconsin Bar Examination will proceed as scheduled on July 28-29, 2020, the Emergency Request for Modification of Supreme Court Rule 40.03 Due to COVID-19 Pandemic is dismissed as moot.

On November 8, 2019, the Honorable Jason Rossell, on behalf of the Chief Judges' Subcommittee on Judicial Education (the Committee), filed a rule petition asking the court to amend several rules pertaining to continuing education for the Wisconsin judiciary and circuit court commissioners. The court discussed the petition at a closed administrative rules conference on January 17, 2020. It voted to seek written comments. The court issued its standard interested persons letter on January 23, 2020 requesting public comment. The Honorable Shelley J. Gaylord and Jennifer D. Andrews, Chief Staff Attorney, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, filed comments in support of the petition. The Honorable Juan B. Colás recommended the court reject the proposal to allow judicial education credit for serving as a chief judge because Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 70.19(5) already permits a chief judge to adjust caseload to reflect administrative duties. The petitioner filed a response on March 5, No. 19-22 2 2020 agreeing with the friendly amendment proposed by Attorney Andrews and maintaining its request to permit credit for service as a chief judge. The court discussed the matter again at a closed administrative rules conference on April 30, 2020. After discussion, the court concluded that it would accept the petition in part and deny the petition in part. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that effective July 1, 2020 the petition is granted, in part, as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with Section 1 of the petition, Supreme Court Rule 32.002 is amended to read: 32.002 Applicability. The commissioners of the supreme court and staff attorneys of the court of appeals are subject to the educational requirements of this chapter in the same manner as judges, are as defined in SCR 32.001. SECTION 2. Consistent with Section 3 of the petition, Supreme Court Rule 32.04 is amended to read: 32.04 Required programs. During each 6-year period, a judge shall attend at least once the Wisconsin judicial college, the child welfare law orientation, the criminal law-sentencing institute and the prison tour. This rule does not apply to commissioners of the supreme court and staff attorneys of the court of appeals. The requirement to attend the child welfare law orientation applies only to judges whose most recent term of office begins on or after August 1, 2020. Credit earned for attendance at these programs is to be included as part of the required 60 credits. No. 19-22 3 SECTION 3. Consistent with Section 4 of the petition, Supreme Court Rule 32.05 is amended to read: 32.05 Minimum and maximum. A judge shall during each year earn no less fewer than 5 nor more than 15 credits at an in-state educational activity. The 15 credit maximum may be waived upon prior approval granted by the judicial education committee or its designee upon application of an individual judge. The 15 credit maximum does not apply to the year the judge attends the Wisconsin judicial college, the child welfare law orientation, and/or the criminal law-sentencing institute and prison tour. A trial judge may not earn more than 24 credits for attendance at national educational activities in any 6-year period. A judge is not required to attend any national educational activity. SECTION 4. Consistent with Section 5 of the petition, Supreme Court Rule 32.06 is amended to read: 32.06 Programs receiving credit. Credit shall be granted for attendance at all programs for judges sponsored or approved by the judicial education committee. In addition, credit for other programs shall be given for that portion of the program addressed to judicial education and approved by the judicial education committee. SECTION 5. Consistent with Section 7 of the petition, Supreme Court Rule 32.08(1) is amended to read: (1) To be eligible for appointment or reappointment as a reserve judge to perform judicial assignments, a person otherwise entitled to appointment shall earn 5 4 credits during the calendar year immediately preceding appointment or reappointment. The director of state courts shall determine which judicial education programs may be attended to No. 19-22 4 earn the required 5 4 credits. One credit is awarded for each half day of attendance at programs sponsored or approved by the judicial education committee. Reserve judges are not required to comply with SCR 32.04. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following proposals set forth in the petition are denied: Section 2 (proposing to add the chair of the committee of chief judges to the judicial education committee); Section 6 (proposing to award a judge 3 credits for each 12-month period the judge serves as chief judge for the judge's judicial administrative district, but noting that chief judges may request judicial education credit for additional educational-related service);1 Section 8 (proposing to amend the Comment to SCR 60.05(8)); Section 9 (proposing to amend SCR 60.07(2) to increase the hours threshold for part-time service as a circuit court commissioner); Section 10 (proposing to amend the Comment to SCR 60.07(2)); and Section 11 (proposing to amend SCR 75.05(3) to increase the threshold for part-time work as a circuit court commissioner for purposes of judicial education).2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rules amended pursuant to this order are subject to a temporary administrative order issued by this court on April 3, 2020, which temporarily modified certain judicial education 1 Kelly and Hagedorn, J.J., dissent from the court's decision on Section 6 of the rule petition. They would permit additional judicial education credit for service as a chief judge. 2 See In the Matter of the Petition to Amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 60.05(8)(b) and SCR 60.07(2), S. Ct. Order 18-06, 2019 WI 18 (issued Feb 25, 2019, eff. Feb. 25, 2019). No. 19-22 5 requirements and deadlines in response to the public health emergency caused as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the above amendments be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official publications designated in SCR 80.01, including the official publishers' online databases, and on the Wisconsin court system's website. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall provide notice of this order. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 18th day of May, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

On May 12, 2020, the President and the Chair of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Wisconsin requested the court authorize the temporary waiver of Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 10.07 (Meetings of the association) and State Bar of Wisconsin Bylaws Article III, Section 11(a) and (b) and Section 13(b) due to circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. These sections relate to the annual meeting of the members, meetings associated with the annual meeting, and in-person voting requirements for regular meetings of the Board of Governors. The State Bar has determined that the annual conference scheduled for June 2020 should be cancelled due to safety and health concerns. The State Bar holds its annual meeting, as required under SCR 10.07, as well as its final general meeting of the Board of Governors, concurrently with that conference. The State Bar leadership requests this court temporarily waive the requirements related to these meeting requirements. The State Bar advises the court that it intends to hold one final regular meeting of the Board of Governors in June 2020 via remote technology. However, in order to conduct business, the in-person voting requirement must also be temporarily waived. Accordingly, the State Bar requests this court issue an order waiving these requirements pursuant to its authority over the State Bar of Wisconsin, SCR Chapter 10, and its inherent authority over the legal profession in this state. Wis. Const. Art. VII, §3; In re Kading, 70 Wis. 2d 508, 519-20; 235 N.W.2d 409 (1976). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the request of the State Bar of Wisconsin President and the Chair of the Board of Governors is granted, and requirements for an annual meeting of the members, requirements associated with that annual meeting and requirements for in-person voting at regular meetings of the Board of Governors are waived for the remaining fiscal year to end on June 30, 2020; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Bar of Wisconsin shall take all reasonable steps to notify its members of the contents of this order.

On May 15, 2019, Attorney James E. Goldschmidt, on behalf of Quarles & Brady, LLP, filed a rule petition asking the court to restore Wis. Stat. § 802.05(2m) to its previous iteration to permit attorneys in limited-scope representations to assist otherwise self-represented persons in drafting a pleading, motion, or other filed document without disclosing their name or state bar number, a practice referred to as "ghostwriting." At a closed administrative rules conference on September 13, 2019, the court conducted a preliminary discussion and voted to seek written comments and conduct a public hearing. A letter soliciting comment was sent to interested persons on November 4, 2019. The court received 28 comments in support of the petition. The court received one comment in opposition to the petition, which requested the court consider a No. 19-16 2 different revision to the "ghostwriting" rule. The petitioner responded to the comments by the court ordered response date of December 16, 2019. Meanwhile, on January 3, 2020, 2019 Wisconsin Assembly Bill 705 (2019 AB 705) was introduced, proposing a different revision of Wis. Stat. § 802.05(2m), also intended to address the issue of ghostwriting. On January 7, 2020, the Committee on Housing and Real Estate conducted a public hearing on the bill. On January 17, 2020, the court received a letter from State Representative Robert Brooks, the principal author of 2019 AB 705, explaining the goal of the bill and the concerns it was intended to address. He expressed willingness to work with the petitioner on this matter. No action was taken on 2019 AB 705. The court conducted a public hearing on January 17, 2020. Attorney James E. Goldschmidt on behalf of Quarles & Brady, LLP, presented the petition to the court. The following people spoke in support of the petition: Attorney Dean R. Dietrich, Dietrich VanderWaal, S.C.; Attorney Margaret Niebler-Brown, Legal Action of Wisconsin; Attorney Elizabeth Anne Groeschel, Legal Action of Wisconsin; Attorney Raphael F. Ramos, Legal Action of Wisconsin; Attorney Aaron Thomas Olejniczak, Andrus Intellectual Property Law LLP; Attorney Michael Dwyer, Hansen & Hildebrand, S.C.; Attorney Kyla N. Motz, Milwaukee Justice Center; Attorney Rebecca Emily Rapp, Ascendium Educational Group Inc. and Affiliates; and Attorney Daniel Johann Hoff, Hoff, Bushaw & Matuszak, LLC. Attorney Heiner Giese, Giese Law Offices, spoke in opposition to the petition. At the ensuing closed administrative rules conference, the court voted to seek supplemental briefing about the respective authority of No. 19-16 3 the court and the legislature to act in this matter. The court also requested briefing from the petitioner on the question of how the petitioner's alternative suggestion, that the court suspend the existing rule, would be accomplished procedurally. See Wis. Stat. § 751.12(2) ("[a]ll statutes relating to pleading, practice, and procedure may be modified or suspended by rules promulgated under this section.") The court received supplemental written comments from Attorney Heiner Giese and from Attorney James Goldschmidt, on behalf of the petitioner. The court discussed the matter in a subsequent closed administrative rules conference and voted to grant the petition with the addition of a comment intended to address the concerns identified by Representative Brooks and Attorney Giese. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that effective July 1, 2020: SECTION 1: 802.05(2m) of the statutes is amended to read: 802.05(2m) An attorney may draft or assist in drafting a pleading, motion, or document filed by an otherwise self-represented person. The attorney is not required to sign the pleading, motion, or document. Any such document must contain a statement immediately adjacent to the person's signature that "This document was prepared with the assistance of a lawyer,." followed by the name of the attorney and the attorney's state bar number. The attorney providing such drafting assistance may rely on the otherwise self-represented person's representation of facts, unless the attorney has reason to believe that such representations are false, or materially insufficient, in which instance the attorney shall make an independent reasonable inquiry into the facts. No. 19-16 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Comment to s. 802.05(2m) is created to read: A previous version of s. 802.05(2m) required an attorney to include his or her name and state bar number on documents prepared under s. 802.05(2m). This requirement was removed because of its chilling effect on the effectiveness of limited scope representation. However, attorneys are reminded that, even in the context of limited scope representation, all of the rules of professional conduct for attorneys apply, and limited scope cases should be conducted consistent with the attorney's professional obligations, including SCR 20:1.1 (competence) and SCR 20:3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions). Lawyers are reminded to be wary that the client is not using the lawyer's limited assistance to assert meritless claims. Providing limited scope representation will not insulate a lawyer from the potential disciplinary consequences of violation of applicable rules. Sua sponte or on motion to the court, a court may order a litigant to disclose the name of the attorney who assisted with preparation of the document, if known, and may direct the attorney to appear before the court to respond to the concerns raised. This comment is intended as a reminder of the existing ethical obligations imposed on all attorneys and an avenue for relief if a court is confronted with meritless filings submitted under this rule. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Comment to Wis. Stat. § 802.05(2m) is not adopted, but will be published and may be consulted for guidance in interpreting and applying the rule. No. 19-16 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the above amendments be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official publications designated in SCR 80.01, including the official publishers' online databases, and on the Wisconsin court system's website. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall provide notice of this order. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 17th day of April, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

