Vol. 75, No. 6, June
2002
Supreme Court Orders
The Board of Bar Examiners will hold a public
hearing on June 20 regarding the creation of Board rules. The Wisconsin
Supreme Court has modified rules regarding court reporters, the Clients'
Security Fund Annual Assessment, the Code of Ethics for Court
Interpreters, and rules guiding assistance to individual court users.
Board of Bar Examiners: Notice of
Hearing
Notice is hearby given that the Board of Bar Examiners will
conduct a public hearing regarding the creation of Board rules pursuant
to SCR 40.11 on June 20, 2002, at 12 p.m., in Room 225 NW, State Capitol
Building, Madison, Wis.
Mary L. Staudenmaier, Chair
SCR Chapter 40 Appendix
REQUIREMENT AS TO CHARACTER AND FITNESS TO PRACTICE LAW
Create BA 6.04:
The Board shall notify an applicant in writing that it intends to
deny his or her application for admission. The notice shall state the
reasons for the intended denial and provide an opportunity to request a
hearing before the Board. At the time of notice, the Board shall provide
the applicant with a copy of the complete packet of information it used
in arriving at its decision.
Renumber BA 6.04 5
Diploma Privilege. An applicant for admission under diploma privilege
shall file an application for a character and fitness certification with
the Board. The Board shall establish that the applicant has the
qualities of character and fitness needed to practice law and, following
certification from the dean of competence under SCR 40.03, shall certify
to the Supreme Court the qualifying applicants for admission.
Renumber BS 6.05 6
The Board authorizes its staff to close any application for a
character and fitness certification that remains incomplete one year
following the date the application was filed with the Board.
Court Reporters
In the matter of amendment of Supreme Court Rules 70.245,
71.01, 71.04 regarding court reporters
Order 01-14
On April 17, 2002, the court held a public hearing on the amended
petition filed on Dec. 28, 2001, by the Director of State Courts, on the
recommendation of the Committee of Chief Judges and District Court
Administrators. The petitioner seeks to amend Supreme Court Rules under
chapters 70 and 71 governing court reporters.
IT IS ORDERED that, effective July 1, 2002, the Supreme Court Rules
are amended as follows:
Section 1. 70.245 of the Supreme Court Rules is
created to read:
70.245 Assignment of court reporters. In order to
effectively manage court reporting resources within each judicial
administrative district, an official court reporter appointed by circuit
court judges under s. 751.02, stats., may be assigned in any of the
following ways:
(1) The chief judge may assign any official court reporter, as
needed, to any court within the district.
(2) The director of state courts, with the advice and consent of the
chief judges, may assign any official court reporter, as needed, to any
court within the adjoining districts.
(3) The director of state courts, with the advice and consent of the
chief judges, may reassign any real time, certified, official court
reporter, as needed, to any court within the district or the adjoining
districts to provide reasonable accommodations under the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
Section 2. 71.01 (2) (d) of the Supreme Court Rules
is created to read:
71.01 (2) (d) If accompanied with a certified
transcript, videotape depositions offered as evidence during any hearing
or other court proceeding.
Section 3. 71.04 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules is
amended to read:
71.04 (2) The original transcript of any proceeding,
whether complete or partial, shall be filed with the court. The cost of
such transcript shall be borne as provided in this rule and in
section s. 814.69 of the
statutes stats. Any unedited, uncertified transcript
furnished pursuant to 71.04 (9) (b) is not the official record.
Section 4. 71.04 (6) of the Supreme Court Rules is
amended to read:
71.04 (6) Except as provided in sub. (4), every
reporter, upon the request of any party to an action or proceeding,
shall make a typewritten transcript, and as many duplicates thereof as
the party requests, of the testimony and proceedings reported by him or
her in the action or proceeding, or any part thereof specified by the
party, the transcript and duplicate thereof to be duly certified by him
or her to be a correct transcript thereof. Any unedited, uncertified
transcript furnished pursuant to 71.04 (9) (b) is not the official
record.
Section 5. 71.04 (8) of the Supreme Court Rules is
renumbered 71.04 (8) (a).
