|
Vol. 72, No. 2, February 1999
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.
|