Sign In
    Wisconsin Lawyer
    April 01, 2001

    Wisconsin Lawyer April 2001: Supreme Court Orders

    Supreme Court Orders


    The Wisconsin Supreme Court has declined to amend Wis. Stats. 801.58(7) and 808.08, regarding the right of substitution of judge on remand; has amended SCR 10.06, 10.07, and 10.08, regarding the State Bar Executive Committee composition and quorum and annual meetings; and has amended SCR 75.02(2), setting forth the approval procedure for new duties of the circuit court commissioners.


    Right of Substitution of Judge on Remand

    In the Matter of the Amendment of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Appellate Procedure: Wis. Stat. §§ 801.58(7) and 808.08; Internal Operating Procedures of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals - Right of Substitution of Judge on Remand

    Order 00-10

    On Jan. 16, 2001, the court held a public hearing on the petition filed on Aug. 31, 2000, by the Director of State Courts seeking amendment of Wis. Stat. §§ 801.58 (7) and 808.08, the Supreme Court Internal Operating Procedures, and the Court of Appeals Internal Operating Procedures, to require an appellate court remanding a case to a lower court to state whether the party has a right to request substitution of a judge. The court has considered the petition and matters presented at the public hearing.

         IT IS ORDERED that the petition is denied.
         Dated at Madison, Wis., this 7th day of March, 2001.

    By the court:
    Cornelia G. Clark
    Clerk of Court

    SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE (dissenting). I do not think the court should deny this petition without explanation. An explanation is important not only for the petitioners in the present case but also for preserving institutional memory should this issue arise in some form in the future.

    Rather than deny the petition, I would hold the petition in abeyance. I would ask the chief judges to consider the issues raised at the hearing on this petition and at the court's open administrative conference so that the chief judges might determine whether to modify the proposed rule or withdraw it.

    The following issues were raised at the hearing and conference:

    1. The need for a rule remains in doubt. The justices question the need for an express statement by an appellate court in each case that substitution is or is not a matter of right because members of the court stated that in most remanded cases, the parties have a right to request substitution of the judge. On the other hand, the chief judges apparently conclude that although in only a few cases will the right of substitution be in doubt, the issue should be resolved by an appellate court rather than the circuit court.

    2. The State Bar of Wisconsin objected to the proposed rule because it does not give counsel an opportunity to be heard on the right of substitution.

    The Litigation Section of the State Bar of Wisconsin objected to the proposed rule on the same grounds as the State Bar. Counsel did, however, advise the court that the preference was that an appellate court, rather than the circuit court, decide the issue of the right to substitution and that after the appellate decision each party may decide at the circuit court level whether it wishes to exercise that right. Counsel recognized that two issues exist that should be treated separately: (1) the legal question of the right to substitution and (2) the party's discretion to exercise the right to substitution.

    3. Several justices expressed concern about when an appellate court would decide the right to substitution and whether any such decision might interfere with the return of the record, motions for reconsideration, and the statutory provisions (especially the time requirements) relating to a party's exercise of the right to seek substitution at the circuit court.

    A member of the court of appeals set forth an analytical frame for considering the proposed rule.

    In determining whether a right of substitution exists, an appellate court is deciding a legal question, that is, it must apply Wis. Stat. § 801.58 and State ex rel. J.H. Findorff v. Milwaukee County, 2000 WI 30, 233 Wis. 2d 428, 608 N.W.2d 679, to its own opinion. An appellate court's decision about the right of substitution is limited to the issues for which the case is remanded. Further issues may develop on remand that raise the issue of the right of substitution. On remand to the circuit court the parties may decide whether to exercise their right of substitution.

    For the reasons set forth, I write separately.


