Vol. 80, No. 10, October 2007
Judicial Education Committee
In the matter of the Amendment of Supreme Court Rule 32.01
Order 07-07
On June 13, 2007, the Wisconsin Association of Judicial Court Commissioners and the Wisconsin Family Court Commissioners Association filed a petition proposing to amend Supreme Court Rule 32.01 pertaining to the composition of the Judicial Education Committee.
IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing on the petition shall be held in the Supreme Court Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wis., on Nov. 27, 2007, at 9:30 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court's conference in the matter shall be held promptly following the public hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the hearing 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 not more than 60 days nor less than 30 days before the date of the hearing.
Dated at Madison, Wis., this 4th day of Sept., 2007.
By the court:
David R. Schanker, Clerk of Supreme Court
Petition
The Wisconsin Association of Judicial Court Commissioners and the Wisconsin Family Court Commissioners Association hereby petition the Supreme Court to amend Supreme Court Rule 32.01.
This rule determines the composition of the Judicial Education Committee. The committee consists of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or her designee, the chief judge of the Court of Appeals or his designee, the director of the state courts, eight (8) circuit court judges appointed by the Supreme Court and the deans of the University of Wisconsin and Marquette law schools or their designees.
The Judicial Education Committee oversees continuing education programs for judges. Specifically, the Committee directs the Office of Judicial Education to develop and present educational seminars for Wisconsin's judiciary. The Committee also determines whether to grant education credit for other educational activities undertaken by individual judges and circuit court commissioners. The Committee regulates compliance with the judicial educational requirements set forth in SCR 32.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules require that "circuit court commissioners shall maintain and improve professional competence by participating in programs of continuing education designed for circuit court commissioners …" SCR 75.05(1). Circuit Court Commissioners must earn 60 education credits each period of six (6) years. SCR 75.05(2). This is the same number of credits as SCR 32 requires for Supreme Court Justices, Court of Appeals Judges and Circuit Court Judges. In addition, full-time circuit court commissioners may only earn judicial education credits that have been approved by the Judicial Education Committee. SCR 75(2)(c).
Court commissioners perform a wide range of judicial and quasi-judicial functions in every area of the law. Larger counties rely heavily on court commissioners to process high volume cases. For many citizens, a court commissioner is the only judicial figure they may encounter in court. Every county in the state uses court commissioners in some manner. Continuing judicial education for Circuit Court Commissioners is essential for the efficient operation of Wisconsin's court system. Although there are approximately 155 full and part-time circuit court commissioners in the state of Wisconsin, court commissioners are not represented on this important committee.
Consequently, the two statewide associations of circuit court commissioners respectfully petition the Supreme Court to amend SCR 32.01 as follows:
A judicial education committee is created consisting of the chief justice of the supreme court or his or her designee, the chief judge of the court of appeals or his or her designee, the director of state courts, 8 circuit judges appointed by the supreme court, 2 circuit court commissioners, with one designated by the Wisconsin Association of Judicial Court Commissioners and one designated by the Wisconsin Family Court Commissioners Association, and the deans of the University of Wisconsin and Marquette law schools or their designees. The circuit judge members and circuit court commissioners shall serve staggered 2-year terms and may serve not more than two successive 2-year terms. The dean of the Wisconsin Judicial College is a member ex officio of the committee and has voting privileges.
Respectfully submitted by,
David A. Flesch, President, Wisconsin Association of Judicial Court Commissioners
Patricia M. Crowe, President, Wisconsin Family Court Commissioners Association
Top of page
Comity Rule for CLE
In the matter of Amendment to Supreme Court Rule SCR 31.04 Relating to Creation of a Comity Rule for Continuing Legal Education Order 07-08
On June 18, 2007, the board of bar examiners filed a petition proposing to amend SCR 31.04 to create a subparagraph (3) relating to comity for non-resident Wisconsin-licensed attorneys who meet the continuing legal education requirements of their home jurisdiction.
IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing on the petition shall be held in the Supreme Court Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wis., on Nov. 27, 2007, at 9:30 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court's conference in the matter shall be held promptly following the public hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the hearing 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 not more than 60 days nor less than 30 days before the date of the hearing.
Dated at Madison, Wis., this 4th day of Sept., 2007.