This order pertains to the filing of paper documents in all courts of this state by those unable to access and use the electronic filing system (eFiling). Parties should first consult the appropriate statutes and/or rules, and any previous orders issued by the court in which the action is pending, including general orders relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. This order does not alter existing rules pertaining to eFiling. The Supreme Court has administrative and superintending authority over the courts and judicial system of this state and a duty to promote the efficient and effective operation of the state's judicial system, Wis. Const. Art. VII, § 3; In re Kading, 70 Wis. 2d 508, 519-20; 235 N.W.2d 409 (1976). On March 24, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, at the direction of Governor Evers, issued a "Safer at Home" order requiring Wisconsin residents to stay at home unless they must perform certain exempted activities. See Emergency Order #12, "Safer at Home." The Supreme Court has determined that, in light of the existing public health emergency declared in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, and to protect the health of the public and the individuals who work for the courts of this state, it is necessary to limit temporarily the number of individuals who are physically present within the courts of this state and to temporarily modify certain procedures to ensure that the essential operations of the courts continue in an appropriate manner during the present public health emergency. Page 2 April 13, 2020 In re the Matter of Filing of Court Documents in Circuit and Appellate Courts The offices of the Clerks of Circuit Court and the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals remain open. However, hand-delivery of any documents to any clerk's office, including juvenile court clerk offices and registers in probate, is strongly discouraged because of the risk of transmission of COVID-19 between members of the public and court staff. The court recognizes that under the current restrictions imposed by COVID-19, individuals who do not have access to eFiling cannot or should not take the steps litigants typically take to ensure that the Clerk of the Circuit Court or the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals receives and stamps their filings to establish the date on which the court received the document. For those unable to file documents electronically, their control over the filing process is circumscribed by the current restrictions on travel and access as a result of COVID-19, and there may be concerns about relying on the "vagaries of the mail." State ex rel. Nichols v. Litscher, 2001 WI 119, ¶28, 247 Wis. 2d 1013, 635 N.W.2d 292. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that to address the concerns about the timely filing of paper documents, the court, as a temporary measure, hereby creates a "Temporary Mailbox Rule." Temporary Mailbox Rule. During the effective dates of this order, a document that has been correctly addressed to the appropriate clerk of court and deposited in the U.S. mail or tendered to a commercial carrier (collectively referred to as "Mailing"), with proper postage and with a Statement of Mailing, will be deemed to have been filed as of the date of the Statement of Mailing, described below. If the Statement of Mailing, U.S. Postal Service mark, or commercial carrier documentation does not bear a date on or before the required filing date, the document will not be Page 3 April 13, 2020 In re the Matter of Filing of Court Documents in Circuit and Appellate Courts deemed timely filed, regardless of when it was actually deposited in the mail or tendered to a commercial carrier. This order does not alter in any way the prison mailbox tolling rule adopted in State ex rel. Nichols v. Litscher, 2001 WI 119, 247 Wis. 2d 1013, 635 N.W.2d 292. Filing deadlines for documents that confer jurisdiction. Litigants may not rely on the Temporary Mailbox Rule if their filing is required to confer jurisdiction on any Wisconsin court. The filing dates for those documents remain as stated in the statute or rule that confers jurisdiction. Litigants should ensure that these documents are received by the appropriate clerk's office by the date required by law.1 Statement of Mailing. In the event of a challenge to the timely filing of a document, the court in which the document is filed will have to make a factual determination as to whether the document was timely filed. Accordingly, individuals filing by mail shall include a Statement of Mailing that: (1) certifies the document was placed in a U.S. mailbox or tendered to a commercial carrier; and (2) specifies the name of the individual who placed the document in the mailbox or provided it to the commercial carrier, a contact address, and the place and date of mailing or tender to a commercial carrier. A Statement of Mailing will create a rebuttable presumption that the individual placed the document for filing in the U.S. Mail receptacle or tendered it to a commercial carrier for delivery on the particular day stated. A determination of timely filing may also consider the date of the 1 See, e.g., this court's order, In re the Matter of Appellate Court Operations During the COVID-19 Pandemic, (S. Ct. Order issued Mar. 17, 2020), https://www.wicourts.gov/news/docs/ covid19coa.pdf. Page 4 April 13, 2020 In re the Matter of Filing of Court Documents in Circuit and Appellate Courts U.S. Post Office's postmark, any documentation from a commercial carrier, and/or the date the document was file stamped as received by the clerk. Copies and Service. During the duration of this order, the requirement of filing multiple copies is waived. The original and one copy of the document is sufficient. If the filer wants an authenticated and conformed copy returned, an additional (3rd) copy should be included together with a self addressed stamped envelope, however, a delay in returning a paper file-stamped document should be expected. Service requirements remain in effect. Appellate briefs are exempted from this order. Wis. Stat. (Rule) s. 809.80(4). The number of copies required by statute for appellate briefs remains unchanged. Filing Fee. The filing fee, if required, may be paid electronically or with a paper check included with the filing. If that is not an option, the appropriate clerk's office will send an invoice to the sender upon receipt of the filing, as soon as reasonably practicable. A filer may also seek a waiver of the fee for reasons of indigency by submitting an affidavit of indigency which can be completed and returned to the clerk's office.2 Other Considerations. This Temporary Mailbox Rule will not excuse a person's ultimate failure to pay filing fees, address the document properly, pay proper postage, or otherwise comply with filing requirements. 2 The circuit court form, CV-410A, Petition for Waiver of Fees and Costs–Affidavit of Indigency, is available at https://www.wicourts.gov/forms/CV-410A.PDF. For filings in the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, the Clerk of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals will provide the form, upon request. Page 5 April 13, 2020 In re the Matter of Filing of Court Documents in Circuit and Appellate Courts This order does not transcend other existing legal restrictions on filing. See, e.g., Wis. Stat. § 801.02(7)(d) (a circuit court must dismiss an action by a prisoner seeking to waive the prepayment of filing fees where that prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while he or she was incarcerated, imprisoned, confined or detained in a jail or prison, brought an appeal, writ of error, action or special proceeding, including a petition for a common law writ of certiorari, that was dismissed by a state or federal court for any of the reasons listed in s. 802.05(4)(b) 1. to 4.) Clerk's Offices Remain Open; Posting. In order to protect the public and the staff of the clerk's office, the Clerk of Circuit Court, subject to the approval of the Chief Judge of the Judicial District, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, may modify procedures governing physical access to the office (such as, but not limited to, limiting the number of persons permitted to enter and/or isolating paper documents). Notices with appropriate mailing addresses, information about access, information about proper procedures for emergency filings, locations of drop boxes, and other filing information, as applicable, will be posted where visible to the public in or proximal to the clerk's office and, if practicable, will also be posted on the court's website. If a person wishes to have in-person access to a court file that is currently in the possession of the clerk of circuit court, the person shall submit a request for such access to the clerk via email, via telephone call, or via written request mailed to the clerk's office. The clerk shall then make reasonable arrangements for the person to receive or to view the requested document or file, consistent with public safety. Page 6 April 13, 2020 In re the Matter of Filing of Court Documents in Circuit and Appellate Courts This order is intended to be interpreted broadly for protection of the public, court staff, and judges from the risks associated with COVID-19. The provisions of this order shall be subject to further modification or extension by future orders. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall take all reasonable steps to notify its members of the contents of this order.