Section 6. 71.04 (8) (b) of the Supreme Court Rules
is created to read:
71.04 (8) (b) A court reporter shall include an
index immediately following the title and appearance page(s) for each
transcript of a proceeding in which testimony is taken or in which an
index would be helpful in locating distinct segments of a proceeding,
such as:
1. Jury voir dire;
2. Opening statements;
3. Witness names in chronological order of appearance, including all
witnesses on direct, cross, redirect, recross, rebuttal, and surrebuttal
examinations; and witnesses subject to witness voir dire; and
examination by the court;
4. The numbers and a description of each exhibit offered and
received;
5. Closing arguments;
6. Instructions and verdict given to the jury;
7. Receipt of the verdict or rendering of the court's decision;
8. Polling of the jury; and
9. Sentencing.
The index shall list page numbers for the segments listed.
Section 7. 71.04 (9) of the Supreme Court Rules is
renumbered 71.04 (9) (intro.) and amended to read:
71.04 (9) (intro.) A reporter may make a special
charge, pursuant to an arrangement with the party requesting
same requesting party, for furnishing any of the
following:
(a) typewritten Typewritten
transcripts of testimony and proceedings from day to day during the
progress of any trial or proceedings.
Section 8. 71.04 (9) (b) of the Supreme Court Rules
is created to read:
(b) Unedited and typewritten or electronic draft versions of
testimony or proceedings.
Section 9. 71.04 (10m) of the Supreme Court Rules is
created to read:
71.04 (10m) (a) If before trial the court approves a
stipulation by all parties, an independent, freelance reporter may take
the official record, or a portion of the official records, upon taking
the official oath of office.
(b) If after trial the court approves a stipulation by all parties,
an independent, freelance reporter's record of proceedings may be the
official record or a portion of the official record.
(c) Before approving a stipulation under par. (a) or (b), the court
shall consider the availability of an official reporter, including the
ability of the official reporter to meet requests for providing daily
transcripts.
(d) An independent, freelance reporter authorized under par. (a) or
(b) shall comply with all of the requirements under this chapter
relating to the production of an official record and transcripts and
charges for transcripts.
Section 10. 71.04 (12) of the Supreme Court Rules is
created to read:
71.04 (12) Upon request and payment for a certified
paper copy of a transcript, a court reporter may provide an electronic
copy of the transcript. A reporter may charge an additional $10 for the
electronic copy of the transcript.
IT IS ORDERED that the proposed amendment to Supreme Court Rule 71.04
(4) is held in abeyance pending the court's consideration of rule
petition 02-01.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's comments that accompanied
these rule amendments in the petition filed on Dec. 28, 2001, are not
adopted and shall not be printed. The comments are available in the
Office of the Clerk of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the court's Web
site, www.courts.state.wi.us.
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 30th day of April, 2002.
By the court:
Cornelia G. Clark, Clerk of Supreme Court
Clients' Security Fund, Annual Assessments
In the matter of the amendment of Supreme Court Rule
12.07(2), Clients' Security Fund, Annual Assessments
Order 01-16
On April 18, 2002, the court held a public hearing on the petition
filed on Nov. 30, 2001, by the Board of Governors of the State Bar of
Wisconsin seeking to amend Supreme Court Rule 12.07 (2). The Board of
Governors requested the court increase the maximum annual assessment
from $15 to $25.
IT IS ORDERED that, effective July 1, 2002, Supreme Court Rule 12.07
(2) is amended as follows:
Section 1. 12.07 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules is amended to
read:
12.07 (2) Annual Assessments. Commencing with the state bar's July 1,
1982 fiscal year, every attorney shall pay to the fund such annual
assessment as is necessary to maintain a balance in the fund of
$250,000, but in no event shall any annual assessment exceed
$15 $25. An attorney whose annual state bar
membership dues are waived for hardship shall be excused from the
payment of the annual assessment for that year. An attorney shall be
excused from the payment of the annual assessment for the fiscal year
during which he or she is admitted to practice law in Wisconsin.
IT IS ORDERED that notice of this amendment of Supreme Court Rule
12.07 (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 25th day of April, 2002.
By the court:
Cornelia G. Clark, Clerk of Supreme Court
Code of Ethics for Court Interpreters
In the matter of the adoption of a Code of Ethics for Court
Interpreters.
Order 01-17
On April 17, 2002, the court held a public hearing on the amended
petition filed on Dec. 20, 2001, by the Director of State Courts
requesting this court adopt a code of ethics for interpreters working in
Wisconsin courts.
