POSTED: Monday, March 8th, 2010 at 1:00 am

BY: dmc-admin

Lawyers who lose their licenses should still have the ability to apply for reinstatement after five years.

That was the position taken by the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Board of Governors in opposing a petition initiated by the Board of Administrative Oversight to establish a procedure for permanent revocation of an attorney’s license to practice.

The proposal included criteria to consider in determining whether a lifetime revocation was appropriate, including repeated and intentional conversion of client funds, felony convictions and a pattern of misconduct which displayed “flagrant disregard” for the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Several board members were critical of such a process, given the relatively small number of lawyers who are suspended for the maximum of five years.

Over the last 30 years, the Office of Lawyer Regulation has reported 227 five-year suspensions.

Currently, an attorney can petition the Supreme Court for reinstatement after five years. Of those 227, 32 have applied for reinstatement and only 17 have had those applications granted.

Only two attorneys were ultimately cited again by the OLR.

“The fact that only two people reoffended in last 30 years speaks volumes,” said Gov. Nathaniel Cade, Jr., who voted in opposition of the petition at the Feb. 24 meeting.

Gov. Frank D. Remington echoed those sentiments and said he favors rehabilitation over retribution when it comes to attorney punishment.

As a prosecutor for the Department of Justice, Remington said that he understands the value of deterrence, but believes the current disciplinary sanctions do enough in that regard.

The application for reinstatement is extensive, and if properly applied, “it would lead one to assume that the public would not be at risk” if a lawyer returned to practice, said Remington.

Even attorneys who favor permanent revocation said the numbers don’t justify giving the Supreme Court the option of a lifetime ban.

Gov. Jeffrey R. Zirgibel likes the idea of holding lawyers to a higher standard when it comes to misconduct. But he said the low OLR numbers are “shocking” and do not support additional authority for the Supreme Court.

Zirgibel also questioned whether the risk of greater punishment might make it harder to negotiate disciplinary sanctions and make it more expensive for attorneys to defend themselves.

“I know two or three lawyers who had things brought to their attention and agreed to a lesser punishment,” he said. “You can spend $20,000 pretty quickly [if you had to] defend yourself with a good lawyer.”

But attorney Terry W. Rose, Chair of the Board of Administrative Oversight, doubted whether that would be a problem.

He said the petition was simply meant to deal with a handful of lawyers who repeatedly abuse or disregard their professional responsibilities.

“Might it scare some attorneys? I think so,” Rose said. “But this is regulatory and I don’t think attorneys at OLR are going to be able to do that type of plea bargaining.”

Despite the decision by the Board of Governors, Rose expects the petition will still be filed with the Supreme Court.

“My feeling is that the Board of Administrative Oversight will continue pursuing this and let the issue be … decided by the court,” he said.

Other news from the BOG

• The board approved the location for the State Bar’s 2011 Annual Convention. Next year’s event will be held at the Kalahari Resort in Wisconsin Dells on June 8-11. The board deferred to a later date a discussion on proposed changes to future conventions, based on an ongoing nationwide decline in attendance at annual bar events. During the last seven years, attendance has dipped 36 percent at the State Bar’s annual convention.

  This year’s convention will be held May 5-7 at Monona Terrace in Madison.

• Board members discussed the Strategic Planning Committee’s report on the mandatory-voluntary bar issue and a proposed resolution which would petition the Supreme Court to evaluate the status of an integrated bar. The board unanimously accepted the report and placed it on file. A spokesperson for the bar said the board could take action on the issue at its May meeting.
• The board also supported a request from the Taxation Section to file an amicus brief in Metropolitan Associates LP v. City of Milwaukee, 2009AP000524, currently pending before the Supreme Court. The case considers whether a Wisconsin statute violates the equal protection clause in the state constitution by allowing a municipality to adopt an ordinance that effectively eliminates a non-manufacturing taxpayer’s option to seek a de novo judicial review of property tax assessments, so long as the municipality provides the taxpayer with a right to defer the taxpayer’s scheduled board of review hearing by 60 days.

Powered by Bookmarkify™