By the court:
David R. Schanker, Clerk of Supreme Court
Petition
The Petitioner, John E. Kosobucki, Director of the Board of Bar Examiners, for and on behalf on said Board of Bar Examiners of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, hereby petitions the Supreme Court of Wisconsin for an order that amends Supreme Court Rule SCR 31.04, and creates subparagraph (3), relating to comity for non-resident Wisconsin-licensed attorneys who meet the continuing legal education requirements of their home jurisdiction.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
SCR 31.04 Exemptions.
(3) A lawyer who does not regularly practice in Wisconsin and who practices in another United States jurisdiction which has mandatory CLE requirements that are substantially similar in content (including legal ethics and professional responsibility requirements), mode of presentation, and duration to Wisconsin's and who is current in meeting that jurisdiction's requirements is exempt from the attendance requirement of SCR 31.02 but shall comply with the reporting requirement of SCR 31.03. Whether another jurisdiction's requirements are substantially similar to Wisconsin's shall be determined periodically by the board, and its determination shall be final.
JUSTIFICATION:
Non-resident attorneys report difficulties in complying with Wisconsin's continuing legal education requirements while also complying with their home jurisdictions' requirements. The creation of the new exemption recognizes that other jurisdictions' requirements that are substantially similar to Wisconsin's would satisfy Wisconsin's requirements. Substantial similarity would include course content, mode of presentation and duration. Additionally, the requirement includes an ethics and professional responsibility requirement to compliance. Continuing legal education credit granted in other jurisdictions for such activities as service in state legislatures, presentations to school or community groups, service on various committees, etc., would not qualify for the exemption. Attorneys in other jurisdictions would check a block on the CLE Form 1 reporting form attesting that they have complied with their home jurisdictions' requirements. If the Court adopts this rule, the Board of Bar Examiners will promptly and conclusively determine which jurisdictions' requirements are substantially similar to Wisconsin's. The Board expects its determinations would remain in effect for several years so that practitioners can rely on them. The Board would reconsider its determinations only occasionally, such as when there are significant changes in either Wisconsin's or another jurisdiction's CLE requirements.
This new Rule would affect primarily those non-resident lawyers who practice only occasionally in Wisconsin and, therefore, cannot elect the exemption under SCR 31.04(2).
The Board has coordinated this proposed Rule with the State Bar of Wisconsin's BBE Review Committee, the CLE Committee, and the Board of Governors. All support the creation of this new Rule.
Respectfully submitted,
John E. Kosobucki, Director, Board of Bar Examiners
Top of page
Defining the Practice of Law
In the matter of the Definition of the Practice of Law and the Administration of a Rule Defining the Practice of Law Order 07-09
On June 19, 2007, the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Wisconsin filed a petition asking the court to create a new court rule to define the practice of law and to create a system to administer the rule, subject to supervision and control by the court.
IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing on the petition shall be held in the Supreme Court Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wis., on Dec. 10, 2007, at 9:45 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court's conference in the matter shall be held promptly following the public hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the hearing be given by publication of a copy of this order and of the petition in the official state newspaper once each week for three consecutive weeks and in an official publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin not more than 60 days nor less than 30 days before the date of the hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any interested persons may file with the court a written submission regarding this matter no later than Nov. 26, 2007.
Dated at Madison, Wis., this 4th day of Sept., 2007.
By the court:
David R. Schanker, Clerk of Supreme Court
Index to Petition Materials
Petition: Petition for Supreme Court Rule In the Matter of the Definition of the Practice of Law and the Administration of a Rule Defining the Practice of Law, Board of Governors of the State Bar of Wisconsin, Petitioner
Exhibit A: Proposed Supreme Court Rule Chapter 23, Regulation of Unauthorized Practice of Law
Exhibit B: American Bar Association 2004 Survey of Unlicensed Practice of Law Committees
Exhibit C: State of Washington
- General Rule 24: General Definition of the Practice of Law
- General Rule 25: Practice of Law Board
- Practice of Law Board Regulations
State of Colorado
- Definition of Practice of Law by Colorado Supreme Court
- Unauthorized Practice of Law Rules
- Brochure Published by Colorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel
- List of Persons Ordered to Stop Engaging in the Unauthorized Practice of Law in Colorado
- Notice About Immigration Services
Exhibit D: Representative Complaints Filed with the State Bar of Wisconsin Regarding the Unauthorized Practice of Law
Petition
The Board of Governors of the State Bar of Wisconsin, by Thomas J. Basting, Sr., President of the State Bar of Wisconsin, petitions this Honorable Court to adopt Supreme Court Rule 23, a new Court rule to define the practice of law and create a system to administer the rule, subject to supervision and control by the Court.
The grounds for the petition are as follows:
1. Because of the importance to our society of a properly functioning legal system, it is well established that only lawyers should be allowed to practice law. The practice of law is limited to lawyers because:
(a) A lawyer is considered to possess a special body of learning and special skills and techniques in the application of such learning. Lawyers undergo specialized training and education which are designed to qualify them to find the law, interpret the law, and apply the law to situations that arise in our society. In addition, lawyers are educated to engage in logical reasoning and to recognize and foresee the consequences of a particular course of conduct or action to be taken by a member of society.
(a) (b) In most jurisdictions, a person who is a lawyer does not "practice law" as a matter of right but only after the person has met standards established by the government. In Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is vested with the sole power and authority to regulate the practice of law and those persons engaged in the practice of law. The power and authority of the Court to regulate the practice of law extends to the 2
regulation of the improper conduct of persons who are not licensed by the Court to engage in the practice of law.
2. The well-being of our society is dependent upon the competent administration and application of the laws which provide the framework for an orderly society. Lawyers who practice law serve as a liaison between the members of society who are impacted by laws and the governmental bodies which make, execute and adjudicate the laws. The importance to society of the function served by lawyers who practice law would appear to be the basis for the intense regulation by the Wisconsin Supreme Court of persons who practice law. Under the current regulatory scheme, only persons admitted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court can practice law in Wisconsin, and to be admitted requires not only a showing of competence but of good character and fitness. To continue to be able to practice law, lawyers must maintain their knowledge and skills, must be a member of an organized Bar, must conform to certain rules of conduct designed to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and the interests of the persons being served, and must submit to a disciplinary system which could result in the suspension or termination of those lawyers' right to practice law.
3. Currently, notwithstanding the fact that the Court has adopted a comprehensive set of rules to regulate persons who wish to engage in the practice of law, there is no Court rule which defines the kinds of activities which constitute the practice of law. In deciding cases which have come before it, the Court has on occasion determined that certain kinds of activities carried on by persons do or do not constitute the practice of law. The Wisconsin legislature, by Section 757.30 of the Wisconsin Statutes, has adopted a criminal statute which provides sanctions for practicing law without being duly licensed by the Court, but the statute does not contain a clear definition of what constitutes the practice of law. Because of the inadequacies of Section 757.30 and the press of other business, district attorneys are not inclined to investigate and pursue complaints by persons who suffer harm as a result of unlicensed persons practicing law. As a result, Section 757.30 is wholly inadequate and ineffective as a device for protecting the public from persons engaged in such activities. Because of the absence of a Court rule defining the3
practice of law and because of the inadequacies of Section 757.30, on occasion particularly egregious situations involving the actions of unlicensed persons have been prosecuted by authorities under Section 100.18 of the Wisconsin Statutes, which deals with "fraudulent representations". It is not in the public interest for injured parties or authorities to have to peruse the statutes to hopefully find a provision which would permit the prosecution of a person engaged in the practice of law without being duly licensed by the Court.
4. Unlicensed persons who engage in the practice of law are not subject to the various Court rules which regulate licensed lawyers in Wisconsin. Members of the public who seek help and advice regarding legal matters from unlicensed persons engaged in the practice of law are not protected or benefited by the Court rules regulating licensed lawyers. Neither are such clients protected with respect to confidential communications and conflicts of interest.
1. 5. Establishing a Court rule which defines the practice of law and adopting a system to administer the rule, which includes authorizing the administrator of the rule to deal with instances of the unlicensed persons engaged in the practice of law, is in the public interest. In the absence of a definition of the practice of law, it is difficult if not impossible to effectively deal with persons who cause harm to members of the general public by engaging in conduct and activities for which they are not qualified. It is too often the case that members of the public who are harmed and damaged by unlicensed persons who engage in the practice of law have no effective recourse.
2. 6. Numerous professions and service providers are regulated by statute and administrative rules. Such regulation is premised on protection of the general public. In other words, the laws and regulations which regulate certain service providers who purport to have specialized skills are designed to set standards and to preclude the unqualified from providing the regulated service. In the context of such regulation, it is not unusual for the statute or regulation to define or describe the kinds of activities and functions that constitute the regulated activity. Chapter 441.001 of the Wisconsin Statutes defines what constitutes "nursing". Chapter 442.02 defines a certified public accountant. Chapter 443 defines what constitutes "landscape 4
architecture", "land surveying", the practice of architecture and the practice of engineering. Chapter 446 defines the practice of chiropractic. Chapter 449 defines the practice of optometry.
7. The following are real life examples collected by Petitioner of the kinds of activities and conduct which Petitioner alleges constituted the practice of law by unlicensed persons:
(a) A person licensed in Wisconsin as a surveyor, and not as a lawyer, was retained by a landowner to survey property for the purpose of locating boundary lines and certain easements which the surveyor's customer desired to create. The surveyor drafted a deed for the purpose of creating an easement and in the process subjected the land owned by a neighbor of the surveyor's customer to an unauthorized easement and encumbrance. The neighbor incurred substantial costs to clear title to his land. The local district attorney refused to investigate and prosecute the surveyor under Section 757.30. The district attorney felt that it was not unusual for a surveyor to draft a deed.
(b) A person not licensed as a lawyer was engaged in the business of selling canned revocable trusts to individuals as estate planning panaceas. The purveyor of the trusts did not have the interest or competence to determine whether the client's assets and situation were suitable for the use of a revocable trust and charged outrageous fees for supplying the trust document to the client. In addition, the purveyor of the revocable trusts failed to advise or assist the client to transfer assets to the trust so one of its primary purposes, avoiding the need for probate, could be attained.
(c) U.S. immigration laws and regulations are quite complex and are vigorously administered by the government. Persons in Wisconsin, not licensed as lawyers, provide incomplete and incorrect advice and counsel to aliens residing in Wisconsin, which has placed aliens in positions where lawful employment has been lost and the aliens have been subjected to the risk of deportation and not being able to return to the United States for 10 years.
(d) Persons operating in Mexico and in certain other South American countries as "notarios" have certain legal training and are able to handle certain legal matters. Over the years Wisconsin has accumulated a significant Hispanic population. Persons in Wisconsin, not licensed as lawyers but holding a commission as a notary public, are advertising in the Hispanic community as "notarios," implying to Hispanic residents that the "notario" is qualified to handle legal matters for Hispanic residents.
(e) A person not licensed to practice law in Wisconsin, located in southwestern Wisconsin, operated a post-conviction remedy business. The persons involved in the operation would contact the family members of persons incarcerated in various prisons with an offer to assist such family members, for a substantial fee, to file with a court on a pro se basis motions and briefs which were supposed to result in the prisoner being released. The documentation used was incompetently prepared and the family members paid thousands of dollars for incompetent and wholly ineffective legal services.
Copies of several of the formal complaints filed with Petitioner by or on behalf of complainants are attached to this petition as Exhibit D.
Petitioner submits that the current ambiguities regarding what constitutes the practice of law have contributed to the proliferation of service providers, some of whom are well-meaning and some of whom are charlatans and criminals, who do not have the education and competence to provide legal services to society, all to the emotional and financial detriment of those members of society who engage such a service provider. The lack of clarity as to what constitutes the practice of law and the activities of unqualified and incompetent persons who engage in the practice of law without being licensed have been harmful to consumers of services in Wisconsin. The application of laws and regulations to members of society often involves issues which are critical to the social and economic well-being of the members. It is important that the members of society who seek assistance from third persons regarding the application of the law to them are able to have confidence that the information, advice and counsel received are delivered by a competent person.
8. The importance to society of defining the practice of the law and of providing effective remedies for members of society who have been harmed by unlicensed persons engaged in the practice of law has been recognized by many states. In the last few years the following states have adopted rules or legislation which define the practice of law and which provide systems for administering the rule and for providing effective redress to persons who suffer harm as a result of the practice of law by unlicensed persons.
The following states have adopted a definition of the practice of law by statute: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The following states have adopted a definition of the practice of law by court rule: Alaska, Arizona, District of Columbia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
A summary of the actions taken by the foregoing states regarding a definition of the practice of law is contained in an American Bar Association monograph dated December, 2004, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B. Also attached as Exhibit C are copies of the rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington which define the practice of law and which create a system to administer the rule and copies of the statutes and Supreme Court rules of Colorado which define the practice of law.