By temporary administrative order dated April 2, 2020, this court extended its March 17, 2020 temporary administrative order modifying certain procedures of the appellate courts of this state to ensure that the essential operations of the appellate courts continue in an appropriate manner during the present public health emergency. As set forth in that order, the appellate courts are expanding remote working capabilities and are reducing the number of employees in the physical offices of the courts. This temporary administrative order supplements the order dated April 2, 2020, and provides an additional method of filing for notices of appearance, motions, and responses to motions in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that through May 22, 2020 (inclusive), notices of appearance, motions, and responses to motions filed in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court may be filed electronically in pdf format, as attachments to emails directed to clerk@wicourts.gov. Notices of appearance, motions, and responses to motions that are filed via email pursuant to this order shall be deemed filed at the time the email is received by the Clerk’s office. (Notices of appearance, motions, and responses to motions that are received after 5:00 p.m. shall be deemed filed as of the next business day.) The Clerk’s office will also continue to accept paper copies of notices of appearance, motions, and responses to motions that are filed by mail or physically filed at the office of the Clerk. In order to protect the public and the staff of the Clerk’s office, only one person at a time shall be allowed to enter the physical office of the Clerk and the person shall follow the directions of the Clerk’s staff as to the procedure for filing documents. Appellate filings other than notices of appearance, motions, and responses to motions shall continue to be filed in the usual manner, subject to this court’s order dated April 2, 2020. Parties are reminded that, consistent with the terms of our prior orders, non-emergency motions to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court on or before May 22, 2020 (inclusive), are discouraged. If a party truly requires immediate emergency relief from the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the party shall identify their motion with the word "EMERGENCY" on the face of the document and in the subject line of the email to the clerk’s office. The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals shall retain discretion to determine whether the motion represents an emergency sufficient to require immediate action by the court; and During the duration of this order, the requirement of filing multiple paper copies is waived for notices of appearance, motions, and responses to motions. For notices of appearance, motions, and responses to motions that are filed via email pursuant to this order, the filing party shall, within three (3) business days of the date of the email, place in the mail addressed to the Clerk’s office or deliver to the Clerk’s office the paper original and one paper copy of the notice of appearance, Page 2 April 8, 2020 In re the Matter of Appellate Court Operations during the COVID-19 Pandemic 2 motion, or response to a motion. In addition to placing the case caption and case number at the top of the first page, the paper original and paper copy of any notice of appearance, motion, or response to a motion filed via email shall contain the following clearly visible notation on the top of its first page: “THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREVIOUSLY FILED VIA EMAIL.” If the filer wants an authenticated and conformed copy returned to the filer, an additional copy should be included together with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. However, a delay in returning a paper file-stamped document should be expected. Service requirements remain in effect; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that through May 22, 2020, the appellate courts may serve by only electronic mail (email) orders on circuit court clerks, circuit court judges, counsel of record, or self-represented persons who have provided an electronic mail address; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the provisions of this order shall be subject to further modification or extension by future orders of the Supreme Court. In addition, the Court of Appeals may issue separate orders addressing the handling of matters pending in that court; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Bar of Wisconsin shall take all reasonable steps to notify its members of the contents of this order.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recognizes that the public health emergency caused as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic may affect the ability of persons subject to judicial education requirements to complete mandatory judicial education required by Supreme Court Rules, (SCR) Chapters 32, 33, or 75. In a closed administrative conference on March 23, 2020, the court concluded that certain judicial education requirements will be temporarily modified in light of the cancellation and postponement of several judicial education programs. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Annual Credit Requirements for All Persons Subject to Judicial Education. Judges, supreme court commissioners, and court of appeals staff attorneys are required to earn no less than 5 credits at an in-state educational activity each year. SCR 32.05. Municipal court judges are required to earn at least 4 credits in each calendar year at a municipal judge orientation institute. SCR 33.04. Circuit court commissioners authorized to perform their duties on a temporary or occasional basis are required to earn not less than 3 education credits in any year in which the performance of those duties requires 40 or more hours. SCR 75.05(3). With the exception of municipal court judges, the annual credit requirements for these individuals, required to be accrued on or before December 31, 2020, are waived, provided, however that individuals subject to judicial education requirements are still required to obtain the Page 2 April 3, 2020 In re the Matter of Judicial Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic full number of required credits by the close of their reporting period (e.g., 60 credits for judges, circuit court commissioners, supreme court commissioners, and court of appeals staff attorneys). Extensions of time for municipal court judges to earn their annual 4 judicial credits will be determined by the Municipal Judge Education Committee for good cause, upon request, on a case by case basis. Municipal court judges who face difficulty complying with the requirements of SCR 33.04(1), (2), or (3) as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic may seek an extension from the Municipal Judge Education Committee, for good cause, which may be submitted to the Office of Judicial Education. 2. Expiration of Judicial Education Reporting Period. The six-year reporting period for completing judicial education requirements may be expiring for certain persons subject to judicial education requirements. SCRs 32.02(1); 75.05(2)(a). An automatic six-month extension of the reporting period is granted for all whose judicial education reporting period expires on or before July 31, 2020. 3. Inability to Complete Other Required Judicial Education. Any person subject to judicial education requirements who is unable to complete required programs such as the Wisconsin Judicial College, the Criminal Law and Sentencing Institute, or the prison tour as a result of COVID-19 restrictions, may seek an extension from the Judicial Education Committee for good cause. SCRs 32.04; 32.09(1). Municipal court judges unable to complete the mandatory Municipal Judge Orientation Institute when next offered may seek an extension from the Municipal Judge Education Committee for good cause, which may be submitted to the Office of Judicial Education. SCRs 33.03; 33.04(1). Page 3 April 3, 2020 In re the Matter of Judicial Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic 4. Reserve Judges. Reserve judges are required to earn 5 credits during the calendar year immediately preceding their appointment or reappointment. SCR 32.08. Typically, reserve judges obtain these credits at the Wisconsin Judicial Conference, which is scheduled to occur on November 4-6, 2020. If the Judicial Conference is postponed, the court will revisit the question of judicial education for reserve judges. Reserve judges may, for good cause, request a waiver of their educational requirements from the director of state courts, which may be submitted to the Office of Judicial Education. SCR 32.08(3). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is intended to be interpreted broadly for protection of the public, court staff, and judges from the risks associated with COVID-19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the provisions of this order shall be subject to further modification or extension by future orders.

You are hereby notified that the Court has issued the following order, extending the order issued March 17, 2020: WHEREAS Governor Evers has declared a public health emergency for the State of Wisconsin in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS on March 24, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, at the direction of Governor Evers, issued a "Safer at Home" order requiring Wisconsin residents to stay at home unless they must perform certain exempted activities. See Emergency Order #12, "Safer at Home." WHEREAS the Safer at Home Order excepts the performance of "essential activities" by all residents of the state, the operation of "essential businesses and operations," and the operation of "essential governmental functions," which includes the operation of the Wisconsin court system, however. even while performing those exempt activities, the Safer at Home Order requires people "as reasonably possible [to] maintain social distancing of at least six (6) feet from any other person." WHEREAS the United States Centers for Disease Control has issued guidance related to the COVID-19 pandemic recommending, inter alia, that organizations develop and implement flexible attendance policies that allow employees to stay home when sick, to remain home to care for sick household members, or to work from home when possible; and WHEREAS the Supreme Court has administrative and superintending authority over the courts and judicial system of this state and a duty to promote the efficient and effective operation of the state's judicial system, Wis. Const. Art. VII, § 3; In re Kading, 70 Wis. 2d 508, 519-20; 235 N.W.2d 409 (1976); and WHEREAS the Supreme Court has determined that, in light of the existing public health emergency and to protect the health of the public and the individuals who work for the appellate courts of this state, it is necessary to limit temporarily the number of individuals who are physically present within the offices of the appellate courts of this state and to modify temporarily certain procedures of the appellate courts of this state to ensure that the essential operations of the appellate courts continue in an appropriate manner during the present public health emergency; Page 2 April 2, 2020 In re the Matter of Appellate Court Operations during the COVID-19 Pandemic NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the essential operations of this court and the Court of Appeals shall continue, but those courts will be expanding remote working capabilities and will be reducing the number of employees in the physical offices of the courts; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals shall remain open to accept filings. Through May 22, 2020 (inclusive), however, the hours that the Clerk's office shall be open shall be modified, and the office shall be open to receive filings between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. each business day. During this time period, parties are encouraged, if feasible, to file documents with the Clerk's office by mail using the post office box (P.O. Box 1688, Madison, WI 53701-1688). If necessary, parties may also physically file documents at the office of the Clerk, which is located on the second floor of the Tenney Building, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI. In order to protect the public and the staff of the Clerk's office, only one person at a time shall be allowed to enter the physical office of the Clerk and the person shall follow the directions of the Clerk's staff as to the procedure for filing documents and obtaining file-stamped copies, if requested; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if a person wishes to have in-person access to a court file that is currently in the possession of the Clerk of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, the person shall submit a request for such access to the Clerk via email to clerk@wicourts.gov, via telephone call, or via written request physically filed with the clerk's office in the same manner as set forth above. The Clerk shall then make reasonable arrangements for the person to receive or to view the requested document or file; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, subject to the modifications set forth below, all deadlines in all matters pending in the appellate courts of this state that would expire on or before Friday, May 22, 2020 (inclusive) and all deadlines for the filing in the circuit courts of documents under Wis. Stat. §§ (Rules) 809.107, 809.30, and 809.32 that would expire on or before May 22, 2020 (inclusive), shall be tolled for a period of 21 days, except as provided below. (This means that 21 calendar days should be added to whatever the deadline would otherwise be.) This tolling shall include, but not be limited to, deadlines for briefs, motions, responses to motions, docketing statements, statements on transcripts, etc.; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the tolling set forth in the preceding paragraph shall not apply to the following matters: 1. Deadlines for the filing of any documents in the circuit courts, including the filing of notices of appeal, but the tolling shall apply to deadlines for documents filed under Wis. Stat. §§ (Rules) 809.107, 809.30, and 809.32, as provided above. All deadlines for the filing of notices of appeal in the circuit courts shall not be affected by this order. For circuit court deadlines, parties should consult the appropriate statutes and/or rules, and any orders issued by the circuit court in which the action is pending, including general orders relating to the COVID-19 pandemic; Page 3 April 2, 2020 In re the Matter of Appellate Court Operations during the COVID-19 Pandemic 2. Deadlines for the filing of petitions for review in the Supreme Court pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 808.10 and 809.62 shall not be extended. Petitions for review must be physically filed in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court within the time period required under Wis. Stat. § 808.10. However, if the deadline for filing a petition for review falls on or before May 22, 2020 (inclusive), a party may comply with the deadline for filing a petition for review by filing a short statement that the party seeks Supreme Court review of an identified decision of the Court of Appeals, which statement shall be deemed to be a timely petition for review. A party who complies by filing such a short statement shall file a supplemental petition that contains all of the items set forth in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(2) within 21 days after the filing of the short statement. Absent an extension of time granted by the Supreme Court for good cause shown, the failure to file the supplemental petition conforming to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(2) within the 21-day period shall subject the petition for review to dismissal. The time period for responses to petitions for review will begin upon the service of a complete petition for review or the service of a supplemental petition pursuant to the provision allowing supplemental petitions above, and the response time period in either situation will be subject to the 21-day tolling as set forth above; 3. The parties in the following cases which are pending in the Supreme Court have been contacted regarding deadlines for the filing of briefs, motions, or other documents: a. State v. Brooks, No. 2018AP1774-CR; b. Quick Change Kiosk LLC v. Kaul, No. 2018AP947; c. Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Menard, No. 2018AP659-D; d. State v. Dobbs, No. 2018AP319-CR; e. Town of Delafield v. Central Transport Kriewaldt, No. 2017AP2525; f. State v. Muth, No. 2018AP875-CR; g. Bartlett v. Evers, No. 2019AP1376-OA; h. Wisconsin Small Business United, Inc. v. Brennan, No. 2019AP2054-OA; i. Hammer v. Board of Bar Examiners, No. 2019AP1974-BA; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that non-emergency motions to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court on or before May 22, 2020 (inclusive), are discouraged so that court personnel may focus on essential court functions. If non-emergency motions are filed during that time period, the parties may expect that a ruling on those motions may be delayed to some degree. If a party truly requires immediate emergency relief from the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the party shall identify their motion, petition for leave to file an interlocutory appeal, writ petition, original action petition, or other filing with the word "EMERGENCY" on the face of the document. The party shall also at the beginning of the document state the nature and reason for the emergency, shall specify the date by which the emergency relief is needed, and shall identify with specificity the harm the party will suffer if the emergency relief is not granted by the requested date. The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals shall retain discretion to determine whether the filing represents an emergency sufficient to require immediate action by the court; and Page 2 April 2, 2020 In re the Matter of Appellate Court Operations during the COVID-19 Pandemic IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties in the cases originally scheduled for oral argument in the Supreme Court on March 30, 2020, April 1, 2020, and April 20, 2020, have been contacted and arrangements made to reschedule or waive oral argument; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the provisions of this order shall be subject to further modification or extension by future orders of the Supreme Court. In addition, the Court of Appeals may issue separate orders addressing the handling of matters pending in that court; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Bar of Wisconsin shall take all reasonable steps to notify its members of the contents of this order. REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J. (dissenting). The approved extension is longer than necessary. I would make the extension of this order coterminous with the Safer at Home order issued March 24, 2020, by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. See Emergency Order #12, "Safer at Home."