    State Bar Board of Governors and Annual Meetings

    In the Matter of the Amendment of the Supreme Court Rules: SCR 10.06, 10.07, and 10.08 - Composition and Quorum of State Bar Board of Governors Executive Committee; Annual Meetings of the State Bar

    Order 00-11

    On Jan. 16, 2001, the court held a public hearing on the petition filed on Sept. 13, 2000, by the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Wisconsin requesting amendment of the Supreme Court Rules to increase the membership of the Executive Committee and to increase the number of members required to demand a meeting of the Executive Committee. The petitioner also requests amendment of Supreme Court Rule 10.06 (3) to specify that a majority of members constitutes a quorum and to allow participation in a meeting of the Executive Committee by facsimile or email. The petitioner further requests amendment of Supreme Court Rule 10.07 to provide that an assembly of members may be held only at the annual meeting.

         IT IS ORDERED that, effective the date of this order, Supreme Court Rules 10.06 (1) and (3), 10.07 (2), and 10.08 (6) are amended to read:

    Section 1. 10.06 (1) and (3) of the Supreme Court Rules are amended to read:

    10.06 (1) Members; selection. The executive committee consists of the president, the president-elect, the immediate past-president, the chairperson of the board of governors, one representative each from the nonresident lawyers division, government lawyers division, and young lawyers division selected from their board of governors representatives and 4 6 additional members elected annually by the board of governors at its June final meeting of the fiscal year. The 4 6 additional members shall be elected from among the governors-elect and the current governors who will serve on the board of governors during the following fiscal year. A vacancy occurring in the selected membership may be filled by action of the board of governors.

    (3) Meeting; quorum. The executive committee shall meet at the call of the president, or at the call of the executive director upon the written demand of at least 3 5 of its members. All members shall be given at least 48 hours' notice by mail or telephone of the time and place of any meeting. Five A majority of all members present at a meeting constitutes a quorum. No action may be taken by the committee except upon the concurrence of at least 5 a majority of all members. The concurrence may be registered by mail, or telephone, facsimile, or e-mail.

    Section 2. 10.07 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules is amended to read:

    10.07 (2) Assembly of members. An assembly of the members of the state bar may be held at each annual and midwinter meeting for the purpose of discussing any issues of association public policy.

    Section 3. 10.08 (6) of the Supreme Court Rules is renumbered 10.08(6)(a) and is amended to read:

    10.08 (6) Procedure for filing petition.

    (a) The petition must be complete when filed with the state bar headquarters. Upon filing, the petition will shall be examined by the state bar executive director or his or her designee in order to determine all of the following:

    (a) 1. whether Whether the question is properly the subject of a referendum;.

    (b) 2. whether Whether the signatures are of members of the state bar who are eligible to vote;.

    (c) 3. whether Whether the signatures satisfy the geographic distribution and time requirements set forth in sub. (5) (f) and (g);.

    (d) 4. whether Whether the petition is otherwise in order as required by these rules this section.

    (b) The ruling of the executive director shall be communicated to the person designated in the petition as soon as practicable and within two 2 weeks of after the date on which the petition is filed.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of these amendments of the Supreme Court Rules shall be given 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 7th day of March, 2001.

    By the court:
    Cornelia G. Clark
    Clerk of Court

         SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE (concurring and dissenting). I would not amend the composition of the Executive Committee of the State Bar Board of Governors at this time. I would prefer that the Board of Governors and the supreme court address the size and composition of the Executive Committee after the powers of the Executive Committee have been determined. Once we decide the powers of the Executive Committee, we can better determine the appropriate size and composition of the Committee.

    Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 10.06(2) governing the powers of the Executive Committee is outdated and needs revision. For example, the Executive Committee's powers over grievance committees and disciplinary matters were eliminated at least 25 years ago.

    Furthermore, as a justice of the court that mandates membership in the State Bar of Wisconsin and as a member of the Bar, I am concerned about whether the Board of Governors is delegating its responsibility as the decision-making entity of the Bar to the executive committee, a smaller, less representative body. I am also concerned about whether the Board is monitoring the Executive Committee to ensure that the Executive Committee is not exceeding its powers under SCR 10.06(2). For example, contrary to the Supreme Court Rules, the Executive Committee recently petitioned the court for a rule change without the authorization of the Board.