IT IS ORDERED that, effective July 1, 2002, the Supreme Court Rules
are amended as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 63 of the Supreme Court Rules is
created to read:
CHAPTER SCR 63
CODE OF ETHICS FOR COURT
INTERPRETERS
63.001 Citation of rules; definitions.
(1) SCR 63.001 to 63.10 may be cited as the "Code of
Ethics for Court Interpreters."
(2) In this chapter "code" means the Code of Ethics
for Court Interpreters.
(3) "Shall" is used in the code to define principles
to which adherence is required.
63.002 Preamble. Many persons are partially or
completely excluded from participation in court proceedings due to
limited proficiency in the English language, as described in ss. 885.37
(1) (b) and 885.38 (1) (b), stats. Communication barriers must be
removed as much as is reasonably possible so that these persons may
enjoy equal access to justice. Qualified interpreters are highly skilled
professionals who help judges conduct hearings justly and efficiently
when communication barriers exist.
63.003 Applicability. The code governs the delivery
of services by foreign language and sign language interpreters working
in the courts of the State of Wisconsin. Its purpose is to define the
duties of interpreters and thereby enhance the administration of justice
and promote public confidence in the courts. The code also applies to
real time reporters when functioning in the capacity of providing access
to court users.
63.004 Interpretation. The comments accompanying
this code are not adopted. The comments are intended as guides to
interpretation, but the text of each rule is authoritative. If a court
policy or routine practice appears to conflict with any provision of the
code, the policy or practice should be reviewed for modification.
63.01 Accuracy and completeness. Interpreters shall
render a complete and accurate interpretation or sight translation by
reproducing in the target language the closest natural equivalent of the
source language message, without altering, omitting, or adding anything
to the meaning of what is stated or written, and without
explanation.
COMMENT: Interpreters have a twofold role: (1) to ensure that court
proceedings reflect, in English, precisely what was said by persons of
limited English proficiency; and (2) to place persons of limited English
proficiency on an equal footing with persons who understand English.
This creates an obligation to conserve every element of information
contained in a source language communication when it is rendered in the
target language.
Therefore, interpreters are required to apply their best skills
and judgment to preserve, as faithfully as is reasonably possible and
without editing, the meaning of what is said, including the style or
register of speech, the ambiguities and nuances of the speaker, and the
level of language that best conveys the original meaning of the source
language. Verbatim, "word for word," or literal oral interpretations are
inappropriate when they distort the meaning of what was said in the
source language. However, every spoken statement, even if it appears
nonresponsive, obscene, rambling, or incoherent should be interpreted.
This includes apparent misstatements.
Interpreters should not interject any statement or elaboration of
their own. If the need arises to explain an interpreting problem, such
as a term or phrase with no direct equivalent in the target language or
a misunderstanding that only the interpreter can clarify, the
interpreter should ask the court's permission to provide an
explanation.
Spoken language interpreters should convey the emotional emphasis
of the speaker without reenacting or mimicking the speaker's emotions,
or dramatic gestures. Sign language interpreters, however, must employ
all of the visual cues that the language they are interpreting for
requires - including facial expressions, body language, and hand
gestures. Judges should ensure that court participants do not confuse
these essential elements of the interpreted language with inappropriate
interpreter conduct. Any challenge to the interpreter's conduct should
be directed to the judge.
The obligation to preserve accuracy includes the interpreter's
duty to correct any errors of interpretation discovered during the
proceeding. Interpreters should demonstrate their professionalism by
objectively analyzing any challenge to their performance.
The ethical responsibility to interpret accurately and completely
includes the responsibility of being properly prepared for interpreting
assignments. Interpreters are encouraged to obtain documents and other
information necessary to familiarize themselves with the nature and
purpose of a proceeding. Prior preparation is generally described below,
and is especially important when testimony or documents include highly
specialized terminology and subject matter.
In order to avoid any impropriety or appearance of impropriety,
interpreters should seek leave of the court before conducting any
preparation other than the review of public documents in the court file.
Courts should in their discretion freely grant such leave in order to
assist interpreters to discharge their professional
responsibilities.