This order provides notice that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will conduct a public hearing to consider an Interim Rule adopted by the court that temporarily suspends statutory deadlines for jury trials in non-criminal matters due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 24, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, at the direction of Governor Evers, issued a "Safer at Home" order requiring Wisconsin residents to stay at home unless they must perform certain exempted activities. See Emergency Order #12, "Safer at Home." All non-essential businesses and operations "are required to cease all activities located within Wisconsin." The Safer at Home Order excepts the performance of "essential activities" by all residents of the state, the operation of "essential businesses and operations," and the operation of "essential governmental functions," which includes the operation of the Wisconsin court system. Even while performing those exempt activities, however, the Safer at Home Order requires people "as reasonably possible [to] maintain social distancing of at least six (6) feet from any other person." No. 20-02 2 The Supreme Court has administrative and superintending authority over the courts and judicial system of this state and a duty to promote the efficient and effective operation of the state's judicial system. Wis. Const. Art. VII, § 3; In re Kading, 70 Wis. 2d 508, 519-20; 235 N.W.2d 409 (1976). That authority includes the authority to create, suspend, and modify rules governing pleading, practice, and procedure in the courts of this state. This authority has been recognized by the legislature. Wis. Stat. § 751.12(3). We note, too, that the legislature has long recognized that in times of public emergency, this court has the authority to alter statutes and rules governing how the court system operates. See Wis. Stat. § 757.12 (originally enacted in 1849; stating that, "[w]henever it is deemed unsafe or inexpedient, by reason of war, pestilence or other public calamity, to hold any court at the time and place appointed therefor the justices or judges of the court may appoint any other place within the same county and any other time for holding court. All proceedings in the court may be continued at adjourned times and places and be of the same force and effect as if the court had continued its sessions at the place it was held before the adjournment.")1 In the exercise of its administrative and superintending authority, the Supreme Court has determined that, in light of the existing public health emergency declared in connection with the COVID 19 pandemic, and to protect the health of the public and the individuals who work for the courts of this state, it is necessary to limit temporarily the number of individuals who are physically present within 1 We do not decide at this time whether this statute applies to the current public health emergency. No. 20-02 3 the courts of this state and to temporarily modify certain procedures to ensure that the essential operations of the courts continue in an appropriate manner during the present public health emergency. In accordance with this determination, this court has temporarily suspended or continued all jury trials that were scheduled to commence between March 22, 2020, and May 22, 2020. In re the Matter of Jury Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic (S. Ct. Order issued March 22, 2020). Also in accordance with this determination, at a closed administrative conference on March 25, 2020, the Supreme Court considered the need to temporarily suspend certain statutory deadlines for the conduct of non-criminal jury trials. The Supreme Court concluded that it is necessary to expedite its consideration of this matter so as to provide prompt guidance to the circuit courts of this state, which are presently striving to balance deadlines set by statutes and serious public safety concerns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. At a closed administrative conference on March 27, 2020 the Supreme Court approved an Interim Rule that suspends the deadlines for non criminal jury trials, attached as Appendix A to this order, effective the date of this order and until further order of this court, subject to pending further review and consideration at a public hearing to be conducted on May 1, 2020. Wisconsin Stat. § 751.12 sets forth procedures that the court has employed for promulgating rules regulating pleading, practice, and procedure in judicial proceedings in all courts, for the purposes of simplifying the same and of promoting the speedy determination of litigation upon its merits. The time-sensitive nature of statutorily No. 20-02 4 imposed deadlines for jury trials, and the serious public safety risks associated with conducting a public hearing during the COVID-19 pandemic require the court to act at this time. The public hearing on the Interim Rule is duly noticed in accordance with the deadlines set forth in Wis. Stat. § 751.12 (requiring notice not more than 60 days nor less than 30 days before the date of hearing). However, we find good cause to modify the manner in which we conduct the public hearing. Accordingly, we will proceed as follows: 1. Consistent with our standard administrative rules practice, this public hearing notice, together with the Interim Rule, will be distributed to the standard Interested Persons list the court uses to provide notice of scheduled administrative rules matters; posted on the court's website; and the State Bar is directed to provide notice of the hearing and the Interim Rule. 2. Consistent with our standard administrative rules practice, we invite written comment on the Interim Rule. Written comment may be submitted by email on or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 24, 2020 using the procedure set forth below. 3. The Supreme Court will conduct the public hearing on May 1, 2020, commencing at 9:30 a.m. via videoconference or other remote means that will be streamed for public viewing via www.wicourts.gov so it may be observed by interested persons. Details on how to access the public hearing will be posted on the court's website at: https://www.wicourts.gov/opinions.jsp. 4. Although the Supreme Court cannot permit any member of the public to appear in person at the public hearing due to the No. 20-02 5 public safety concerns outlined above, any interested person may, in addition to providing written comment, submit written questions to the Supreme Court regarding this matter using the process set forth below. The Supreme Court will endeavor to address these questions during the public hearing. 5. Following the public hearing, the Supreme Court will convene in closed administrative conference to decide whether to continue, modify, or repeal the Interim Rule and will issue an order setting forth the Supreme Court's decision on the matter. Instructions for Providing Comment or Submitting Questions Public comments and questions for the Supreme Court are due by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 24, 2020. They shall be sent by email to: clerk@wicourts.gov. The subject line shall state: "May 1 public hearing." The email shall include the full name and contact information for the person submitting the comment. Comments may also be mailed to the Clerk of Supreme Court, Attention: Deputy Clerk-Rules, P.O. Box 1688, Madison, WI 53701-1688, however, email is strongly preferred. The court reserves the right to consolidate duplicative questions and to screen questions that may not be germane to this proceeding. We emphasize that the Interim Rule is a temporary rule, required in response to the extraordinary circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The court uses temporary or interim rules to explore potential modifications to existing administrative rules and procedures, such as when the court authorizes a pilot project. The now mandatory circuit court eFiling program in the state commenced with a No. 20-02 6 temporary rule.2 When the court commenced its ongoing consideration of whether to adopt a Statewide Business Court Docket, it adopted an Interim Rule and convened a public hearing to further consider it.3 Using the procedure described in this order, the court strives to address the immediate and practical challenges confronting the circuit courts while complying to the extent possible with the existing parameters by which it considers administrative rule changes. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Interim Non-Criminal Jury Trial rule set forth in Appendix A, attached hereto, is adopted by the court and shall apply to cases in the circuit court effective the date of this order and until further order of the court, subject to further review and consideration at a May 1, 2020 public hearing. 2 As an example, on September 9, 2004, the Director of State Courts sent the court a memorandum requesting the court approve a temporary rule governing a pilot project for voluntary small claims eFiling. The court met on September 16, 2004 and issued an order approving the pilot project on February 25, 2005. The file in the clerk's office does not indicate that a public hearing was held or that the order was published. An article announcing the pilot project appeared in the April 2005 Wisconsin Lawyer. The temporary order adopted in that matter was renewed in 2006. In 2008, the Director of State Courts requested formal rule changes by filing Rule Petition 06-08, In the matter of the Creation of a Court Rule Governing Electronic Filing in the Circuit Courts, S. Ct. Order 2008 WI 36(issued May 1, 2008, eff. July 2, 2008). See also S. Ct. Order 14-03, In the Matter of the Petition to Create Wisconsin Statute § 801.18, 2016 WI 29 (issued Apr. 28, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016) (adopting and implementing mandatory eFiling rule following a public hearing on the matter). 3 Rule Petition 16-05, In re creation of a pilot project for dedicated trial court judicial dockets for large claim business and commercial cases, S. Ct. Order 16-05, 2017 WI 33 (issued Apr. 11, 2017, eff. July 1, 2017) (adopting Interim Rule and authorizing pilot project then conducting public hearing to confirm the Interim Rule). No. 20-02 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a public hearing on this matter shall be held on May 1, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. and shall be conducted remotely and available to the public via www.wicourts.gov in the manner and according to the procedures set forth in this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the hearing be given by a publication of a Notice of Public Hearing in the official state newspaper once each week for three consecutive weeks, and publication of a copy of this order and the Interim Rule 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the full text of this order and the Interim Rule shall be placed on the Internet site maintained by the director of state courts for the Supreme Court. See www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending.htm. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 31st day of March, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