9. Petitioner recognizes that a rule defining the practice of law must contain certain exemptions which reflect the current state of the law and policies which pertain to the provision of legal assistance to members of society who cannot afford to retain and pay for legal services in the marketplace. The proposed rule provides for pertinent exceptions to the application of the rule.
10. In order for a rule defining the practice of law to be helpful in protecting the public from the problems and damage which often result from the practice of law by unlicensed persons, there must be a system for administering the rule whereby the administrator is empowered to act to terminate such activities. The administrator must have the power and authority to receive complaints, investigate complaints, issue cease and desist orders, and if necessary, petition courts for injunctions or other suitable remedies. Section 757.30 of the Wisconsin Statutes does not provide an effective remedy for dealing with the practice of law by unlicensed persons because of the inadequate definition of what constitutes the practice of law and because district attorneys generally, for various reasons, are not inclined to devote resources to investigating and prosecuting matters which fall within the scope of that statute.
11. Because the proposed rule defining the practice of law is intended to protect the service-consuming public, Petitioner recommends that the administrative function be called the Legal Services Office of Consumer Protection.
12. Because the purposes of the Office of Lawyer Regulation and the proposed Legal Services Office of Consumer Protection would be similar, namely, the protection of the public, Petitioner recommends that the Legal Services Office of Consumer Protection be located and operated in conjunction with the Office of Lawyer Regulation. Petitioner believes that the Legal Services Office of Consumer Protection could, at least initially, be operated by a half-time person. Petitioner believes that the initial cost of operating the Legal Services Office of Consumer Protection will not exceed $60,000-$70,000 per annum and that an assessment of $4.00 per State Bar member would provide funds sufficient to operate the said office.
3. 13. After careful study, research and analysis, Petitioner has concluded that the public interest will be served by the Court adopting a new rule which defines the practice of law and which establishes a system to administer the rule, including the authority of the administrator to employ typical civil remedies to enforce the rule.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court adopt attached Exhibit A as Supreme Court Rule Chapter 23, Regulation of Unauthorized Practice of Law. Petitioner further requests that the costs of administration be borne by the Petitioner through its dues structure for members.
Respectfully submitted,
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE STATE BAR OF WISCONSIN, Petitioner
By: Thomas J. Basting Sr., President, State Bar of Wisconsin
Top of page
State Bar Officers
In the matter of the Petition for Revision of SCR 10.04 Concerning the Officers of the State Bar of Wisconsin Order 07-10
On July 18, 2007, the State Bar of Wisconsin filed a petition asking the court to amend Supreme Court Rule 10.04 to limit the terms of office of the president and chairperson of the board of governors each to one term.
IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing on the petition shall be held in the Supreme Court Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wis., on Dec. 10, 2007, at 9:45 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court's conference in the matter shall be held promptly following the public hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the hearing 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 not more than 60 days nor less than 30 days before the date of the hearing.
Dated at Madison, Wis., this 4th day of Sept., 2007.
By the court:
David R. Schanker, Clerk of Supreme Court
Petition
The State Bar of Wisconsin petitions the Court for a revision to Supreme Court Rule 10.04 governing the terms of office of the President and the Chairperson of the Board of Governors.
At the September 30, 2005, meeting of the Board of Governors, the Board supported a motion to direct then-President Guerin to appoint a committee to review a proposed amendment to Article II of the State Bar bylaws that would codify the State Bar's custom and practice of rotating officer candidates around certain regions of the state. In the context of its deliberations, the committee also examined the interrelated question of whether some officers, in particular the President and Chairperson of the Board of Governors, should be limited to one term. (Currently there is no term limit.) The committee ultimately recommended to the Board of Governors that the State Bar petition the Supreme Court to amend SCR 10.04 to limit the President and Chairperson each to one term in office. At its meeting on May 8-9, 2007, the Board of Governors adopted the committee's recommendation by a voice vote of greater than sixty percent. This petition, in particular Attachment #1, sets forth the Board of Governors' requested amendment to SCR 10.04 to limit the President and Chairperson to one term each.
The Election Bylaws Committee appointed in 2005 by then-President Guerin was chaired by Attorney Ken Knudson. The committee's members included the following attorneys: Lisa Arent, Milwaukee; Thomas Bertz, Stevens Point; Grant Birtch, Neenah; James Boll, Madison; Joseph Cardamone, Salem; James Carney, Janesville; John Macy, Waukesha; Mark Pennow, Green Bay; Deborah Smith, Madison; and Robert Swain, Appleton. The committee reported its recommendations to the Board of Governors on February 3, 2007, and as stated already, the Board of Governors approved those recommendation at its May 2007 meeting.