Preparation might include but is not limited to:
(1) review of public documents in the court file, such as motions
and supporting affidavits, witness lists and jury instructions; the
criminal complaint, information, and preliminary hearing transcript in a
criminal case; and the summons, complaint, and answer in a civil
case;
(2) review of documents in the possession of counsel, such as
police reports, witness summaries, deposition transcripts and
presentence investigation reports;
(3) contacting previous interpreters involved in the case for
information on language use/style;
(4) contacting attorneys involved in the case for additional
information on anticipated testimony or exhibits;
(5) anticipating and discussing interpreting issues related to
the case with the judge, but only in the presence of counsel unless the
court directs otherwise.
63.02 Representation of qualifications. Interpreters
shall accurately and completely represent their certifications,
training, and experience.
COMMENT: Acceptance of a case by an interpreter conveys
linguistic competency in legal settings. Withdrawing, or being asked to
withdraw, after a court proceeding has begun is disruptive and wasteful
of scarce public resources. It is therefore essential that interpreters
present a complete and truthful account of their training,
certifications, and experience prior to appointment so the court can
fairly evaluate their qualifications for delivering interpreting
services.
63.03 Impartiality and avoidance of conflict of
interest. Interpreters shall be impartial and unbiased, and
shall refrain from conduct that may give an appearance of bias.
Interpreters shall disclose any real or perceived conflict of interest
to the judge and the parties.
COMMENT: Interpreters serve as officers of the court. Their duties in
a court proceeding are to serve the court and the public regardless of
whether publicly or privately retained.
Interpreters should avoid any conduct or behavior that presents
the appearance of favoritism toward anyone. Interpreters should maintain
professional relationships with persons using their services, discourage
personal dependence on the interpreter, and avoid participation in the
proceedings other than as an interpreter.
During the course of the proceedings, interpreters of record
should not converse with parties, witnesses, jurors, attorneys, or with
friends or relatives of any party, except in the discharge of their
official functions. Official functions may include an informal
pre-appearance assessment to include the following:
(1) culturally appropriate introductions;
(2) a determination of variety, mode, or level of
communication;
(3) a determination of potential conflicts of interest;
and
(4) a description of the interpreter's role and
function.
Interpreters should strive for professional detachment. Verbal
and nonverbal displays of personal attitudes, prejudices, emotions, or
opinions must be avoided at all times.
Interpreters shall not solicit or accept any payment, gift, or
gratuities in addition to compensation from the court.
Any condition that interferes with the objectivity of an
interpreter constitutes a conflict of interest and must be disclosed to
the judge. Interpreters should only divulge necessary information when
disclosing the conflict of interest. The disclosure shall not include
privileged or confidential information. The following circumstances
create potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed:
(1) the interpreter is a friend, associate, or relative of a
party, counsel for a party, a witness, or a victim (in a criminal case)
involved in the proceedings;
(2) the interpreter or the interpreter's friend, associate, or
relative has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy,
a shared financial interest with a party to the proceeding, or any other
interest that might be affected by the outcome of the case;
(3) the interpreter has served in an investigative capacity for
any party involved in the case;
(4) the interpreter has previously been retained by a law
enforcement agency to assist in the preparation of the criminal case at
issue;
(5) the interpreter is an attorney in the case at issue;
(6) the interpreter has previously been retained for employment
by one of the parties; or
(7) for any other reason, the interpreter's independence of
judgment would be compromised in the course of providing
services.
The existence of any one of the above-mentioned circumstances
must be carefully evaluated by the court, but does not alone disqualify
an interpreter from providing services if the interpreter is able to
render services objectively. The interpreter should disclose to the
court any indication that the recipient of interpreting services views
the interpreter as being biased. If an actual or apparent conflict of
interest exists, the court must decide whether removal is appropriate
based upon the totality of the circumstances.
63.04 Professional demeanor. Interpreters shall
conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the dignity of the
court.
COMMENT: Interpreters should know and observe the established
protocol, rules, and procedures for delivering interpreting services.
When speaking in English, interpreters should speak at a rate and volume
that enables them to be heard and understood throughout the courtroom.
Interpreters should be as unobtrusive as possible and should not seek to
draw inappropriate attention to themselves while performing their
professional duties. This includes any time the interpreter is present,
even though not actively interpreting.
Interpreters should avoid obstructing the view of anyone involved
in the proceedings, but should be appropriately positioned to facilitate
communication. Interpreters who use sign language or other visual modes
of communication must be positioned so that signs, facial expressions,
and whole body movements are visible to the person for whom they are
interpreting and be repositioned to accommodate visual access to
exhibits as necessary.