By order dated February 25, 2020, the court scheduled a public hearing for Thursday, April 2, 2020, in the above matter. Governor Evers has declared a public health emergency for the State of Wisconsin due to COVID-19. All branches of Wisconsin government are working to contain the spread of COVID-19. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the public hearing on rule petition 19-25, scheduled for Thursday, April 2, 2020, is hereby cancelled. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of any rescheduled hearing will be posted on the supreme court website and provided to all persons who routinely receive notice of the court's administrative rule matters. See www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending.htm. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 17th day of March, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recognizes that the public health emergency relating to COVID-19 may impact lawyers' ability to complete mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) required by SCR 31.02 in order to remain eligible to practice law in Wisconsin.1 Many CLE seminars have been cancelled or postponed and many lawyers may need to self-isolate or avoid public gatherings because of the risk of acquiring and/or transmitting the virus. In an effort to mitigate the impact of these measures on a lawyer's eligibility to practice law, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has, at the request of the State Bar of Wisconsin, elected to temporarily increase the number of credits from on-demand programs 1 SCR 31.02 provides that a "lawyer shall attend a minimum of 30 hours of approved CLE during each reporting period." SCR 31.02(1). The mandatory ethics requirement provides that "[a] lawyer shall attend a minimum of 3 of the 30 hours required under sub. (1) on the subject of legal ethics and professional responsibility in every reporting period." SCR 31.02(2). No. 20-01 2 that lawyers may use to satisfy the requirements of SCR 31.02. See SCR 31.12(2) (authorizing the board of bar examiners (board) to waive attendance and reporting requirements where to do otherwise would work an injustice). Under current rule no more than 15 credits may be claimed for repeated on-demand programs during a lawyer's CLE reporting period. SCR 31.01(6m).2 For purposes of reinstatement, readmission, or reactivation, no more than 50 percent of the lawyer's CLE may come from on-demand programs. SCR 31.05(5)(a). IT IS ORDERED that effective the date of this order and until December 31, 2020, for the continuing legal education reporting period ending December 31, 2020 (even-year reporters), lawyers may, in their discretion, claim additional CLE credit from repeated on-demand programs, up to 30 credits. Repeated on-demand courses that will be claimed in excess of the usual 15 credit hour limit must be completed on or before December 31, 2020. Because of the importance and time sensitive nature of instruction on the subject of legal ethics and professional responsibility, these courses are to be completed with live on-online programming or in-person courses; repeated on-demand programs may not be used to satisfy the mandatory 3 legal ethics and professional responsibility credit hours. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that lawyers who have failed to demonstrate compliance with CLE reporting requirements for the reporting period ending December 31, 2019 (odd-year reporters) may use repeated on 2 "Repeated on-demand program" means an on-line program delivered over the Internet, consisting of a program previously approved by the board. No. 20-01 3 demand programs to satisfy deficiencies in their credit hours. This does not include the mandatory 3 hours required on the subject of legal ethics and professional responsibility which are to be completed using live on-line programming or in-person courses, and does not waive the late fee imposed for late reporting under SCR 31.03(2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that lawyers required to satisfy CLE requirements as a prerequisite to reinstatement, readmission, or reactivation may satisfy 100 percent of their required CLE using on demand programs for petitions, provided that make up credit requirements are completed on or before December 31, 2020. This does not include the mandatory 3 hours required on the subject of legal ethics and professional responsibility, which are to be completed using live on line programming or in-person courses. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any lawyer whose license to practice law may be suspended because the lawyer is unable to complete legal ethics and professional responsibility credits, either in person or live on-online, may file a request for a waiver with the board under SCR 31.12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because this temporary measure is effective immediately, there may be a delay before the board's electronic filing system can accept late-filed electronic reports documenting attendance of on-demand courses in excess of the usual 15 credit rule. In this event, lawyers are directed to submit a statement of their request for continuing legal education credit in writing, together with documentation of the on-demand course(s) for which credit is claimed, and the late fee. Per SCR 31.03(4), a late filed report is No. 20-01 4 deemed filed upon the board's receipt of payment of the late fee, for which payment may be made electronically. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the above amendments be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official publications designated in SCR 80.01, including the official publishers' online databases, and on the Wisconsin court system's web site. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall provide notice of this order. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 17th day of March, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

You are hereby notified that the Court has issued the following order: WHEREAS Governor Evers has declared a public health emergency for the State of Wisconsin in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS the United States Centers for Disease Control has issued guidance related to the COVID-19 pandemic recommending, inter alia, that organizations develop and implement flexible attendance policies that allow employees to stay home when sick, to remain home to care for sick household members, or to work from home when possible; and WHEREAS the Supreme Court has administrative and superintending authority over the courts and judicial system of this state and a duty to promote the efficient and effective operation of the state’s judicial system, Wis. Const. Art. VII, § 3; In re Kading, 79 Wis. 2d 508, 519-20; 235 N.W.2d 409 (1976); and WHEREAS the Supreme Court has determined that, in light of the existing public health emergency and to protect the health of the public and the individuals who work for the appellate courts of this state, it is necessary to limit temporarily the number of individuals who are physically present within the offices of the appellate courts of this state and to modify temporarily certain procedures of the appellate courts of this state to ensure that the essential operations of the appellate courts continue in an appropriate manner during the present public health emergency; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the essential operations of this court and the Court of Appeals shall continue, but those courts will be expanding remote working capabilities and will be reducing the number of employees in the physical offices of the courts; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals shall remain open to accept filings. From March 19, 2020, to April 3, 2020 (inclusive), however, the hours that the Clerk’s office shall be open shall be modified, and the office shall be open to receive filings between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. each business day. During this time period, parties are encouraged, if feasible, to file documents with the Clerk’s office by Page 2 March 17, 2020 In re the Matter of Appellate Court Operations during the COVID-19 Pandemic 2 mail using the post office box (P.O. Box 1688, Madison, WI 53701-1688). If necessary, parties may also physically file documents at the office of the Clerk, which is located on the second floor of the Tenney Building, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI. In order to protect the public and the staff of the Clerk’s office, only one person at a time shall be allowed to enter the physical office of the Clerk and the person shall follow the directions of the Clerk’s staff as to the procedure for filing documents and obtaining file-stamped copies, if requested; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if a person wishes to have in-person access to a court file that is currently in the possession of the Clerk of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, the person shall submit a request for such access to the Clerk via email to clerk@wicourts.gov, via telephone call, or via written request physically filed with the clerk’s office in the same manner as set forth above. The Clerk shall then make reasonable arrangements for the person to receive or to view the requested document or file; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, subject to the modifications set forth below, all deadlines in all matters pending in the appellate courts of this state that would expire between Thursday, March 19, 2020, and Friday, April 3, 2020 (inclusive) and all deadlines for the filing in the circuit courts of documents under Wis. Stat. §§ (Rules) 809.107, 809.30, and 809.32 that would expire between March 19, 2020, and April 3, 2020 (inclusive), shall be tolled for a period of 21 days, except as provided below. (This means that 21 calendar days should be added to whatever the deadline would otherwise be.) This tolling shall include, but not be limited to, deadlines for briefs, motions, responses to motions, docketing statements, statements on transcripts, etc.; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the tolling set forth in the preceding paragraph shall not apply to the following matters: 1. Deadlines for the filing of any documents in the circuit courts, including the filing of notices of appeal, but the tolling shall apply to deadlines for documents filed under Wis. Stat. §§ (Rules) 809.107, 809.30, and 809.32, as provided above. All deadlines for the filing of notices of appeal in the circuit courts shall not be affected by this order. For circuit court deadlines, parties should consult the appropriate statutes and/or rules, and any orders issued by the circuit court in which the action is pending, including general orders relating to the COVID-19 pandemic; 2. Deadlines for the filing of petitions for review in the Supreme Court pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 808.10 and 809.62 shall not be extended. Petitions for review must be physically filed in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court within the time period required under Wis. Stat. § 808.10. However, if the deadline for filing a petition for review falls between March 19, 2020, and April 3, 2020 (inclusive), a party may comply with the deadline for filing a petition for review by filing a short statement that the party seeks Supreme Court review of an identified decision of the Court of Appeals, which statement shall be deemed to be a timely petition for review. A party who complies by filing such a short statement shall file a supplemental petition that contains all of the items set forth in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(2) within 21 days after the filing of the short statement. Absent an extension of time granted by the Supreme Court for good cause shown, the failure to file the supplemental petition conforming to Wis. Stat. Page 3 March 17, 2020 In re the Matter of Appellate Court Operations during the COVID-19 Pandemic § (Rule) 809.62(2) within the 21-day period shall subject the petition for review to dismissal. The time period for responses to petitions for review will begin upon the service of a complete petition for review or the service of a supplemental petition pursuant to the provision allowing supplemental petitions above, and the response time period in either situation will be subject to the 21-day tolling as set forth above; 3. Deadlines for the filing of briefs, motions, or other documents in the following cases pending in the Supreme Court, which are currently scheduled to be argued on March 30, 2020, April 1, 2020, and April 20, 2020: a. State v. Brooks, No. 2018AP1774-CR; b. Quick Change Kiosk LLC v. Kaul, No. 2018AP947; c. Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Menard, No. 2018AP659-D; d. State v. Dobbs, No. 2018AP319-CR; e. Town of Delafield v. Central Transport Kriewaldt, No. 2017AP2525; f. State v. Muth, No. 2018AP875-CR; g. Bartlett v. Evers, No. 2019AP1376-OA; h. Wisconsin Small Business United, Inc. v. Brennan, No. 2019AP2054-OA; i. Hammer v. Board of Bar Examiners, No. 2019AP1974-BA; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that non-emergency motions to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court between March 19, 2020, and April 3, 2020 (inclusive), are discouraged so that court personnel may focus on essential court functions. If non-emergency motions are filed during that time period, the parties may expect that a ruling on those motions may be delayed to some degree. If a party truly requires immediate emergency relief from the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the party shall identify their motion, petition for leave to file an interlocutory appeal, writ petition, original action petition, or other filing with the word “EMERGENCY” on the face of the document. The party shall also at the beginning of the document state the nature and reason for the emergency, shall specify the date by which the emergency relief is needed, and shall identify with specificity the harm the party will suffer if the emergency relief is not granted by the requested date. The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals shall retain discretion to determine whether the filing represents an emergency sufficient to require immediate action by the court; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the oral argument schedules in the Supreme Court for March 30, 2020, April 1, 2020, and April 20, 2020, shall remain in effect, subject to further order of the court. Parties with arguments in the Supreme Court scheduled for those dates shall be prepared to proceed with arguments as scheduled; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the provisions of this order shall be subject to further modification or extension by future orders of the Supreme Court. In addition, the Court of Appeals may issue separate orders addressing the handling of matters pending in that court; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Bar of Wisconsin shall take all reasonable steps to notify its members of the contents of this order.

In 2017, the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved creation of a pilot project for commercial court dockets for large claims business and commercial cases (commercial court docket or pilot project). See S. Ct. Order 16-05, 2017 WI 33 (issued Apr. 11, 2017, eff. July 1, 2017) (approving pilot project following receipt of public comment and public hearing), as amended by S. Ct. Order 16-05A (issued Feb. 12, 2020) (extending and expanding project); S. Ct. Correction Order 16-05B (issued Feb 22, 2020).1 This order reflects Interim Rule amendments to accommodate the addition of Dane County to the pilot project. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that, effective the date of this order: 1 The interim commercial court rule applies only to this pilot project. If, upon the conclusion of the pilot project, the Business Court Advisory Committee recommends the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopt a statewide commercial court docket, the Committee will file a formal rule petition, whereupon the court will invite public comment and schedule a public hearing on the matter. No. 16-05C 2 SECTION 1. Section 2 d) of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 2. d) The circuit courts for Waukesha County and in the Eighth Judicial Administrative District are hereby designated as the initial locations for the Commercial Court dockets. The circuit courts of Dane County, The the circuit courts of the Second Judicial Administrative District, and the circuit courts of the Tenth Judicial Administrative District are hereby designated as additional locations for the Commercial Court dockets. For the purposes of this pilot project, Iron County shall be considered part of the Tenth Judicial Administrative District forthwith.2 SECTION 2. Section 2 e) of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 2. e) The Chief Justice shall select the circuit court judges in the counties and judicial administrative districts participating in the pilot plan who will be assigned to the Commercial Court docket. Selection of a judge for the Commercial Court docket shall not preclude the judge from continuing work on any other assigned docket. The Chief Justice shall select no fewer than: three circuit court judges in Waukesha County; no fewer than three circuit court judges in Dane County; no fewer than four circuit court judges within the Eighth Judicial Administrative District; no fewer than four circuit court judges within the Second Judicial Administrative District; and no fewer than three circuit court judges within the Tenth Judicial Administrative 2 See S. Ct. Order 19-21, 2020 WI 17 (issued Feb. 13, 2020) (transferring Iron County to Tenth Judicial Administrative District effective July 1, 2020). No. 16-05C 3 District. The Chief Justice may also add additional counties and/or districts to the Commercial Court docket upon the recommendation of the Director of State Courts. SECTION 3. Section 7 b) of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 7. b) Clerk of court duties. 1. In Dane County and Waukesha County, upon the filing of a case qualifying for the Commercial Court docket, the clerk of court shall assign the case to the Commercial Court docket and to one of the judges designed for the commercial court docket. In the event of a request for judicial substitution, the case shall be transferred to the next Waukesha County circuit court judge who is assigned to the Waukesha County Commercial Court docket in that county. SECTION 4. Section 10 b)1. of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 10. b) The procedure for a joint petition for transfer shall be as follows: 1. A joint petition for transfer of a case under this section shall be submitted to the District Court Administrator for the Eighth Judicial District. The District Eight Court Administrator shall refer the petition to the Chief Judges for the Second, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Judicial Administrative Districts. SECTION 4. Section 10 b)3. of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 3. The Chief Judges shall, upon allowing a transfer, assign the cases to the Commercial Court docket and to one of the judges designated No. 16-05C 4 for the Commercial Court docket in Dane County, Waukesha County, or within the Second, Eighth, or Tenth Judicial Administrative District. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Dane County Circuit Court may commence the pilot project effective the date of this order or as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order and the interim commercial court rule, as amended, shall be made available to the public on the court's website. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 13th day of March, 2020.