    The Board of Governors has itself expressed concerns about delegating its powers to the Executive Committee and reducing the Board of Governors, the elected representatives of the Bar, to a debating or discussion society rather than the decision-making entity. According to minutes of recent meetings of the Board of Governors, the Board is grappling with distinguishing between those issues that the Executive Committee can address and those issues that should be addressed by the full Board. The Bar has appointed a committee to review the Supreme Court Rules governing the State Bar and to propose amendments to those rules. SCR 10.06(2) is one of the rules being addressed.

    SCR 10.06(2) provides as follows:

    (2) Powers. The executive committee may exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of the board of governors between the meetings of the board except the executive committee shall not, unless otherwise authorized by the board of governors: amend the bylaws; make rules or regulations governing nominations or elections; prescribe regulations for proceedings before grievance committees; or initiate the taking of any referendum or poll of members of the association. The executive committee shall directly receive and act upon all reports of committees on disciplinary matters without reporting to the board of governors. The minutes relating to disciplinary matters shall be kept separate from the general minutes and shall be confidential. The executive committee shall prepare an annual budget for submission to the board of governors and shall perform such other duties as the board of governors may prescribe. Unless otherwise ordered by the board of governors, the executive committee shall not express publicly any opinion on any matter including legislation of major public interest or concern or of major importance to the members of the association. A complete summary of the general minutes of each meeting of the executive committee shall be promptly printed in the Wisconsin bar bulletin, with a notation that any interested person may obtain a copy of the general minutes upon request to the secretary.

    For the reasons set forth, I write separately.


    Circuit Court Commissioners

    In the Matter of the Amendment of Supreme Court Rules: SCR 75.02(2) - Circuit Court Commissioners

    Order 01-03

    The court, on its own motion, has determined it advisable to amend the Supreme Court Rule, SCR 75.02(2), setting forth the approval procedure for new duties of the circuit court commissioners.

         SECTION 1. IT IS ORDERED that, effective the date of this order, SCR 75.02(2) of the Supreme Court Rules is amended to read:

    75.02(2) (a) The chief judge shall, by order, authorize each person appointed under sub. (1) to perform one or more specific duties allowed court commissioners by statute and approved by the supreme court.

    (b) When a new duty of circuit court commissioners is created by statute, the director of state courts shall submit the statute to the supreme court for its consideration. If the court does not expressly approve or disapprove the duty or extend the time for its consideration within 30 days of its submission, the statutory duty will be deemed approved by the court and may be considered a duty that may, by order of the chief judge, be assigned to court commissioners.

    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 1st day of March, 2001.

    By the court:
    Cornelia G. Clark
    Clerk of Court


    Temporary Order Relating to Attorney Trust Account Certification Requirements

    In the Matter of the Petition for a Temporary Order Relating to Attorney Trust Account Certification Requirements pursuant to SCR 20:1.15(g)

    Order 01-06

    On March 16, 2001, Keith Sellen, Director of the Office of Lawyer Regulation, and Gary L. Bakke, President of the State Bar of Wisconsin, filed a petition seeking a temporary order clarifying the accounts a lawyer must certify, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 20:1.15(g), on the fiscal year 2002 State Bar dues statement. The court has considered the petition and determined that a public hearing is not required at this time.

    At an open administrative conference on April 5, 2001, the court agreed to clarify SCR 20:1.15(a) and (g) as follows: A lawyer must certify all trust accounts and safe deposit boxes in which the lawyer deposits clients' funds or property held in connection with a representation or held in a fiduciary capacity that directly arises in the course of or as a result of a lawyer-client relationship.

    IT IS ORDERED that the petition is dismissed with this clarification made to SCR 20:1.15(a) and (g).

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if further clarification or amendment to this Supreme Court Rule is needed, the matter should be raised at the hearing relating to professional responsibility to be held in the fall of 2001.

    Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 11th day of April, 2001.

    By the Court:
    Cornelia G. Clark
    Clerk of Court


Join the conversation! Log in to comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY