|
 |
|
| Vol. 74, No. 5, May 2001
|
Supreme Court Orders
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has amended and created various Supreme Court
Rules to suspend law licenses or refuse bar admission if the attorney or
applicant is delinquent in making court-ordered support payments or fails
to comply with a paternity subpoena or warrant. The court has amended the
rules of civil procedure: Wis. Stat. section 801.16(2) to allow for the
filing of papers by facsimile transmission. The court also has amended SCR
60.05(8), 60.07(2), 70.36(5), and 75.02(1) regarding court commissioners.
The court has denied the petition to adopt rules for a mandatory fee arbitration
system. Finally, the court has amended SCR 70.15(1) setting forth the membership
of the Judicial Conference.
Procedure
to Suspend Law License for Noncompliance of Child and Family Support Orders
or Paternity Subpoena
In the Matter of the Adoption of a Procedure to Refuse to Grant or
to Suspend the License to Practice Law of a Person Certified Under Wis.
Stat. § 49.857 to be Delinquent in Payment of Support or in Noncompliance
with a Support or Paternity Subpoena or Warrant
Order 00-05
In 1997, responding to federal legislation that addressed enforcement
of child and family support and other payments related to the support
of a child or former spouse, the Wisconsin Legislature enacted Wis. Stat.
section 49.857 to provide for the denial, nonrenewal, restriction, and
suspension of licenses of persons certified to be delinquent in making
court-ordered payments of support or failing to comply with a subpoena
or warrant relating to paternity or support proceedings. That statute
provides, in part, that the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development
enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Wisconsin Supreme Court,
with the court's agreement, that includes, among other things, a procedure
by which the court would suspend an attorney's license to practice law
or refuse to grant bar admission to an applicant if the attorney or applicant
is certified to be delinquent in making court-ordered support payments
or failing to comply with a subpoena or warrant.
The court, on its own motion, after consideration
of the matter at a public hearing and open administrative conference on
Oct. 17, 2000, and an open administrative conference on March 7, 2001,
has deemed it advisable to amend and create various Supreme Court Rules
to accomplish this purpose.
IT IS ORDERED that, effective the date
of this order, the following Rules be amended or created as indicated:
SECTION 1. 10.03 (2) of the supreme
court rules be amended to read:
(2) Enrollment. Every person who becomes
licensed to practice law in this state shall enroll in the state bar by
registering his or her name and social security number with the
association within 10 days after admission to practice. Every change after
enrollment in any member's office address or social security number
shall be reported promptly to the state bar. The social security number
of a person enrolling in the state bar may not be disclosed to any person
or entity except the supreme court and its agencies, or as otherwise provided
by supreme court rules.
SECTION 2. 11.04 of the supreme
court rules be created to read:
11.04 Suspension for nonpayment of support,
noncompliance with subpoena or warrant.
(1) In this rule:
(a) "Subpoena or warrant" means a subpoena
or warrant issued by the department of workforce development or a child
support agency and relating to paternity or support proceedings.
(b) "Support" means support as defined
in 42 United States Code section 654(4)B.
(2) Upon receipt of certification from
the department of workforce development pursuant to section 49.857, stats.,
that a person licensed to practice law in this state is delinquent in
making court-ordered payments of support or is not in compliance with
a subpoena or warrant, the supreme court may suspend the license of that
person to practice law for up to 5 years in the case of delinquency in
making court-ordered payments of support or for up to 6 months in the
case of failure to comply with a subpoena or warrant.
(3) Before entering an order suspending
an attorney's license under sub. (2), the supreme court shall issue an
order requiring the attorney to show cause why his or her license to practice
law should not be suspended. The supreme court may inquire into the reasons
for the delinquency or any other matters the court considers appropriate.
The court may enter such orders as it deems appropriate.
(4) The supreme court may return the certification
to the department of workforce development upon a showing by the attorney
that the department failed to provide notice of its intent to seek license
suspension and that, as a result, the attorney was not aware of the right
to a hearing as provided by section 49.857, stats., or has not had a reasonable
opportunity to pay the delinquency or resolve the noncompliance with the
subpoena or warrant.