On December 23, 2019, Attorney Benjamin T. Kurten, on behalf of the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (the "Fund"), filed a rule petition asking the court to amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 12.07(2)(a) to increase the annual assessment of attorneys for the Fund to provide sufficient income for payment of eligible claims. IT is ORDERED that a public hearing on the petition shall be held in the Supreme Court Hearing Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wisconsin, on Thursday, April 2, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of hearing be given by a publication of a copy of this order and of the petition in the official state newspaper once each week for three consecutive weeks, 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the full text of the proposed rules, including changes, if any, in existing rules, shall be placed on the No. 19-25 2 Internet site maintained by the director of state courts for the supreme court. See www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending.htm. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 25th day of February, 2020.

The court, on its own motion, has identified the need for a technical correction to the interim commercial court rule. See S. Ct. Order 16-05, 2017 WI 33 (issued Apr. 11, 2017, eff. July 1, 2017) (approving pilot project following receipt of public comment and public hearing); S. Ct. Order 16-05A (issued Feb. 12, 2020) (amending interim commercial court rule). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that effective the date of this order, Section 10. b)1. of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read as follows: A joint petition for transfer of a case under this section shall be submitted to the District Court Administrator for the Eighth Judicial District. The District Eight Court Administrator shall refer the petition to the Chief Judges for the Second, Third, Eighth, and Tenth Judicial Administrative Districts. No. 16-05B 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order and the interim commercial court rule, as amended, shall be made available to the public on the court's website. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 20th day of February, 2020.

On October 22, 2019, the Honorable Randy R. Koschnick, Director of State Courts, filed a rule petition asking the court to amend Wis. Stat. § 757.60(9) and (10), Supreme Court Rules (SCR) 70.17(9) and (10), and renumber Wis. Stat. § 753.06(9)(d). The petition proposes transferring Iron County from the ninth judicial district to the tenth judicial district for reasons of judicial efficiency. The court discussed the petition at a closed administrative rules conference on December 9, 2019. It voted to seek written comments and requested Judge Koschnick seek input from the judges and district court administrators in the affected districts. Judge Koschnick sent a letter dated December 13, 2019 inviting input from his colleagues in the affected districts and the court issued its standard interested persons letter on December 16, 2019 requesting comment by January 13, 2020. No comments were received. No. 19-21 2 The court discussed the matter again at a closed administrative conference on February 11, 2020. After discussion, the court concluded that transferring Iron County from the ninth judicial district to the tenth judicial district will manage workload disparity, improve administrative efficiency, and reduce administrative costs. The court determined that no public hearing was necessary and voted to grant the petition. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the petition is granted and that: SECTION 1. 753.06(9)(d) is renumbered 753.06(10)(gm). SECTION 2. 757.60(9) of the statutes is amended to read: 757.60(9) The 9th district consists of Florence, Forest, Iron, Langlade, Lincoln, Marathon, Menominee, Oneida, Portage, Price, Shawano, Taylor, Vilas, and Wood counties. SECTION 3. 757.60(10) of the statutes is amended to read: 757.60(10) The 10th district consists of Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Chippewa, Douglas, Dunn, Eau Claire, Iron, Polk, Rusk, St. Croix, Sawyer, and Washburn counties. SECTION 4. Supreme Court Rule 70.17(9) is amended to read: 70.17(9) The 9th district consists of Florence, Forest, Iron, Langlade, Lincoln, Marathon, Menominee, Oneida, Portage, Price, Shawano, Taylor, Vilas, and Wood counties. SECTION 5. Supreme Court Rule 70.17(10) is amended to read: 70.17(10) The 10th district consists of Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Chippewa, Douglas, Dunn, Eau Claire, Iron, Polk, Rusk, St. Croix, Sawyer, and Washburn counties. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the effective date of this order is July 1, 2020. No. 19-21 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the above amendments be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official publications designated in SCR 80.01, including the official publishers' online databases, and on the Wisconsin court system's website. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall provide notice of this order. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 13th day of February, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

On October 3, 2019, Gretchen Viney, Distinguished Clinical Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School, filed a rule petition asking the court to amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 31.05(3) pertaining to continuing legal education (CLE). The petition seeks an amendment to ensure that a guest presenter in a law school course shall receive two hours of continuing legal education credit for each hour of class presentation. The petition states that it was prompted by a recent change in the Board of Bar Examiners' (BBE) manner of interpreting SCR 31.05(3) with respect to guest lecturers in the University of Wisconsin Law School's Lawyering Skills Course. The petition states that the BBE has allowed double credits for these instructors since the inception of mandatory CLE in 1977. The petition states that in September 2019, for the first time, the BBE informed the petitioner that it would not approve the guest instructors' application for double credits. No. 19-20 2 The court discussed the rule petition on October 15, 2019 and requested the BBE file a response to the petition. On October 30, 2019, BBE Director Jacquelynn Rothstein filed a letter with the court, stating that the BBE reviewed the rule petition at its regularly scheduled meeting on October 25, 2019. Essentially, the BBE acknowledges the past practice of approving double credit for these instructors, but believes that as written, the rule does not provide for double credit.1 The BBE told Professor Viney that it would grant the two hours of continuing legal education credit for the 2019- 2020 academic terms but thereafter would cease to award the double credit. After discussion, the BBE states that it now agrees that the court should amend SCR 31.05(3) and recommends the court do so in a manner that would extend double credit to all those who teach in approved settings. This proposal is consistent with an alternative proposal offered by Professor Viney in her memorandum submitted in support of her petition. The court has determined that the proposed change to SCR 31.05(3) will clarify the rule and will have positive consequences for the recruitment and retention of guest faculty, who serve an important role in the training and education of future lawyers.2 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that, effective January 1, 2021, Supreme Court Rule 31.05(3) is amended to read: 1 The petitioner disagrees with the BBE's interpretation of SCR 31.05. 2 The BBE and the Wisconsin Consolidated Court Automation Programs (CCAP) should collaborate to undertake any required administrative and computer programming changes needed to implement this amendment. No. 19-20 3 (3) Teaching an approved continuing legal or judicial education activity or teaching a course, or teaching as guest presenter in a course, in a law school approved by the American bar association may be used to satisfy the requirement of SCR 31.02. The board shall award 2 hours for each hour of presentation. of the approved continuing legal or judicial education activity and one hour for each hour of presentation for teaching a course in a law school. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the above amendments be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official publications designated in SCR 80.01, including the official publishers' online databases, and on the Wisconsin court system's website. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall provide notice of this order. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 12th day of February, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

