Supreme Court's 13 requests for further comment on BAPR
October 6, 1999
The court seeks comment in respect to the following:
1. Whether the investigation function should be carried out by
central staff alone or with the addition of decentralized bodies.
2. If centralized bodies are to perform the investigative functions
now performed by district professional responsibility committees, what
are the fiscal implications and impact on the attorney assessments? How
should the centralized bodies be composed and selected?
3. Which person or entity should be responsible for directing the
prosecution of a disciplinary proceeding? Who is the prosecutor's
client? Possibilities include the people of the State of Wisconsin, the
person(s) responsible for the investigation, and the person or entity
making the decision to seek discipline. Who should have oversight of the
prosecution function?
4. Should the person or entity making the determination to seek
discipline be a central entity or decentralized entities?
5. Who should perform the administrative oversight of the system?
Should it be performed by a separate entity, with input from each
component of the system, or by other means? Is it appropriate and
advisable to merge the administrative oversight function with the
determination to seek discipline function?
6. Is the person or entity determining to seek discipline the one who
will prosecute it, akin to a district attorney, or a neutral
adjudicator, akin to a preliminary hearing magistrate?
7. How are the various participants in the system selected, by whom
(possibilities include the State Bar and the Supreme Court, with or
without the assistance of a nominating committee), and according to what
criteria?
8. What are the appropriate composition and proportion - lawyers and
non-lawyers - of each entity within the system?
9. Whether a decentralized investigating body should conduct
investigations of attorneys residing or practicing in the investigating
body's locality.
10. What type of formalized training is appropriate for each
component's participants?
11. What are appropriate procedures for handling misconduct
allegations against current or former participants in the system?
12. Who should impose and collect attorney assessments to fund the
system - the State Bar, the Supreme Court, another entity?
13. Comment on any of the proposals that have been proffered and any
other matters relating to the lawyer regulation and discipline
system.