(5) A license to practice law suspended
under sub. (2) shall be reinstated as follows upon whichever of the following
first occurs:
(a) Automatically upon the expiration of
the period for which suspended.
(b) By order of the supreme court upon
notification by the department of workforce development that the attorney
has paid the delinquent support or has made satisfactory alternative payment
arrangements or has satisfied the requirements under the subpoena or warrant.
(6) An attorney whose license to practice
law is suspended under sub. (2) shall comply with the provisions of SCR
22.26.
(7) The supreme court may disclose the social
security number of a member of the state bar to the department of workforce
development for the purpose of administering s. 49.22.
SECTION 3. 40.06 (4) of the supreme court rules be amended to
read:
(4) The board shall not certify an applicant
while an attorney disciplinary matter against the applicant is pending
or the applicant is certified by the department of workforce development
as delinquent in making court-ordered payments of support or failing to
comply with a subpoena or warrant, as those terms are defined in SCR 11.04
(1). If an applicant's license to practice law in another jurisdiction
is suspended or revoked for reasons related to professional responsibility
at the time the application is filed or at any time that the application
is pending, the suspension or revocation is a sufficient basis for denial
of certification.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of this
amendment of the Supreme Court Rules be given by a single publication
of a copy of this order in the official state newspaper and in an official
publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin.
Dated at Madison, Wis., this 10th day of
April, 2001.
By the court:
Cornelia G. Clark, Clerk of Court
Filing Papers
by Fax
In the Matter of the Amendment of the Rules of Civil Procedure: Wis.
Stat. § 801.16(2) - Filing of Papers by Facsimile Transmission
Order 00-09
On Jan. 16, 2001, the court held a public hearing on a petition filed
on Aug. 31, 2000, by the Director of State Courts on the recommendation
of the Committee of Chief Judges and District Court Administrators requesting
the amendment of Wis. Stat. section 801.16(2) to provide the maximum length
of a facsimile transmission to be 15 pages, unless exception is granted,
and to clarify that papers filed by facsimile transmission constitute
the official record. The court has considered the matters presented at
the public hearing.
IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Wis. Stat.
section 751.12 and effective July 1, 2001, section 801.16 (2) (a),
(b), and (c) of the statutes are amended to read:
801.16 (2) (a) A court may adopt
a local rule, if it is approved by the chief judge, that requires the
use of a plain-paper facsimile machine and permits the filing of those
papers by facsimile transmission to with the clerk of circuit
court by facsimile transmission to a plain-paper facsimile machine
at a telephone number designated by the court. To provide uniformity,
any local rule shall specify a 15-page limit for a facsimile transmission,
unless an exception is approved by the assigned judge or court commissioner
on a case-by-case basis.
(b) If no rule has been adopted under par.
(a), a the assigned judge or court commissioner may
permit a party or attorney in a specific matter to file those papers
with the clerk of circuit court by facsimile transmission to a plain-paper
facsimile machine at a telephone number designated by the assigned
judge or court commissioner.
(c) The If the facsimile transmission
exceeds 15 pages or is filed in the absence of a local rule, the party
or attorney, by filing papers by facsimile transmission, certifies
that permission of the shall certify that the assigned judge
or court for filing by facsimile transmission has been granted
commissioner has approved the facsimile transmission.
(f) Papers filed by facsimile transmission
are considered filed when transmitted except that papers filed by
facsimile trans-mission completed after regular business hours of the
clerk of circuit court's office are considered filed the next business
day.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to
Wis. Stat. section 751.12 and effective July 1, 2001, section 801.16 (2)
(d) and (e) of the statutes are created to read:
(d) If papers are transmitted to a plain-paper
facsimile machine of a noncourt agency, party, or company for the receipt,
transmittal, and delivery to the clerk of circuit court, the clerk of
circuit court shall accept the papers for filing only if the transmission
complies with the local rule or has been approved by the assigned judge
or court commissioner and certified by the party or attorney.
