Supreme Court approves Office of Lawyer Regulation central intake
system
September 12, 2000
Following the Sept. 12 public hearing on how the new Office of Lawyer
Regulation (OLR) will accept and handle complaints against attorneys,
the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously approved a new program to make
the lawyer regulation system more accessible and responsive to the
public.
Beginning in January 2001, individuals with concerns about lawyer
conduct can use a toll-free number to voice complaints to a Central
Intake Unit. Staff will take information about the alleged conduct,
check for other complaints against the attorney, and assign the matter
to an investigator. After talking with the complainant, the investigator
will determine whether the allegation, if proven, would constitute
misconduct. Then one of the following will occur:
- if the subject of the complaint clearly does not constitute
misconduct, the investigator will explain why there should be no further
action on the matter and close it;
- if the allegation might constitute misconduct, the investigator will
obtain further information from the lawyer and the client and either
facilitate discussion between the two to resolve the matter, or (in
cases where serious misconduct may be involved) launch a full
investigation; or
- if the allegation might constitute minor misconduct (private
reprimand or less), the respondent may be diverted into the new
Alternatives to Discipline program, which includes options such as
mediation, fee arbitration, monitoring of the attorney's practice,
ethics school, continuing legal education, assessment for substance
abuse treatment, and more.
The central intake program was proposed by James L. Martin, acting
interim administrator of the Board of Attorneys Professional
Responsibility (BAPR), which the OLR is scheduled to replace later this
month. In addressing the court, Martin noted that the program is
designed to address the public's concerns about lawyers in a timely,
responsive fashion and may reduce grievances by facilitating
attorney-client communication and enabling clients to make informed
decisions. The Alternatives to Discipline component of the program was
supported in principle by BAPR, the State Bar, and the Supreme
Court.
State Bar President Gary Bakke expressed the Bar's strong support of
the establishment of a central intake unit and grievance diversion
process. Bakke asserted that Martin's proposal "creates an effective and
efficient method for handling complaints from the public in an
appropriate manner and that it will be a step toward enhancing public
trust in the bar and in the legal system." However, he asked that
further consideration be given to alternatives to discipline referral
programs, including fee arbitration; eligibility for attorney
participation in the program; and record expunction.
Louise Trubek, Center for Public Representation, stressed the
importance of having a positive attitude toward the new system and
helping to establish its credibility by taking it seriously, building a
strong staff, and giving it a chance. "Consumer-friendly is not easy,"
she noted.
The justices' approval of the Central Intake Unit is contingent on
the resolution of several issues that arose in discussion, including
whether lawyers should be informed every time a complaint is filed,
process confidentiality, and the effective date.
The court created the OLR on May 22, 2000 after agreeing on a
framework for lawyer discipline last January. An effective date will be
determined as soon as the Preliminary Review Committee and the Board of
Administrative Oversight called for in the new system are in place. The
court will receive written comments on the rules until March 2001, and a
public hearing will be held in April 2001.
