State Bar urges careful investigation of BAPR
September 14, 1999
The prevailing sentiment at a Sept. 14 supreme court hearing on the
Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility (BAPR) was that the
current system of attorney discipline, while not perfect, is not in need
of a radical change. More than 20 people testified at the hearing, and
only two American Bar Association representatives and Gerry Sternberg,
former BAPR administrator, urged wholesale change.
BAPR, the supreme court agency that regulates Wisconsin's lawyer
discipline system, has wrestled with administrative and procedural
conflicts for approximately two years. Last spring the Wisconsin Supreme
Court accepted an American Bar Association offer to evaluate and make
recommendations for improving the lawyer discipline system. A team from
the ABA's Center for Professional Responsibility spent four days in July
interviewing BAPR staff, board members, members of the supreme court and
the judiciary, and others.
The ABA's report was filed with the supreme court clerk on Sept. 8,
and called for major overhaul of the discipline system. The ABA team
recommended stripping the BAPR board of its power to decide whether to
reprimand or prosecute lawyers, making it essentially an administrative
body. The power to determine probable cause and to file formal charges
would rest with BAPR's 16 Professional Responsibility Committees.
The spokesperson for the ABA team, Linda Donnelly, said the team also
took issue with the current practice of having the State Bar president
appoint Professional Responsibility Committee members, likening it to
"the fox guarding the hen house." She suggested having the Wisconsin
Supreme Court hire the BAPR administrator and appoint committee members.
"Lawyers are the only self-regulating profession left," she said.
"Having the court, rather than fellow lawyers, appoint and hire key
personnel would help avoid any appearance of impropriety."
State Bar president-elect Gary Bakke, testifying at the hearing on
behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin, pledged to the court the Bar's
full support, cooperation and assistance in addressing possible changes
to BAPR. "This is all part of a larger issue -- public trust and
confidence in lawyer discipline and in the legal system," Bakke said.
"And we as a profession need protection from unethical lawyers as much
as the public does." However, Bakke urged the court to allow for public
comment and lawyer input before taking action. The State Bar's Executive
Committee passed a motion on Sept. 13, stating that the State Bar, its
Board of Governors, and members of the State Bar and the public have not
had an opportunity to carefully examine the report.
Recent media attention surrounding BAPR prompted the State Bar Board
of Governors to ask the Bar's BAPR Study Committee to review BAPR's
structure. Committee chair Barbara Neider shared the results of the
committee's work at today's hearing. Although the committee believes the
structure of the disciplinary system to be sound, it offered suggestions
for improving the system. Those suggestions included completing and
distribution of a case compendium; establishing a procedure for dealing
with grievances against BAPR board members, staff, or others involved in
the disciplinary process; and finalizing internal BAPR operating
procedures.
"The discipline system is not in need of a major overhaul," said
Neider. "It works well, and its various components complement each
other."