(e) Facsimile papers are considered filed
upon receipt by the clerk of circuit court and are the official record
of the court and may not be substituted. No additional copies may be sent.
The clerk of circuit court shall discard any duplicate papers subsequently
received by the clerk of circuit court, assigned judge, or court commissioner.
IT IS ORDERED that notice of these amendments
to Wis. Stat. section 801.16 (2) be given by a single publication of a
copy of this order in the official state newspaper and in an official
publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin.
Dated at Madison, Wis., this 3rd day of
April, 2001.
By the court:
Cornelia G. Clark, Clerk of Court
Court Commissioners
In the Matter of Implementation of SCR 75, regarding Court Commissioners
Order 00-12
On March 13, 2001, the court held a public hearing on the petition filed
on Sept. 15, 2000, by the Director of State Courts on the recommendation
of the Committee of Chief Judges and District Court Administrators. The
petitioners request amendment of the Supreme Court Rules to require a
statement of economic interest from all circuit court commissioners and
from authorized supplemental court commissioners who have performed at
least 40 hours of circuit court commissioner duties in the preceding year,
to omit the requirement that court commissioners file a monthly certification
of pending cases, and to clarify the legal experience required for appointment
as a court commissioner.
IT IS ORDERED that, effective the date
of this order, the Supreme Court Rules 60.05 (8), 60.07 (2), 70.36 (5),
and 75.02 (1) are amended as follows:
SECTION 1. 60.05 (8) (b) of the
Supreme Court Rules is amended to read:
60.05 (8) (b) Financial Reports reports.
Except as provided in SCR 60.07, a judge shall file with the ethics board
a timely financial report as required by section 19.43 of the statutes.
The report shall also be filed by commissioners of the supreme court,
staff attorneys of the court of appeals, the director of state courts,
members of the board of attorneys professional responsibility board
of administrative oversight and preliminary review committees, and
members of the board of bar examiners.
Comment: The chapter does not prohibit a judge from accepting
honoraria or speaking fees provided that the compensation is reasonable
and commensurate with the task performed. A judge should ensure, however,
that no conflicts are created by the arrangement. A judge must not appear
to trade on the judicial position for personal advantage. Nor should a
judge spend significant time away from court duties to meet speaking or
writing commitments for compensation. In addition, the source of the payment
must not raise any question of undue influence or the judge's ability
or willingness to be impartial.
See SCR 60.05 (4) (e) and sec. 19.56, Stats.,
regarding reporting of gifts and loans.
As provided in SCR 60.07 (2), sub. (8) does
not apply to a judge serving on a part-time basis. Sub. (8) does not
apply to a supplemental court commissioner authorized under SCR 75.02
(3) who has performed fewer than 40 hours of circuit court commissioner
duties in the preceding calendar year.
SECTION 2. 60.07 (2)* of the Supreme
Court Rules is amended to read:
60.07 (2) A judge who serves on a part-time
basis, including a reserve judge, a part-time municipal judge, and or
a part-time court commissioner, is not required to comply with the following:
SCR 60.05 (3) (a), (b), and (c) 1. b., 2. a. and c., (4) (a) 1. b., (b),
(c), (d), and (e), (5), (6), (7), and (8). All circuit court commissioners
appointed under SCR 75.02 (1) and those supplemental court commissioners
authorized under SCR 75.02 (3) who have performed 40 hours or more of
circuit court commissioner duties during the preceding calendar year shall
comply with SCR 60.05 (8).
SECTION 3. 70.36 (5) (b) of the
Supreme Court Rules is amended to read:
70.36 (5) (b) A circuit court commissioner
may should not routinely take matters under advisement.
