Referees in the Lawyer Regulation System
In the matter of the Petition to Amend Rules Relating to Referees in the Lawyer Regulation System.
Order 13-04
On May 22, 2013, Kevin Klein, State Bar President, Rod Rogahn, Board of Administrative Oversight Chairperson and Keith Sellen, Office of Lawyer Regulation Director, jointly filed a petition requesting the court amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 21.08(1) relating to referees in the lawyer regulation system.
IT IS ORDERED that a public hearing on the petition shall be held in the Supreme Court Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wisconsin, on Friday, Oct. 25, 2013, 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 1st day of August, 2013.
By the court:
Diane M. Fremgen, Clerk of Supreme Court
Petition
The Board of Administrative Oversight, State Bar of Wisconsin, and Office of Lawyer Regulation hereby petition the Supreme Court of Wisconsin for an order amending Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 21.08(1).
Petitioners submit Appendix A (the text of proposed amendments), Supporting Memorandum, and Cover Sheet in support of this request.
Respectfully submitted:
Rod W. Rogahn, Chairperson, Board of Administrative Oversight
Kevin G. Klein, President, State Bar of Wisconsin
Keith L. Sellen, Director, Office of Lawyer Regulation
APPENDIX A
SCR 21.08 Referees.
(1) Members of a permanent and auxiliary panel of attorneys and reserve judges appointed by the supreme court shall serve as referees to conduct hearings on complaints of attorney misconduct, petitions alleging attorney medical incapacity, and petitions for license reinstatement, to make findings, conclusions and recommendations and submit them to the supreme court for review and appropriate action, and to review consensual discipline under SCR 22.09, and to review determinations of the preliminary review panels under SCR 22.07(4) that the director has failed to establish cause to proceed in a matter. An attorney may be appointed as a referee only when the attorney has substantial judicial or litigation experience. The supreme court shall appoint no more than four to the permanent panel of referees, with whom the supreme court shall enter contractual arrangements sufficient to secure their availability for regular assignment. The supreme court shall assign matters to auxiliary referees only when no members of the permanent panel are available.
Procedure to Enforce Disciplinary Orders
In the Matter of the Petition to Create a Procedure for Enforcement of Supreme Court Disciplinary Orders
Order 13-05
On May 29, 2013, Kevin Klein, State Bar President, Rod Rogahn, Board of Administrative Oversight Chairperson and Keith Sellen, Office of Lawyer Regulation Director, jointly filed a petition requesting the court create Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.18m to provide a procedure for enforcement of Supreme Court disciplinary orders.
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 Friday, Oct. 25, 2013, 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 1st day of August, 2013.
By the court:
Diane M. Fremgen, Clerk of Supreme Court
Petition
The Board of Administrative Oversight, State Bar of Wisconsin, and Office of Lawyer Regulation hereby petition the Supreme Court of Wisconsin for an order creating Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.18m to provide a procedure for enforcement of Supreme Court Disciplinary orders.
Petitioners submit Appendix A (the text of proposed rule), Supporting Memorandum, and Cover Sheet in support of this request.
Respectfully submitted:
Rod W. Rogahn, Chairperson, Board of Administrative Oversight
Kevin G. Klein, President, State Bar of Wisconsin
Keith L. Sellen, Director, Office of Lawyer Regulation
Appendix A
(Creation of Supreme Court Rule 22.18m)
SCR 22.18m Enforcement of disciplinary orders.
(1) The director, or a special investigator acting under SCR 22.25, may seek enforcement of a disciplinary order of the supreme court by filing a motion for contempt or enforcement. The motion shall identify the disciplinary order of the supreme court, describe the reasons for seeking enforcement, and state the relief requested.
(2) Upon receipt of the motion filed under sub. (1), the supreme court shall order the attorney to show cause why the relief requested in the motion should not be granted. The attorney shall file with the supreme court a written response to the order and serve a copy of the response on the director, or special investigator, within the time set forth in the order. The director, or special investigator, may file a memorandum in reply to the response of the attorney.
(3) The supreme court may decide the motion upon the submissions of the parties, or may refer the matter to a referee, who shall conduct a hearing and file a report with the supreme court containing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation for disposition of the motion. Unless otherwise directed by the supreme court, the referee shall follow the procedures in SCR 22.15 and SCR 22.16.
(4) Upon the submissions of the parties, or upon receipt of the report of the referee, the supreme court shall decide the motion, and may either deny or dismiss the motion, or issue such orders as are necessary to enforce the disciplinary order, including the imposition of sanctions identified in SCR 21.16(1m). The supreme court may assess the costs of the enforcement proceeding against the attorney.
(5) Nothing in this rule shall limit the authority of the director, or a special investigator, to initiate an investigation or proceeding for misconduct or medical incapacity under these rules; or shall limit the constitutional, statutory, or inherent authority of the supreme court.
