Vol. 71, No. 10,
October 1998
News Briefs
Supreme Court considers mandatory use of
standard court forms
"The practice of law is more than making check marks and filling
blanks in forms. This proposed rule would de-professionalize the practice
of law and encourage the legally untrained to prepare and file documents
with the courts without an understanding of the legal consequences,"
says State Bar Board of Governors member William J. Mulligan.
Q:What judge
plays keyboards for a band called Presumed Guilty?
The Litigation Section's Appellate Practice Subcommittee
tests your knowledge of Wisconsin's appellate judges. For the answer to
this month's question,
CLICK HERE! |
Mulligan's statement concerns a petition the director of state courts
filed in June on behalf of the Judicial Conference's Records Management
Committee (RMC). The petition, which was published in the August issue of
Wisconsin Lawyer, requires the Judicial Conference to develop standard court
forms for mandatory use in civil and criminal actions in the circuit court
or in any other court as directed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or Legislature.
Upon reviewing the petition and its supporting memorandum and discussing
the issue with members of the Judicial Conference, Mulligan and fellow board
member Thomas L. Shriner drafted a resolution opposing the petition, which
passed unanimously at September's State Bar Board of Governors meeting.
The court held a public hearing on the issue Sept. 17. Appearing on behalf
of the State Bar, Mulligan explained the resolution recognizing the benefits
for the Judicial Conference to develop forms for the use of the circuit
courts, their personnel, and pro se litigants, but opposing giving the conference
the authority to mandate the use of forms by attorneys. The resolution also
contains a request that representatives of the State Bar be part of all
future efforts to develop forms for use in Wisconsin courts.
According to Mulligan, "Instead of getting legal advice, people
will be able to get these forms that the Judicial Conference finds legally
sufficient and just check boxes. It goes contrary to what clerks have always
said to the public " 'I don't practice law, you'd better get a lawyer.'"
"By crafting legally appropriate legal documents and signing them,
attorneys certify that the document is well-grounded in fact. However, with
mandatory forms, if an attorney submits his or her own legally correct document,
but not on the approved form, he or she will have to resubmit it using the
RMC form, adding extra cost and time to the process. This is a true example
of form over substance."
Members of the RMC say mandatory standard forms are necessary for several
reasons, including the elimination of obsolete or incorrect forms and inconsistent
use of current forms. Mandatory forms also ensure that justice is delivered
at comparable levels statewide, and that the increasing number of pro se
litigants are properly served. The committee points to several states that
have similar forms or form requirements.
Hon. Gary L. Carlson, a member of the Judicial Conference, suggests that
the standardized forms would fit the facts of any particular case 95 percent
of the time. In the cases where a form would not fit, attorneys could change
the forms provided they follow the Judicial Conference's rules on modification
of forms. The forms would be available free of charge from clerks of courts
and on the Internet.
At the hearing, the court decided to withhold action on the petition
to allow the State Bar to review the proposed forms. The Bar will have 90
days (upon receipt of the forms from the RMC) to provide specific critiques
of the forms. The court will take up the matter again after the 90 days
has passed.
For more information, contact William Mulligan at (414) 276-0200.
|