President's Perspective
Support the work of the Judicial Council
By Susan R. Steingass
All of us should be interested in the current
State Bar elections. It is our chance to make our preferences known.
However, important as elections for president-elect and treasurer are,
there is no more important election than that for the State Bar
representative to the Judicial Council.
It is hard to imagine a body more important than the Judicial Council
to the lawyers of the state and to the ultimate beneficiaries of the
orderly development of the law, its citizens. It is equally hard to
imagine a body that has done more for the law of this state - all at a
bargain basement price.
Despite its long and distinguished history, the council's budget was
eliminated in 1995. Its functions, to the extent they continued, were
folded into those of the Judicial Commission, a body charged with the
quite different function of investigating complaints against judges, and
deciding discipline as appropriate.
The Judicial Council has a long and venerable history. It was created
by statute in 1951 and has operated under statute since. It is a
nonpartisan representative body charged with studying the rules of
pleadings, practice, and procedure, and advising the supreme court about
changes to "simplify procedure and promote a speedy determination of
litigation upon its merits." The council also is charged with surveying
the administration and operation of all courts in the state, receiving
and considering suggestions from any source pertaining to the
administration of justice, recommending changes in the method of
conducting the business of the courts, which can only be put into effect
through legislative action, and recommending to the supreme court, the
Legislature, and the governor any changes in methods of conducting the
business of the courts that "will improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the court system and result in cost savings."
The council has 21 statutorily described members encompassing a
broad-based and representative group of citizens, legislators,
academics, practicing lawyers, and judges. The council must be composed
of these members or their designees: a supreme court justice designated
by that court, a court of appeals judge designated by that court, the
director of state courts, four circuit court judges designated by the
Judicial Conference, the chairperson of the senate and assembly
committees dealing with judicial affairs, the attorney general, the
revisor of statutes, the deans of the two law schools, the state public
defender, the State Bar president-elect, three members elected by the
State Bar for staggered three-year terms, a district attorney appointed
by the governor, and two citizens appointed by the governor for
three-year terms.
The council's accomplishments over the years show that it has been
instrumental in studying, drafting, and seeing promulgated the most
important legal projects of the time. It has done so at the request of
the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Examples of
legislation and rules developed by the council include Ch. 255, Laws
1969: Criminal Procedure Code; 1974 Supreme Court Rule: Evidence Code;
1975 Supreme Court Rule: Civil Procedure Code; Ch. 414, Laws 1975,
Administrative Procedure Act; 1978 Supreme Court Rule: Appellate
Procedure Code; Ch. 257, Laws 1979, Contempt of Court; Ch. 323, Laws of
1979, Statutes of Limitation and Adverse Possession; Ch. 289, Laws of
1981, Extraordinary Remedies; Ch. 367, Laws of 1981, Competency to Stand
Trial; 1983 Act 228, Venue; 1985 Act 262, Videotaped Testimony by
Children; 1987 Act 86, Insanity Defense Bifurcated Trials; 1987 Act 208,
Small Claims Procedures; 1987 Act 398, Restitution to Victims of Crime;
1987 Act 399, Homicide Remodification; 1988 Supreme Court Rules,
Telephone Proceedings; 1989 Wis. Act 334, Insanity Defense and Criminal
Commitments; 1990 Supreme Court Rules, Filing and Service by Facsimile;
1993 Act 80, Earnings and Garnishment; 1994 Supreme Court Rules:
Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Looking at this major body of work, one would be tempted to conclude
that it only could have been accomplished with a large staff and a large
budget. That has never been the case. The council had two staff members
- an executive secretary and a clerical assistant. It has been ably
served over the years by seven executive secretaries, among them some of
the most respected lawyers in this state. Its expenses for fiscal year
1994, the year before it was redlined out of the budget, were
$136,200.
Unfortunately, the council's important work was slowed significantly
by the elimination of its entire budget and merger with the Judicial
Commission which had a total staff of two and a significant volume of
its own important work. I say the council's work was slowed, not
stopped, because its dedicated members have kept meeting and, to the
extent they could, have tried to advance the council's work in which
they so strongly believe.
Refunding of the Judicial Council is essential. Especially
considering the light in which its work is viewed, by its good relations
with government entities, and by its bargain basement price tag, this
council deserves to be adequately funded.
I ask you, as lawyers, to please reflect on what the Judicial
Council's work has contributed to your practice and your clients, be it
through the evidence, civil procedure or criminal procedures codes,
small claims procedures, appellate practice procedure, the modernization
of the criminal code, alternative dispute resolution, or other
advancements made in the law. Don't just vote for the State Bar
representative to the Judicial Council; advocate with your elected
representatives - and in whatever way you can - for adequate and secure
funding so the Judicial Council can continue its work for the people of
Wisconsin.
Wisconsin
Lawyer