On January 17, 2020, Attorney John A. Rothstein, on behalf of the Business Court Advisory Committee ("Committee"), filed a rule petition asking the court to approve certain amendments to extend and expand the existing pilot project for commercial court dockets for large claims business and commercial cases (commercial court docket or pilot project) and amend its interim commercial court rule. See S. Ct. Order 16-05, 2017 WI 33 (issued Apr. 11, 2017, eff. July 1, 2017) (approving pilot project following receipt of public comment and public hearing). The court discussed this petition at a closed administrative rules conference on February 11, 2020. As this petition pertains to an ongoing pilot project, no public hearing is required. The interim commercial court rule applies only to the pilot project. If the Committee ultimately recommends the court adopt a statewide commercial court docket, the Committee will file a subsequent rule petition that will require a public hearing. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that, effective the date of this order: No. 16-05A 2 SECTION 1. Section 2 b) of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 2. b) The pilot project will begin and end as authorized by order of the Supreme Court. See S. Ct. Order 16-05, 2017 WI 33 (issued Apr. 11, 2017, eff. July 1, 2017). The approximate duration of the project will be from July 2017 to July 2020 2022. SECTION 2. Section 2 d) of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 2. d) The circuit courts for Waukesha County and in the Eighth Judicial Administrative District are hereby designated as the initial locations for the Commercial Court dockets. The circuit courts of the Second Judicial Administrative District and the circuit courts of the Tenth Judicial Administrative District are hereby designated as additional locations for the Commercial Court dockets. SECTION 3. Section 2 e) of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 2. e) The Chief Justice shall select the circuit court judges in the counties and judicial administrative districts participating in the pilot plan who will be assigned to the Commercial Court docket. Selection of a judge for the Commercial Court docket shall not preclude the judge from continuing work on any other assigned docket. The Chief Justice shall select no fewer than: three circuit court judges in Waukesha County; and no fewer than four circuit court judges within the Eighth Judicial Administrative District; no fewer than four circuit court judges within the Second Judicial Administrative District; and no fewer than three circuit court judges within the Tenth Judicial Administrative District. The Chief Justice may also add additional No. 16-05A 3 counties and/or districts to the Commercial Court docket upon the recommendation of the Director of State Courts. SECTION 4. Sections 4 h) to j) of the Interim Commercial Court Rule are created to read: 4. h) Cases involving receiverships in excess of $250,000; 4. i) Cases involving confirmation of arbitration awards and compelling/enforcing arbitration awards; 4. j) Cases involving commercial real estate construction disputes over $250,000; SECTION 5. Section 7 b) of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 7. b) Clerk of court duties. 1. In Waukesha County, upon the filing of a case qualifying for the Commercial Court docket, the clerk of court shall assign the case to the Commercial Court docket and to one of the judges designed for the commercial court docket. In the event of a request for judicial substitution, the case shall be transferred to the next Waukesha County circuit court judge who is assigned to the Waukesha County Commercial Court docket. 2. In the Second Judicial Administrative District, Eighth Judicial Administrative District, and Tenth Judicial Administrative District, for cases filed in any county in which a circuit court judge in that county has already been assigned a Commercial Court docket, the same procedures shall apply. In counties of the Second, Eighth, or Tenth Judicial Administrative District in which no circuit judge has been assigned to the Commercial Court docket, upon the filing of a qualifying case, the clerk of court shall notify the chief judge of the Eighth No. 16-05A 4 Judicial Administrative District who shall assign one of the Commercial Court docket judges from the other counties in the Eighth Judicial Administrative District. The chief judge's selection shall be made pursuant to s.751.03(3), stats. In the event a request for substitution is filed against the judge chosen by the chief judge of the Eighth Judicial Administrative District, the chief judge shall then assign another judge from the Eighth Judicial Administrative District who has been appointed for Commercial Court cases. SECTION 6. Section 10 of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is created to read: 10. Transferring a Case to the Commercial Court Docket. Parties from counties that do not have a dedicated Commercial Court docket may petition to have their cases administered within a Commercial Court docket. 10. a) Such parties may jointly petition for transfer of the case to a Commercial Court docket if all of the following are true: 1. The case is a type identified in Section 4 of the interim commercial court rule. The case is not ineligible for assignment to a Commercial Court docket under Section 6 of the interim commercial court rule. 2. The parties agree to use the forms and procedures developed for use in the Commercial Court docket pilot project. 3. The parties agree that all proceedings will be conducted in the county where the case is assigned under paragraph b) of this section, except that if the case proceeds to trial, the trial will be conducted in the county where the case was originally filed. No. 16-05A 5 10. b) The procedure for a joint petition for transfer shall be as follows: 1. A joint petition for transfer of a case under this section shall be submitted to the District Court Administrator for the Eighth Judicial District. The District Eight Court Administrator shall refer the petition to the Chief Judges for the Second, Eighth, and Tenth Judicial Administrative Districts. 2. The Chief Judges shall consider the caseload of the judges designated for the Commercial Court docket, the nature of the case, and the work requirements for cases already pending in the Commercial Court docket when determining whether to allow the transfer of a case under this paragraph. 3. The Chief Judges shall, upon allowing a transfer, assign the cases to the Commercial Court docket and to one of the judges designated for the Commercial Court docket in Waukesha County or within the Second, Eighth, or Tenth Judicial Administrative District. 4. In the event of a request for judicial substitution, the procedure set forth in Section 7 b) of the interim commercial court rule applies. 10. c) No party may withdraw his or her request for transfer to the Commercial Court docket after a judicial assignment has been made under paragraph b) of this section. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order and the interim commercial court rule, as amended, shall be made available to the public on the court's website. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 12th day of February, 2020. No. 16-05A 6 BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

On December 13, 2019, the Honorable James Morrison, Chair, on behalf of the Committee of Chief Judges, filed a petition seeking to amend Supreme Court Rule 70.20, relating to the authority of the chief judge. On January 30, 2020, the petitioner filed a motion to withdraw the petition. IT IS ORDERED that the petition filed on December 13, 2019 by the Committee of Chief Judges is dismissed. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 3rd day of February, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

On September 26, 2019, Mark A. Neuser, Supreme Court Commissioner, on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Appellate Practice Section Board (the "Board"),1 filed a rule petition asking the court to facilitate online access to petitions for review and responses, in the same manner that appellate briefs are viewable online on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals case access website. In order to safeguard the identity of victims and others, the petition proposes the court amend Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.86, to require petitions for review and 1 The Appellate Practice Section Board is comprised of the following members: Hon. Brian Blanchard, Atty. Frances Philomene Colbert, Atty. Joseph S. Diedrich, Atty. James Eric Goldschmidt, Atty. Amy Hetzner, Atty. Melissa Eleanor Love Koenig, Atty. Lisa M. Lawless, Atty. Anne-Louise T. Mittal, Comm. Mark A. Neuser, Atty. Aaron R. O'Neil, Atty. Eric G. Pearson, Atty. Jeremy C. Perri, Atty. Donald L. Romundson, Atty. Michelle L. Velasquez, Atty. Donald J. Wall. Board member Atty. Clayton P. Kawski did not participate in this petition. No. 19-19 2 responses to comply with the same privacy considerations presently required for appellate briefs. The court voted to seek written comments and conduct a public hearing. A letter soliciting comments was sent to interested persons on November 4, 2019. The court received one comment from Diane Duffey, on behalf of the Law Librarians Association of Wisconsin, Government Relations Committee, supporting the petition. The court conducted a public hearing on January 17, 2020. Mark A. Neuser, Supreme Court Commissioner, presented the petition to the court on behalf of the Board. At an ensuing closed administrative rules conference, the court voted to grant the petition and to revise the rule as requested. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that effective July 1, 2020: SECTION 1. 809.86 (title) of the statutes is amended to read: 809.86 Rule (Identification of victims and others in briefing, petitions for review, and responses to petitions for review). SECTION 2. 809.86(1) of the statutes is amended to read: 809.86(1) DECLARATION OF POLICY. By enacting this rule, the supreme court intends to better protect the privacy and dignity interests of crime victims. It requires appellate briefs, petitions for review, and responses to petitions for review to identify crime victims by use of identifiers, as specified in sub. (4), unless there is good cause for noncompliance. The rule protects the identity of victims in appellate briefs, petitions for review, and responses to petitions for review that the courts make available online. SECTION 3. 809.86(4) of the statutes is amended to read: No. 19-19 3 809.86(4) BRIEFS, PETITIONS FOR REVIEW, AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONS FOR REVIEW. In an appeal specified under sub. (2), the briefs of the parties, petitions for review, and responses to petitions for review shall not, without good cause, identify a victim by any part of his or her name but may identify a victim by one or more initials or other appropriate pseudonym or designation. SECTION 4. A Comment to 809.86 of the statutes is created to read: COMMENT By S. Ct. Order 19-19, 2020 WI 6 (issued Jan. 29, 2020, eff. July 1, 2020) the court extended the privacy protections of this rule to petitions for review and responses to petitions for review, so that they may be posted on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals case access website, along with appellate briefs, in a manner that respects victim privacy concerns. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the above amendments be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official publications designated in SCR 80.01, including the official publishers' online databases, and on the Wisconsin court system's website. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall provide notice of this order. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 29th day of January, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

On March 13, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Procedure Review Committee ("Committee"), by its Chair, the Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, and by Professor Marsha Mansfield, Chair of the Subcommittee on Process, filed a rule petition asking the court to amend certain Supreme Court Rules (SCR) in chs. 21 and 22 to streamline the disciplinary process, including eliminating District Committees, allowing the OLR to reach an earlier resolution of grievances in appropriate circumstances, and to promote cooperation between the OLR and attorneys. The court discussed the petition at a closed administrative rules conference on June 6, 2019, and voted to seek written comments and conduct a public hearing. A letter soliciting comments was sent to interested persons, including District Committee members, on August 22, 2019. The court received seven written responses in regard to the proposed rule changes. The petitioners responded to the comments. The court conducted a public hearing on October 29, 2019. The Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, Chair of the Committee, and Professor Marsha Mansfield, Chair of the Subcommittee on Process, presented the petition to the court. Attorney Joseph Russell and Attorney Donald Christl spoke No. 19-08 2 in support of section 6 of the petition, on behalf of the Board of Administrative Oversight. Attorney Dean R. Dietrich spoke in opposition to certain aspects of the petition on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors. Keith Sellen, Director, Office of Lawyer Regulation, also presented testimony to the court. At an ensuing closed administrative rules conference, the court discussed the petition at some length and voted to grant the petition in part. The court voted to grant sections 2, 7, 8, and 9 (pertaining to special investigators), sections 4 and 5 (pertaining to consensual reprimands), section 6 (pertaining to suspension for noncooperation during the investigative process), and section 10 (pertaining to SCR 22.25). The court voted to hold in abeyance its decision on sections 1 and 3 (pertaining to elimination of District Committees) pending further consideration. Mindful that several other rule petitions proposing amendments to the OLR rules are pending, the court will hold issuance of the order delineating the specific rule changes in abeyance pending its consideration of the other pending OLR Procedure Review Committee's rule petitions. At that time, the court will issue a final order reflecting all the changes. In the interim, a marked version of SCRs chs. 10, 21, 22, and 31, reflecting the rule changes approved to date is available on the court's website at https://www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending.htm. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that effective July 1, 2020, rule petition 19-08, In the Matter for an Order Amending Supreme Court Rules 22.02(2)(d), 22.25(3) and (4)(intro), and 22.26, Repealing Supreme Court Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 21.06, Repealing and Recreating Supreme Court Rule 22.03(4), and Creating Supreme Court Rules 21.01(1)(bg), 22.02(6)(d), No. 19-08 3 and 22.25(3m) (OLR Process) is granted in part, subject to issuance of a further order by this court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court's final order setting forth changes to SCRs chs. 10, 20, 21, 22, and 31 is held in abeyance pending the court's resolution of the remaining Office of Lawyer Regulation Procedure Review Committee petitions. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 18th day of December, 2019. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

On March 13, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Procedure Review Committee ("Committee"), by its Chair, the Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, and by Attorney Paul Schwarzenbart, Chair of the Subcommittee on Charging Process, filed a rule petition asking the court to create a new rule, Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.185, to provide a mechanism for the enforcement of disciplinary orders. The court discussed the petition at a closed administrative rules conference on June 6, 2019, and voted to seek written comments and conduct a public hearing. A letter soliciting comment was sent to interested persons on August 22, 2019. The court received one written response from Attorney Dean R. Dietrich, on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors, supporting the petition. The court conducted a public hearing on October 29, 2019. The Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, Chair of the Committee, and Attorney Paul Schwarzenbart, Chair of the Subcommittee on Charging Process, presented the petition to the court. Attorney Dean R. Dietrich spoke in support of the petition on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin. No. 19-09 2 At an ensuing closed administrative rules conference, the court voted to grant the petition. Mindful that several other rule petitions proposing amendments to the OLR rules are pending, the court will hold issuance of a final order delineating the specific rule changes in abeyance pending its consideration of the other pending OLR Procedure Review Committee's rule petitions. At that time, the court will issue a final order reflecting all the changes. In the interim, a marked version of SCRs chs. 10, 21, 22, and 31, reflecting the rule changes approved to date is available on the court's website at https://www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending.htm. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that effective July 1, 2020, rule petition 19-09, In the Matter of Creating Supreme Court Rule 22.185 and Amending Supreme Court Rules 22.24(1) and 22.38, Relating to the Charging Process in Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings (Enforcement of Orders) is granted, subject to issuance of a further order by this court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court's final order setting forth changes to SCRs chs. 10, 20, 21, 22, and 31 is held in abeyance pending the court's resolution of the remaining Office of Lawyer Regulation Procedure Review Committee petitions. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 18th day of December, 2019. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