Interpreters are encouraged to avoid personal or professional
conduct that could discredit the court.
Interpreters should support other interpreters by sharing
knowledge and expertise with them to the extent practicable in the
interests of the court.
63.05 Confidentiality. Interpreters shall protect
the confidentiality of all privileged and other confidential
information.
COMMENT: Interpreters must protect and uphold the confidentiality of
all privileged information obtained during the course of their duties.
It is especially important that interpreters understand and uphold the
attorney-client privilege that requires confidentiality with respect to
any communications between attorney and client. This rule also applies
to other types of privileged communications. Interpreters must also
refrain from repeating or disclosing information obtained by them in the
course of their employment that may be relevant to the legal
proceeding.
In the event that an interpreter becomes aware of information
that indicates probable imminent harm to someone or relates to a crime
being committed during the course of the proceedings, the interpreter
should immediately disclose the information to the presiding judge. In
an emergency, the interpreter should disclose the information to an
appropriate authority.
Interpreters shall never take advantage of knowledge obtained in
the performance of duties, or by their access to court records,
facilities, or privileges, for their own or another's personal
gain.
63.06 Restriction on public comment. Interpreters
shall not publicly discuss, report, or offer an opinion concerning a
matter in which they are or have been engaged, even when that
information is not privileged or required by law to be confidential,
except to facilitate training and education.
COMMENT: Generally, interpreters should not discuss interpreter
assignments with anyone other than persons who have a formal duty
associated with the case. However, interpreters may share information
for training and education purposes, divulging only so much information
as is required to accomplish this purpose. Unless so ordered by a court,
interpreters must never reveal privileged or confidential information
for any purpose, including training and education.
63.07 Scope of practice. Interpreters shall limit
themselves to interpreting or translating and shall not give legal or
other advice, express personal opinions to persons using their services,
or engage in any other activities that may be construed to constitute a
service other than interpreting or translating while serving as an
interpreter.
COMMENT: Since interpreters are responsible only for enabling others
to communicate, they should limit themselves to the activity of
interpreting or translating only, including official functions as
described in the commentary to Rule 63.03. Interpreters, however, may be
required to initiate communications during a proceeding when they find
it necessary to seek direction from the court in performing their
duties. Examples of such circumstances include seeking direction for the
court when unable to understand or express a word or thought, requesting
speakers to adjust their rate of speech, repeat or rephrase something,
correcting their own interpreting errors, or notifying the court of
reservations about their ability to satisfy an assignment competently.
In such instances, interpreters should make it clear that they are
speaking for themselves.
Interpreters may convey legal advice from an attorney to a person
only while that attorney is giving it. Interpreters should not explain
the purpose or contents of forms, services, or otherwise act as
counselors or advisors unless they are interpreting for someone who is
acting in that official capacity. Interpreters may translate language on
a form for a person who is filling out the form, but should not explain
the form or its purpose for such a person.
While engaged in the function of interpreting, interpreters
should not personally perform official acts that are the official
responsibility of other court officials.
63.08 Assessing and reporting impediments to
performance. Interpreters shall assess at all times their
ability to deliver their services. When interpreters have any
reservation about their ability to satisfy an assignment competently,
the interpreters shall immediately convey that reservation to the
appropriate judicial authority.
COMMENT: If the communication mode, dialect, or speech of the person
of limited English proficiency cannot be readily interpreted, the
interpreter should notify the appropriate judicial authority, such as a
supervisory interpreter, a judge, or another official with jurisdiction
over interpreter matters.
Interpreters should notify the appropriate judicial authority of
any circumstances (environmental or physical limitations) that impede
the ability to deliver interpreting services adequately. These
circumstances may include that the courtroom is not quiet enough for the
interpreter to hear or be heard by the person of limited English
proficiency, more than one person is speaking at the same time, or the
speaker is speaking too quickly for the interpreter to adequately
interpret. Sign language interpreters must make sure that they can both
see and convey the full range of visual language elements that are
necessary for communication, including facial expressions and body
movements, as well as hand gestures.
Interpreters should notify the judge of the need to take periodic
breaks in order to maintain mental and physical alertness and prevent
interpreter fatigue. Interpreters should inform the court when the use
of team interpreting is necessary.
