March 19, 2025 – Rule Petition No. 24-05 requesting to increase the $50 annual lawyer fee to the Public Interest Law Services Fund (PILSF) by $50 in two increments passed the Wisconsin Supreme Court March 13 on a 4-3 vote.

Eight organizations providing public interest legal services sought the fee increase to pay for civil legal aid by amending Supreme Court rule (SCR) 13.045. Under the rule change, the first increase will be $25 per year effective July 1 followed by a second increase of $25 a year effective July 1, 2027, when the PILSF fee will cost a lawyer $100 a year.

It’s the first increase in the mandatory fee since the supreme court created it in 2005. Both the State Bar of Wisconsin and petition proponents in this legislative session also have launched initiatives to reinvigorate civil legal aid funding from other sources.

Success, and Inflation

Support for the work provided by civil legal aid organizations received unanimous praise. Of the 34 written comments received on the petition, 32 supported the petition.

The State Bar shared with the supreme court its members’ concerns about (and majority opposition to) the petition, and one additional comment opposed the petition on constitutional grounds.

At the March 13 hearing, eight of the nine speakers spoke in support of the fee increase. Only the State Bar offered views (shared by its members) in opposition, but the State Bar also noted that a minority but significant number of its members support the petition.

Former Milwaukee Circuit Judge Richard Sankovitz, who signed the petition representing the Wisconsin Access to Justice Commission, began Thursday’s open hearing by expressing the success the fee has generated in the past 20 years.

Justices approving the fee back then didn’t consider it “a one-time fix,” he explained. “Well, here we are, 20 years later, that $50 pledge lawyers make in support of those who can’t afford lawyers, now feels like $30.”

The speakers, including a law student and a recent law school graduate, described how civil legal aid funds not merely support justice but also create efficiencies by having a lawyer in court. Demand for such services remains high and has increased, the speakers testified.

Since 2010, “Our courts are different,” said Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge William J. Domina. “There is an increase in density, there is an increase in the self-represented, and there is an increase, in my view, in the struggle of the judges in our courts to address this and deal with it fairly.”

Fee or Tax

The split in the supreme court vote resulted from whether the supreme court has the power to enact the fee. Several justices argued that funding for civil legal aid instead should come through the tax and appropriation power inherent in the Wisconsin Legislature. However, in most years, the legislature has failed to increase funding.

Justice Brian Hagedorn remained “sympathetic” to concerns that the fee was a tax the court could not levy. If the court approved this increase, what are the court’s limits to charge lawyers for “other social goods, in things that we believe are generally in the interest in the improvement of justice”?

Similarly, Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley asked, “What are the limits? If we can do this, we could raise money for anything,” such as for courthouse improvements or court interpreter fees.

The legal justification now, as it was in 2004, Sankovitz explained, comes from State v. Jackman, 60 Wis. 2d 700 (1973), which allows a branch of government to set a fee “reasonably related to a legitimate regulatory purpose.”

Any worries about sliding down a “slippery slope” should be ameliorated by the history of the PILSF assessment, Sankovitz said. In 20 years, no one has used that precedent to ask the court to expand this authority.

The current fee rate in 2023 supported services to more than 3,000 clients. Even with the fee increase, funding to legal services organizations remains in flux.

Federal funding is going down. Increased interest from Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) generates more money – for now. The stable funding from PILSF helps neutralize those variables, Sankovitz said.

The supreme court isn’t the only place that the petitioners seek funds for civil legal aid. They consistently ask for funding from the legislature. The problem is, Sankovitz said, “we’ve been turned down lots of times.”

This year, Sankovitz said, “[t]he campaign is to tap every source that we can, and the legislature is the main target of that campaign because the legislature is the one with the ability to make the investment that’s needed here.”

“One thing that we think will make us more successful in what we do,” Sankovitz said, "in addition to all the efforts the State Bar is making this year, is to go to the legislature and say, ‘The court and the bar keep stepping up. Now the legislature should step up, too.’”

State Bar President Shared Member Feedback on the Survey

“There is significant common ground with petitioners and that is there appears to be nearly universal if not universal agreement that civil legal aid funding is vital, imperative, and the need is urgent,” State Bar President Ryan Billings told the court at the March 13 hearing.

Billings presented the results of an informal survey that the State Bar sent to about 18,000 members. These results highlighted divided opinions from 3,047 respondents, or about a 17% response rate. The State Bar’s Board of Governors, at their Dec. 6 meeting, supported the release of that survey as part of their response to the petition.

In total, 1,950 members (about 65%) opposed the petition and 1,052 members (about 35%) supported it. Responding solo practitioners opposed the fee increase the most at about 74% against. Lawyers in medium to large firms showed the most support, peaking at 45.4% in support in firms with 16 to 20 lawyers. The survey also yielded 1,192 comments.

“The survey is imperfect,” Billings admitted, “but I think it is a fair snapshot … and is also consistent with the conversations we’ve had” with State Bar sections and divisions, and with local bar associations.

Recognizing the eloquence of Sankovitz and numerous speakers in favor of the proposal, Billings gave voice to State Bar members with concerns about the fee increase.

The two main concerns raised were that society as a whole should support the social costs of civil legal aid, and that the increase will present a hardship to many attorneys.

Billings noted that the problems addressed by civil legal aid are societal problems, and addressing those problems provides benefits that are shared by everyone. For that reason, the cost of civil legal aid should be borne by everyone through taxation and legislative funding. While petitioners argued that lawyers have a special ethical obligation to fund civil legal aid, Billings observed that the same argument could be made to support any number of causes.

As to hardship, Billing said “Many members came to me and said it would be a hardship, that this will hurt them,” particularly attorneys serving underrepresented communities.

Although costs of living may be lower in some areas of the state, many costs such as the cost of law school and legal research remain the same regardless of location.

Billings told the court that he had been asked by several members to inform the court of the hardship they would face if the petition were granted.

To address this concern, one suggestion received would “temper the increase” by extending it out five to ten years, Billings said, as another option the court could consider. Increased Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation, Inc. (WisTAF) grants may support a gradual increase, Billings argued.

“There also appears to be widespread agreement that the best body to meet the need for civil legal funding is the legislature. That is the body which has the most tools in its [belt] to address this problem,” Billings said. “Legislative civil legal aid funding is the only thing that’s going to get us across the finish line, and for that reason the State Bar is aggressively advocating for that in this year’s budget cycle.”

Ultimately, a divided court accepted the petitioners’ arguments and granted the petition.