On March 13, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Procedure Review Committee ("Committee"), by its Chair, the Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, and by Attorney Jacquelynn B. Rothstein, Chair of the Subcommittee on Reinstatement, filed a rule petition asking the court to amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 21.16(1m)(a) and SCR 22.29(2) to permit the court to order permanent revocation of an attorney's license to practice law. The court discussed the petition at a closed administrative rules conference on June 6, 2019, and voted to seek written comments and conduct a public hearing. A letter soliciting comment was sent to interested persons on August 22, 2019. The court received a written response in regard to the proposed rule changes from Attorney Dean R. Dietrich, on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors, opposing the petition. No. 19-10 2 The court conducted a public hearing on October 29, 2019. The Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, Chair of the Committee, and Attorney Jacquelynn B. Rothstein, Chair of the Subcommittee on Reinstatement, presented the petition to the court. Attorney Dean R. Dietrich spoke against the petition on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin. Keith Sellen, Director, Office of Lawyer Regulation, responded to questions from the court but stated that the OLR took no position on this petition. After the public hearing, the court received a letter from Attorney Donald J. Christl in support of the petition, and a letter from Attorney Stephen E. Kravit opposing the petition. At a closed administrative rules conference, the court voted to add a comment to SCR 21.16 (Discipline) to clarify that revocation under SCR 21.16 is not permanent in Wisconsin. The court then voted to deny the petition. IT IS ORDERED that effective July 1, 2020 a Comment to Supreme Court Rule 21.16 is created to read: A lawyer whose license to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked under SCR 21.16 may seek reinstatement under SCR 22.29, five years after the effective date of the revocation. See SCR 22.29(2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Comment to Supreme Court Rule 21.16 is not adopted, but will be published and may be consulted for guidance in interpreting and applying the rule. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petition to amend Supreme Court Rule 21.16(1m)(a) and Supreme Court Rule 22.29(2) to permit the court to order permanent revocation of an attorney's license to practice law is denied. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 18th day of December, 2019. No. 19-10 3 BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

On March 13, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Procedure Review Committee ("Committee"), by its Chair, the Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, and by Attorney Paul Schwarzenbart, Chair of the Subcommittee on Charging Process, filed a rule petition asking the court to modify its rules to improve communications between the OLR and grievants, streamline the procedures applicable to consent reprimands, and to alleged breaches of a diversion agreement. The court voted to seek written comments and conduct a public hearing. A letter soliciting comment was sent to interested persons on September 30, 2019. The court received one written response from Attorney Dean R. Dietrich, on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors, supporting the petition. The court conducted a public hearing on December 9, 2019. Attorney Paul Schwarzenbart, Chair of the Subcommittee on Charging Process, presented the petition to the court. Keith Sellen, Director, Office of Lawyer Regulation, responded to certain questions raised by the court. Attorney Dean R. Dietrich, on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Board No. 19-11 2 of Governors, and the Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, Chair of the Committee, both spoke in support of the petition. At an ensuing closed administrative rules conference, the court voted to grant the petition. The petition will amend Supreme Court Rules (SCR) 22.02, 22.05, 22.10, and 22.11. Mindful that several other rule petitions proposing amendments to the OLR rules are pending, the court will hold issuance of a final order delineating the specific rule changes in abeyance pending its consideration of the other pending OLR Procedure Review Committee's rule petitions. At that time, the court will issue a final order reflecting all the changes. In the interim, a marked version of SCRs chs. 10, 20, 21, 22, and 31, reflecting the rule changes approved to date is available on the court's website at https://www.wicourts.gov/ scrules/pending.htm. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that effective July 1, 2020, rule petition 19-11, In the Matter for an Order Creating Supreme Court Rules 22.02(6)(d), 22.05(1)(e), and 22.11(2)(b) and (c), Repealing Supreme Court Rule 22.10(7)(b) and (c), Amending Supreme Court Rules 22.02(4) and (6)(a), 22.05(2), and 22.10(4) and Renumbering and Amending Supreme Court Rules 22.10(7)(a) and 22.11(2) (OLR Charging) is granted, subject to issuance of a further order by this court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court's final order setting forth changes to SCRs chs. 10, 20, 21, 22, and 31 is held in abeyance pending the court's resolution of the remaining Office of Lawyer Regulation Procedure Review Committee petitions. No. 19-11 3 Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 18th day of December, 2019. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

On March 13, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Procedure Review Committee ("Committee"), by its Chair, the Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek filed a rule petition asking the court to modify its ethics rules, specifically Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 20:1.8(h)(3) and SCR 20:8.3 and related comments, to encourage greater reporting of professional misconduct by lawyers. The court voted to seek written comments and conduct a public hearing. A letter soliciting comment was sent to interested persons on September 30, 2019. The court received one written response from Attorney Dean R. Dietrich, on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors, supporting section 1 of the petition and opposing section 2 of the petition. The court conducted a public hearing on December 9, 2019. Attorney Michael Apfeld presented the petition to the court. The Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, Chair of the Committee, spoke in support of the petition. Attorney Dean R. Dietrich, on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors, spoke in opposition to the proposed modification of SCR 20:8.3. At an ensuing closed administrative rules No. 19-12 2 conference, the court voted to grant the petition in part. The court agreed to amend SCR 20:1.8(h)(3) and the related comment. The court declined to amend the standard for reporting misconduct in SCR 20:8.3 but opted to add certain language to the accompanying comment to clarify the rule. Mindful that several other rule petitions proposing amendments to the OLR rules are pending, the court will hold issuance of a final order delineating the specific rule changes in abeyance pending its consideration of the other pending OLR Procedure Review Committee's rule petitions. At that time, the court will issue a final order reflecting all the changes. In the interim, a marked version of SCR ch. 20, reflecting the rule changes approved in this rule matter, is available on the court's website at https://www.wicourts.gov/ scrules/pending.htm. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that effective July 1, 2020, rule petition 19-12, In the Matter of the Petition of the OLR Process Review Committee's for an Order Amending Supreme Court Rules 20:1.8(h)(3) and 20:8.3 (Reporting Misconduct) is granted in part and denied in part, subject to issuance of a further order by this court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court's final order setting forth changes to SCR ch. 20 is held in abeyance pending the court's resolution of the remaining Office of Lawyer Regulation Procedure Review Committee petitions. No. 19-12 3 Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 18th day of December, 2019. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

On June 25, 2019, the State Bar of Wisconsin, by then President Christopher Earl Rogers, filed a rule petition asking the court to amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 10.05(4)(m)1. The proposed amendment would add the State Bar's lawyer referral assistance program (known as LRIS) to the list of assistance programs that are currently specified in the rule. This court discussed this petition at a closed administrative rules conference on September 12, 2019 and voted to solicit written comments. On September 26, 2019, a letter was sent to interested persons seeking input. No comments were received. On December 9, 2019 the court discussed the petition and voted to approve the petition. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that effective the date of this order: Supreme Court Rule 10.05(4)(m)1. is amended to read: No. 19-18 2 (m)1. Establishment. The board of governors may provide assistance programs, including, but not limited to assistance in for lawyers with questions regarding law office management; and assistance to for judges, lawyers, law students, and their families in coping with alcoholism and other addictions, mental illness, physical disability, and other problems related to or affecting the practice of law; and assistance for both lawyers and the public regarding lawyer referrals. The board may establish committees, hire staff, and obtain volunteers as reasonably necessary to provide assistance. The board shall establish policies consistent with the purposes of the state bar and in furtherance of the public interest in the competence and integrity of the legal profession. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the above amendments be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official publications designated in SCR 80.01, including the official publishers' online databases, and on the Wisconsin court system's web site. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall provide notice of this order. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 10th day of December, 2019. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court

Certificate of Bylaw Amendment I, Larry J. Martin, the Executive Director of the State Bar of Wisconsin, do hereby certify that the following bylaw amendment resolutions were duly voted on by the Board of Governors on February 15, 2019, and were approved by a greater than two-thirds vote. _______________________________________ Larry J. Martin RESOLVED, that State Bar Bylaw Article III, be amended as follows: Article 3, Section 5: Section 5. Mailing Distribution of Ballots. On or before the second Friday of April in each year the Executive Director or his designee shall prepare and maildistribute the required ballots to each active member of the State Bar entitled to vote at the annual election. Ballots may be distributed by electronic or regular mail. One form of ballot sent to persons entitled to vote in each State Bar District shall contain the names of the nominees for the several offices of the State Bar to be filled at the annual election, and a separate form of ballot shall contain the names of the nominees for the Office of Governor from such district. If any such person entitled to vote in such election fails to receive his or her ballots, or if it appears that any such ballot has been lost or destroyed, a new ballot shall be furnished to the person. by the Executive Director. TheTwelve noon on the fourth Friday of April in each year shall be the last day and time for voting in such election and no ballots received after that date and time shall be counted. Article 3, Section 6: Section 6. Voting of Ballots. No ballot shall be counted unless returned to the Office of the Executive Director of the Association on or before the last day and time for voting, in an envelope furnished by the Executive Director marked “Ballot.” or in the manner designated by the electronic ballot provider. Article 3, Section 7: Section 7. Checking and Custody of Ballots. The Executive Director or his designee shall receive and have custody of the ballots after they are voted until they are canvassed. All such ballots shall be segregated as to State Bar districts from which they are received. The envelope containing the ballots and shall be retained remain unopened until turned over to the certified public accountant for canvass canvassed. Article 3, Section 8: Section 8. Canvass of Ballots. The ballots shall be canvassed by a certified public accountant an independent entity selected by the Executive Committee. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes for each office shall be declared elected. In case of a tie vote the Executive Committee shall determine the successful candidate by lot drawn by the Committee. The certified public accountant independent entity shall certify the results to the Executive Director, who shall forthwith notify the candidates and announce the results. Upon completion of the canvass, the certified public accountant independent entity shall retain the ballots subject to be allowed to destroy all completed and blank ballots in the possession of the independent entity on or after August 1 unless notified otherwise by the further order of the Board of Governors.