Even competent and experienced interpreters may encounter
situations where routine proceedings suddenly involve slang, idiomatic
expressions, regional dialect, or technical or specialized terminology
unfamiliar to the interpreter such as the unscheduled testimony of an
expert witness. When such situations occur, interpreters should request
a brief recess in order to familiarize themselves with the subject
matter. If familiarity with the terminology requires extensive time or
more intensive research, interpreters should inform the judge.
Interpreters should refrain from accepting a case if they believe
its language and subject matter is likely to exceed their capacities.
Interpreters should also notify the judge if, during the course of a
proceeding, they conclude that they are unable to perform adequately for
any reason.
63.09 Duty to report ethical violations.
Interpreters shall report to the proper judicial authority any effort to
impede their compliance with any law, any provision of this code, or any
other official policy governing court interpreting and translating.
COMMENT: Because the users of interpreting services frequently
misunderstand the proper role of interpreters, they may ask or expect
the interpreters to perform duties or engage in activities that run
counter to the provisions of the code or other law, rules, regulations,
or policies governing court interpreters. It is incumbent upon the
interpreters to explain their professional obligations to the user. If,
having been apprised of these obligations, the person persists in
demanding that the interpreters violate them, the interpreters should
turn to a supervisory interpreter, a judge, or another official with
jurisdiction over interpreter matters to resolve the situation.
63.10 Professional development. Interpreters shall
improve their skills and knowledge and advance the profession through
activities such as professional training and education and interaction
with colleagues and specialists in related fields.
COMMENT: Interpreters must improve their interpreting skills and
increase their knowledge of the languages they work in professionally,
including past and current trends in slang, idiomatic expression,
changes in dialect, technical terminology, and social and regional
dialects, as well as their applicability within court
proceedings.
Interpreters should keep informed of all statutes, rules of court,
and policies of the judiciary that govern the performance of their
professional duties.
Interpreters should seek to elevate the standards of the
profession through participation in workshops, professional meetings,
interaction with colleagues, and reading current literature in the
field.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Comments accompanying these rules are
not adopted but shall be printed for information purposes.
IT IS 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 25th day of April, 2002.
By the court:
Cornelia G. Clark, Clerk of Supreme Court
Rules guiding assistance to individual court
users
In the matter of the creation of rules providing guidance on
assistance to individual court users.
Order 01-18
On April 18, 2002, the court held a public hearing on the petition
filed on Dec. 21, 2001, by the Wisconsin Clerks of Circuit Court
Association, Wisconsin Association of Municipal Court Clerks, and
Registers in Probate Association. Petitioners request the court adopt a
supreme court rule, under chapter 70 Judicial Administration, providing
guidance for court staff on assistance to individual court users.
IT IS ORDERED that, effective July 1, 2002, the Supreme Court Rules
are amended as follows:
Section 1. 70.41 of the Supreme Court Rules is
created to read:
70.41 Assistance to court users; court staff guidelines.
(1) Definitions. In this rule:
(a) "Court" means an appellate, circuit, or municipal court.
(b) "Court staff" means persons under the supervision of the clerk of
the supreme court and court of appeals, a clerk of circuit court, a
circuit court commissioner, a register in probate, a district court
administrator, a circuit court judge, or a municipal court judge.
(c) "Forms" means any of the following:
1. Forms that have been approved by the records management
committee.
2. Forms that have been approved by a circuit court or municipal
judge for use in that jurisdiction.
(d) "Individual" means any person who seeks court-related
information, including information needed to file, pursue, or respond to
a case.
(e) "Should" is directory only, not mandatory, and connotes a duty or
obligation to pursue a goal or objective.
(2) Purpose. The purpose of this rule is to assist the court in
communicating with individual court users without practicing law. The
rule is intended to enable court staff to provide the best service
possible to individuals within the limits of the individual staff
member's responsibility. The rule is not intended to restrict powers of
court staff otherwise provided by statute or rule, nor is it intended to
eliminate the collection of applicable fees or costs. The rule is not
intended to list all assistance that can be provided. The rule
recognizes that the best service the court staff may provide in many
proceedings is advising an individual to seek the assistance of an
attorney.
(3) Impartiality. Court staff shall remain impartial and may not
provide or withhold assistance for the purpose of giving one party an
advantage over another.
