|
 Lawyer
Regulation System Overview
The Year in Review
Implementation of the New Lawyer Regulation System.
Fiscal 2001 saw the most dramatic change in lawyer regulation in Wisconsin
in more than 20 years. In September 2000, the supreme court completed
its review of lawyer regulation in Wisconsin by establishing a new system
through complete revision of Chapters 21 and 22 of the Supreme Court Rules,
which became effective on Oct. 1, 2000.
The Preliminary Review Committee was organized on Nov. 3, 2000; it elected
attorneys James Wickhem, Janesville, chair, and James D. Friedman, Milwaukee,
vice chair. The committee has considered whether cause to proceed existed
in 11 matters, and has reviewed the director's dismissals in 51 matters
based upon grievant requests. The committee will continue to meet quarterly.
The Board of Administrative Oversight was organized on Dec. 15, 2000;
it elected attorneys William H. Levit Jr., Milwaukee, chair and Ann Ustad
Smith, Madison, vice chair. Significant board actions during the year
included approval of the lawyer regulation system budget for Fiscal 2002;
appointment of a district committee study subcommittee that developed
a three-year plan for studying the district committees; appointment of
subcommittees on priorities and rules review; and development of a program
for monitoring the fairness, productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency
of the regulation system. In addition, the board studied proposals for
amendments to the Supreme Court Rules relating to the regulation system,
and considered means to assess perceptions of the bar and the public concerning
the integrity of the lawyer regulation system. The board meets quarterly.
The district committees continued intact from the prior regulation system;
nevertheless, the implementation affected them. The chairs met to consider
the changes in district committee responsibilities resulting from the
new system and to identify means to improve the cooperative investigative
efforts of the committees and the OLR staff. In addition, the training
of new district committee members has been redesigned to account for new
procedures, to focus more on investigative tasks, and to use an interactive
training approach. The OLR plans to make the training more accessible
than in the past by conducting sessions at various times and locations
throughout the year.
The special panels, a new feature in the new regulation system, were
organized in January and May, and are processing matters involving allegations
against attorneys who serve with the regular components of the regulation
system. In Fiscal 2001, 22 matters were referred to the Special Investigative
Panel. As of the end of the fiscal year, none of these matters were yet
concluded.
In addition to creating a new structure, the court established two important
new programs within the OLR. The first, the alternatives to discipline
program, became effective on Oct. 1, 2000. By authorizing this program,
the court has provided an effective way to improve an attorney's ability
to practice in accordance with high professional standards. Frequently,
this is a more effective measure than professional discipline. The court
has authorized diversion to an alternative program in situations where
the program will likely benefit the attorney and the attorney will not
likely harm the public. Alternative programs may include mediation, fee
arbitration, law office management assistance, evaluation and treatment
for alcohol and other substance abuse, psychological evaluation and treatment,
medical evaluation and treatment, monitoring of practice or trust account
procedures, continuing legal education, ethics school, and the multistate
professional responsibility examination. During the fiscal year, 27 attorneys
were diverted to alternative programs.
The second new program, Central Intake, became effective on Jan. 1,
2001. Central Intake provides for the receipt of inquiries and grievances
concerning attorney conduct, and for the preliminary evaluation of grievances
prior to any formal investigation. Inquiries and grievances now are received
by telephone. Previously, grievances were required to be in writing. After
the preliminary evaluation, the Central Intake staff may forward the matter
to another appropriate agency, attempt to reconcile the matter if it is
a minor dispute, close the matter if it does not present sufficient information
to support an ethical allegation, or refer the matter for investigation
or diversion to an alternative to discipline.
From January through June, Central Intake received about 1,200 inquiries
and grievances. This represents a significant increase in matters received
and indicates that the lawyer regulation system is now more accessible.
Moreover, the ability to communicate by telephone with grievants and respondents
provides more personal contact and increases the level of satisfaction
with the process.
Central Intake also provides an efficient means to dispose of matters.
From January through June, Central Intake disposed of about 1,000 matters.
Of these, about 150 were forwarded for formal investigation, four were
forwarded to another agency, three were diverted to an alternative to
discipline, and 57 minor disputes were resolved. The other matters were
closed because the grievance did not involve an ethical violation or because
there was insufficient evidence of a violation. The preliminary evaluation
process now allows the staff to determine much more efficiently whether
a matter should be formally investigated, closed, or resolved another
way.
Overdraft
Notification Program 
|