By way of background, and separately from the requested changes to SCR 10.04, the Election Bylaws Committee recommended to the Board of Governors numerous changes to the Article II of the State Bar bylaws. Those recommended changes were also approved in May 2007 by the Board of Governors on a 42-1 vote and have been filed separately with the Court pursuant to SCR 10.13(2) and Article IX of the State Bar bylaws. These changes to the State Bar bylaws are explained here only to provide context for the requested change to SCR 10.04 regarding term limits. This petition does not constitute a request that the Court take any action regarding the Board of Governor's amendments to Article II of the State Bar bylaws. (For reference, the Board of Governors' amendments to Article II of the State Bar bylaws are appended to this petition as Attachment #2; as stated, they have been filed separately with the Court.)
For over twenty years, it had been the common practice of the Bar to nominate candidates to run for president-elect from one of three areas: Milwaukee County, Dane County, or all other counties combined in an area called Out-State. The April 2005 election was an Out-State year in which Attorney Steven Levine of Madison self-nominated to run against the two nominated candidates from outside Madison and Milwaukee. Candidate Levine prevailed, winning 40 percent of the vote while the two Out-State candidates split the remaining 60 percent of the vote, with neither of them receiving more than Levine's 40 percent. Candidate Levine's election was viewed by many in the Out-State district as a disenfranchisement and a great deal of concern was raised about the viability of future Out-State candidates if they would have to face self-nominated candidates from Milwaukee or Madison.
The Election Bylaws Committee appointed by President Guerin at the direction of the Board of Governors addressed the issue of how to amend the Supreme Court Rules and the State Bar bylaws to ensure that Out-State candidates would have a fair chance to serve as presidents of the State Bar of Wisconsin in the future. The Committee also took into consideration the proposal to include Waukesha County in the rotation in a manner more structured than previously adopted by the Board of Governors. In addition to the committee's recommendations regarding rotation that were incorporated into the Board of Governors' amendments to Article II of the bylaws, the committee recommended the change that is the subject of this petition, to amend SCR 10.04 to limit the President and the Chairperson to one term each.
Based on the foregoing, the State Bar of Wisconsin requests that the Supreme Court amend SCR 10.04 as reflected in Attachment #1 to this petition.
Respectfully submitted,
Atty. Thomas J. Basting Sr., President, State Bar of Wisconsin
Attachment #1: SCR Chapter 10: Regulations of the State Bar SCR 10.04 Officers. (1) Titles; Nomination and Election. The officers of the state bar include a president, a president elect, an immediate past-president, a chairperson of the board of governors, a secretary and a treasurer, who shall be nominated and elected in the manner provided by the bylaws. Only active members of the state bar residing and practicing law in Wisconsin are eligible to serve as officers of the association. The term of office of the president, president elect, immediate past-president and chairperson of the board of governors is one year. The term of the secretary and the treasurer is 2 years, with the secretary elected in even numbered years and the treasurer elected in odd numbered years. The term of each officer runs until the qualification of a successor.
(2) Duties of officers. (a) President. The president is the chief executive officer of the association. He or she shall be a member at large of the board of governors and shall preside at all meetings and assemblies of the association and the executive committee. He or she shall make the appointments to and designate the chairperson of all standing committees, create and appoint special committees, and be a member, ex officio, of every committee.
(b) President elect and past president. The president elect and immediate past-president shall each be a member at large of the board of governors and the executive committee and shall perform all other duties assigned to them by the president or board of governors or under these rules or the bylaws. At the expiration of the one year term of office of the president, the president elect shall succeed to the office of president and the president shall succeed to the office of immediate past-president.
(c) Chairperson, board of governors. The chairperson of the board of governors shall be elected from the board membership by its members and shall be a member at large of the board of governors after his or her election. The chairperson shall be a member of the executive committee ex officio and shall preside at all meetings of the board of governors. The chairperson shall perform the duties of the president in the absence or disability of the president or in the event of a vacancy in the office of president.
