| |
 |
|
|
Vol. 73, No. 8, August 2000 |
 Previous
Page
Wisconsin's New Lawyer
Regulation System
Board of Administrative Oversight
A 12-member Board of Administrative Oversight consisting of
eight lawyers and four nonlawyers will be appointed by the supreme
court. Members will serve staggered three-year terms. The board
will meet at least quarterly and will, among other things:
- monitor the fairness, productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency
of the attorney regulation system, including:
-
a) the timeliness of the system;
b) the presence of a quorum at meetings of the preliminary review
panels and the frequency of divided votes determining cause to
proceed; and
c) variations in specific matters among the discipline sought
by the director, the discipline recommended by the referee, and
the discipline imposed by the supreme court;
- monitor the implementation of new procedures in the lawyer
regulation system;
- assess the public's and the bar's perception of
the integrity of the lawyer regulation system;
- propose for consideration by the supreme court substantive
and procedural rules related to the regulation of lawyers; and
- inform and educate the public and the bar about the operation
of the lawyer regulation system.
The board will have no substantive or procedural function
in the lawyer regulation system as it concerns particular allegations
of attorney misconduct or medical incapacity.
Referees
|
To learn more...
Fall teleconference to explain new regulatory
system. The State Bar is offering a CLE telephone seminar to explain and clarify the emerging Office of Lawyer Regulation
(OLR). Speakers Jim Martin, OLR interim administrator, and William Weigel, OLR staff attorney, will discuss the new lawyer regulatory system in a
convenient, noon-to-1 p.m. phone session on Friday, Sept. 22.
The seminar carries one CLE ethics credit. Tuition is $109 for registration on or before Sept. 11, and $129 after. For further information,
call the State Bar at (800) 728-7788 or (608) 257-3838.
Link to related content online. To find articles and other related materials that explain the impetus
behind the development of this new lawyer regulation system, go to WisBar. There you'll find supreme court orders,
ABA evaluations and reports, and State Bar reports and recommendations regarding the new system. |
Referees for the system will be appointed by the supreme court
from a permanent panel of attorneys and reserve judges. Referees
will conduct the hearings on complaints of attorney misconduct,
petitions alleging attorney medical incapacity, and petitions
for license reinstatement. Referees will make findings, conclusions,
and recommendations and submit them to the supreme court for
review and appropriate action.
In addition, referees will review and issue consensual private
and public reprimands and review, on the request of a grievant,
determinations of the preliminary review panels that the director
has failed to establish cause to proceed in a matter.
Central Intake/Diversion from Discipline
On Sept. 12, 2000, the supreme court will hold a public hearing
on the interim administrator's petition and proposal to
establish a central intake function in the Office of Lawyer Regulation.
The petition, if adopted, will authorize staff to receive oral
grievances. The shift in the way grievances are received is intended
to expedite the handling of inquiries and grievances. Under the
proposed central intake model, it is anticipated that most inquiries
about a lawyer's services will be handled within approximately
two weeks.
As part of the proposal, the interim administrator is requesting
authority to divert acts of "minor misconduct," by
agreement, from the disciplinary track to an educational lawyer
assistance track. Diversion from discipline will enable the director
to fashion remedial educational and monitoring programs designed
to assist and educate the lawyer. Diversion from discipline is
proposed for acts of misconduct for which the sanction would
have been a private reprimand or less.
Substantive Changes In Procedure
Several substantive changes in the procedure for lawyer regulation
are worthy of note. The list below does not represent all of
the changes but several that this writer thought would be of
interest. They are listed in no particular order:
- Appeals by the grievant of the closure or dismissal of a
grievance must be made within 90 days of being notified of the
closure or dismissal.
- If an attorney fails to respond to a request for written
response to an allegation of misconduct or fails to cooperate
in other respects in an investigation, the director can file
a motion with the supreme court requesting that the court order
the attorney to show cause why his or her license to practice
law should not be suspended for willful failure to respond or
cooperate with the investigation.
- Summary license suspension will be available to the court
upon receipt of satisfactory proof that an attorney has been
found guilty of a serious crime.
- Reinstatement of a license from a suspension of less than
six months will be made by the supreme court upon the attorney's
filing of an affidavit with the director, showing full compliance
with all of the terms and conditions of the suspension order,
and the director's notification to the supreme court of
the attorney's full compliance.
- A 10-year "statute of limitations" with a discovery
provision will act as a bar on stale claims about a lawyer's
services.
- The new rules will clearly state that no lawsuit predicated
on the filing of a grievance with OLR may be instituted against
any grievant or witness.
Conclusion
The lawyer regulation system of tomorrow will operate much
like the lawyer regulation system of today. Staff and district
investigative committees will continue to investigate all grievances
filed against lawyers. The significant changes of the new system
clarifiy the duties and responsibilities of the components of
the system. The director of OLR will have the authority to determine
the disposition to seek in misconduct and medical incapacity
cases and to divert acts of "minor misconduct." The
Preliminary Review Committee, the Board of Administrative Oversight,
referees, and the court, will review the work of the Office of
Lawyer Regulation.
 James
L. Martin, U.W. 1977, is the interim administrator of the Board
of Attorneys
Professional Responsibility. |
A Preliminary Review Committee and a Board of Administrative
Oversight replace the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility.
This change will establish the Preliminary Review Committee as
the "neutral magistrate" to determine whether the director
has cause to proceed before the filing of a complaint alleging
misconduct or a petition alleging medical incapacity. The Board
of Administrative Oversight will be responsible for monitoring
the overall fairness, productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency
of the system. The new system uses referees to establish checks
and balances designed to increase the accountability of the decision
making for the protection of the public and the legal profession.
The proposed rules offer a new beginning for lawyer regulation
in Wisconsin. We should seize the moment to establish a system
that will serve the public and the bar, and the role of the court
in supervising the practice of law in Wisconsin. But, like all
governmental institutions, lawyer regulation should never be
taken for granted; it should be understood that improvements
to the system are always possible, and serving the public good
should always be the system's most important product.
Endnotes
1 As of the date this article went to press
(July 26, 2000), the Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to adopt
the structure discussed in this article and has adopted "in
principle" proposed new SCR Chapters 21 and 22.
2 "Cause to proceed" means a reasonable
belief based on a review of an investigative report that an attorney
has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity that may
be proved by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.
|