(4) Authorized information and assistance. Court staff shall do all
of the following:
(a) Provide public information contained in any of the following:
1. Dockets or calendars.
2. Case files.
3. Indexes.
4. Existing reports.
(b) Provide a copy of, or recite, any of the following:
1. Common, routinely employed state and local court rules.
2. Common, routinely employed court procedures.
3. Common, routinely employed applicable fees and costs.
(c) Advise an individual where to find statutes and rules, without
advising whether a particular statute or rule is applicable.
(d) Identify and provide applicable forms and written instructions
without providing advice or recommendations as to any specific course of
action.
(e) Answer questions about how to complete forms, such as where to
write in particular types of information, but not questions about how
the individual should phrase his or her responses on the forms.
(f) Define terms commonly used in court processes.
(g) Provide phone numbers for lawyer referral services, local
attorney rosters, or other assistance services, such as Internet
resources, known to the court staff.
(h) Provide appropriate aids and services for individuals with
disabilities to the extent required by the Americans With Disabilities
Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
(5) Unauthorized information and assistance. Court staff may not do
any of the following:
(a) Provide legal advice or recommend a specific course of action for
an individual.
(b) Apply the law to the facts of a given case, or give directions
regarding how an individual should respond or behave in any aspect of
the legal process.
(c) Recommend whether to file a petition or other pleading.
(d) Recommend phrasing for or specific content of pleadings.
(e) Fill in a form, unless required by sub. 4 (h).
(f) Recommend specific people against whom to file petitions or other
pleadings.
(g) Recommend specific types of claims or arguments to assert in
pleadings or at trial.
(h) Recommend what types or amount of damages to seek or the specific
individuals from whom to seek damages.
(i) Recommend specific questions to ask witnesses or litigants.
(j) Recommend specific techniques for presenting evidence in
pleadings or at trial.
(k) Recommend which objections to raise regarding an opponent's
pleadings or motions at trial or when and how to raise them.
(l) Recommend when or whether an individual should request or oppose
an adjournment.
(m) Recommend when or whether an individual should settle a
dispute.
(n) Recommend whether an individual should appeal a judge's
decision.
(o) Interpret the meaning or implications of statutes or appellate
court decisions as they might apply to an individual case.
(p) Perform legal research.
(q) Predict the outcome of a particular case, strategy, or
action.
(6) Referral to supervisor. When a court staff member is uncertain
whether the advice or information requested is authorized, the staff
member should seek the assistance of a supervisor. If a supervisor is
not available, the staff member should advise the individual to seek
assistance from an attorney.
COMMENT: Court staff shall provide a copy of a common rule, but court
staff should not attempt to apply the rule to the facts in the
individual's case. Sometimes, after court staff provides a rule, an
individual will ask whether or how the rule would apply, or if the rule
might be applied differently, given the facts in his or her case. This
calls for an interpretation of the law or rule of procedure. Court staff
shall avoid offering interpretations of laws or rules.
In providing assistance regarding forms, court staff may inform
individuals that some general content may be required in a pleading,
such as identification of the other parties involved in the accident or
a description of the facts surrounding the accident. But court staff may
not tell an individual whom to identify or which particular facts might
be relevant in the pleading.
Court staff should, if possible, provide or direct an individual
to pamphlets or other documents that may address an individual's
question and that have been prepared for general distribution to the
public.
Court staff may not compute deadlines specified by statute or
rule.
Court staff may not perform legal research. Court staff may refer
individuals to sections of the Wisconsin supreme court rules, local
court rules, or Wisconsin statutes that govern matters of routine
administration, practice, or procedure and they may give definitions of
common, well-defined legal terms used in those sections. However, court
staff shall not interpret the meaning of statutes or rules.
The list of prohibited types of assistance set forth under sub.
70.41(5) is not comprehensive. The list is consistent with the statutory
directives in ss. 757.22 and 757.30(2), stats., regarding the practice
of law by judicial officers and the unauthorized practice of
law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Comments accompanying this rule are
not adopted but shall be printed for information purposes.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the amendment of the Supreme
Court Rules be given by a single publication of a copy of this order and
of the petition in the official state newspaper and in an official
publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin.
Dated at Madison, Wis., this 3rd day of May, 2002.
By the court:
Cornelia G. Clark, Clerk of Supreme Court
Wisconsin Lawyer