(d) Secretary. The secretary shall be a member at large of the board of governors. The secretary shall confer with and generally supervise the executive director and the administrative staff of the state bar as to the keeping of proper minutes and records, the maintenance of correct membership files and mailing lists and the general operation of the headquarters office and he or she shall make recommendations thereon to the board of governors as required.
(e) Treasurer. The treasurer shall be a member at large of the board of governors. The treasurer shall confer with and generally supervise the executive director and administrative staff of the state bar as to the methods and procedures used in the receipt, collection and safekeeping of all funds of the state bar and the procedures for disbursement and audit of the funds. The treasurer shall assist the executive committee in preparing the annual budget and in presenting it to the board of governors and shall make recommendations to the board of governors as to the association's financial affairs, as required.
(3) Term of Office. The office of President and Chairperson of the Board of Governors shall be for one term only. The offices of Secretary and Treasurer may be held for more than one term.
(3) (4) Compensation. The officers of the association shall receive no
compensation for their services, but shall receive reimbursement of their expenses as authorized and directed by the board of governors.
Attachment #2: State Bar By-Laws
Article II Officers
Section 1. Nominations. The President Elect, the Secretary and the Treasurer of the State Bar shall be elected from a list of candidates nominated in the manners herein prescribed.
(a). The President of the Association with approval of the Board of Governors shall appoint A a committee of five members to nominate candidates for said offices to be voted on at the next annual election. shall be appointed by the President of the Association with the approval of the Board of Governors The nomination committee shall be approved at the first regularly scheduled Board meeting following the annual convention. Such report The committee shall issue a report naming name one two or more candidates nominated by the committee nominees for the Office of President Elect, two or more candidates nominated nominees for the Office of Secretary and two or more candidates nominated nominees for the Office of Treasurer. Before making its report, the committee shall solicit from the membership the names of members interested in seeking nomination to any office scheduled for election. The committee shall make its report no later than December 15 in each year.
(b). Other persons may be nominated for any of said offices by petition . signed in the case of each Each nominee must provide a petition signed candidate by not less than one hundred active members of the Association . , and The petition must be filed in the Office of the Executive Director on or before the first business day of February of the year of the election . , provided that before the filing of such petition Before such a petition may be filed, the nominee must consent in a written statement shall be endorsed thereon by the nominee to the effect that the member consents to nomination for the office designated in the petition.
Section 2. Voting and Canvass of Ballots. The provisions of Sections 4 to 8 inclusive of Article III of these By Laws relating to the election of members of the Board of Governors shall be applicable also to the election of officers.
Section 3. Election of Chairperson of the Board of Governors. The Board shall elect a A Chairperson of the Board of Governors shall be elected by the Board from its members at its last regular meeting each fiscal year. The President shall appoint a nominating committee from the governors at the second to last regular Board meeting of the fiscal year. The committee shall to nominate one or more candidates for this office at the second to last regular Board meeting of the fiscal year . Those eligible for nomination and election to this office shall be are : all who are then members of the current Board members, including members whose second terms expire that June, except for the President and President Elect. While serving in that office as Chairperson of the Board , the Chairperson of the Board shall be a governor at large and no longer a district governor.
Section 4. Commencement of Term of Office. The terms of all out going officers of the Association and the Chairperson of the Board of Governors shall end, and the term of their successor shall commence, on the first day of July.
Section 5 Regional Diversity of Officers. In order to encourage participation by lawyers throughout the State in the leadership of the State Bar, any year's nominees for the office of President Elect shall be from only one of four areas within the State of Wisconsin. The area designated for a given year shall be on the rotation specified herein. The four geographic areas are (a) District 2 - the Milwaukee area, (b) District 9 - the Madison area, (c) District 6 - the Waukesha area, and (d) all other State Bar Districts - designated as the Out-State area. A nominee's area is determined by where he or she primarily practices law. The area from which a candidate(s) shall be eligible to run in the election for President Elect shall rotate each year in the following order: District 2, District 9, and then Out-State Districts, with District 6 being added following the Out-State area in every third rotation, with such addition of District 6 being made for the April 2009 election. If no candidates are available for nomination from the designated area in a given year, candidates from the area for the succeeding year shall be solicited and the rotation moved up to reflect the area from which the candidates are nominated. This rotation throughout the State shall apply to candidates chosen by the nominating committee and those petitioning for nomination. The State Bar shall maintain a schedule of this rotation and the District eligible for each annual election for president of the State Bar.
Top of page
Wisconsin Lawyer