Every circuit court commissioner shall decide any matter within 30 days
after the matter is submitted to him or her for decision. If the circuit
court commissioner is unable to decide a matter within 30 days, he or
she shall notify the chief judge not later than 5 days before the end
of the 30-day period. The chief judge may extend the period to decide
the matter for an additional 30 days or may require the circuit court
commissioner to suspend all other assigned activities until the decision
is filed in the court.
SECTION 4. 70.36 (5) (c) of the
Supreme Court Rules is repealed.**
SECTION 5. 70.36 (5) (d) of the
Supreme Court Rules is amended to read:
70.36 (5) (d) The chief judge may withdraw
temporarily or permanently the circuit court commissioner's appointment
or authority to act if the commissioner fails to comply with pars.
par. (b) or (c).
SECTION 6. 75.02 (1) of the Supreme
Court Rules is amended to read:
75.02 (1) The chief judge of a judicial
administrative district shall appoint within the district, as authorized
by law, officers of the court to perform limited judicial and quasi-judicial
functions under the direction and authority of the chief judge and judges
of the circuit. These officers of the court shall be selected on the basis
of merit through a process approved by the chief judge and the circuit
court judges in the counties in which the officers will serve. The chief
judge may only appoint persons, under this subsection,
only persons who are licensed to practice law in this state, and
are in good standing, with at least 3 years of legal
experience and who have been licensed to practice law in any state
for 3 years immediately before the appointment, except as otherwise provided
by statute.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of these
amendments of the Supreme Court Rules be given by a single publication
of a copy of this order in the official state newspaper and in an official
publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin.
Dated at Madison, Wis., this 6th day of April, 2001.
By the court:
Cornelia G. Clark, Clerk of Court
*Bablitch, J. dissents.
**Bradley, J. dissents.
Mandatory
Fee Arbitration System
In the Matter of the Petition to Create a Mandatory Fee Arbitration
System
Order 00-15
On March 13, 2001, the court held a public hearing on a petition filed
on Sept. 25, 2000, requesting the court to adopt Supreme Court Rules establishing
a mandatory fee arbitration system for lawyer-client fee disputes. The
court has considered the matters presented at the public hearing. The
court expresses its appreciation to Attorney Gerald Sternberg for presenting
the petition and compiling the extensive information in support thereof
and to the State Bar of Wisconsin and the Milwaukee County Bar Association
for their efforts in commenting on the petition and their ongoing efforts
in conducting voluntary fee arbitration programs. The court has determined
a mandatory fee arbitration system for lawyer-client fee disputes should
not be adopted at this time; the court will convene a committee to study
mandatory and voluntary fee arbitration programs.
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the
adoption of rules for a mandatory fee arbitration system is denied.
Dated at Madison, Wis., this 6th day of
April, 2001.
By the court:
Cornelia G. Clark, Clerk of Court
Judicial
Conference
In the Matter of the Amendment of the Supreme Court Rules: SCR 70.15(1)
- Judicial Conference
Order 01-09
The court, on its own motion, has deemed it advisable to amend the Supreme
Court Rule, SCR 70.15(1), setting forth the membership of the Judicial
Conference of Wisconsin to conform it with the bylaws of the Judicial
Conference, Article I, establishing the membership.
IT IS ORDERED that, effective the date
of this order, Supreme Court Rule 70.l5 (1) is amended to read:
70.15 (1) There is constituted the judicial
conference of Wisconsin, which consists of the justices of the supreme
court, the judges of the court of appeals, the judges of the circuit court,
reserve judges, three municipal court judges designated by the Wisconsin
municipal judges association, one circuit court commissioner designated
by the family court commissioner association, one circuit court commissioner
designated by the judicial court commissioner association, and
one judicial representative of a non-Public Law 280 tribal court and two
judicial representatives of Public Law 280 tribal courts designated by
the Wisconsin tribal judges association.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of this
amendment of the Supreme Court Rules be given by a single publication
of a copy of this order in the official state newspaper and in an official
publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin.
Dated at Madison, Wis., this 6th day of April, 2001.
By the court:
Cornelia G. Clark, Clerk of Court
| 