Wis. Supreme Court considering another OLR review

Listen to this article

Less than two years after its last review, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is considering another evaluation of how the state disciplines lawyers.

At an open rules conference before the court Friday, several justices said they would like to review the procedures and operations of the Office of Lawyer Regulation, which is tasked with determining whether there is enough evidence to file a formal complaint against a lawyer.

Several justices expressed concern about the length of time it takes to investigate and resolve a case. OLR Director Keith Sellen, who testified before the court Friday, has said it takes, on average, about 15 months to fully investigate a case.

Justice David Prosser, in particular, said he found it alarming that the preliminary review committee, which screens OLR complaints and determines whether there is enough evidence to carry out a full-blown investigation, approves about 98 percent of the cases brought forth.

“When it’s 98 percent, that’s an eye-opening statistic to me,” Prosser said, adding that either the investigators at the OLR are “that good” or that “the protections of the bar are not fully realized.”

No action was taken during Friday’s meeting. Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson pointed out that the talks were just that, and Justice Michael Gableman said the court should exchange ideas before it proceeds with a full-blown review. Abrahamson added that the court itself has not performed a lengthy review of the system in more than a decade.

But if the court does decide to review the OLR, it would be the second such examination in recent years. A group created by the state Supreme Court-appointed Board of Administrative Oversight examined the OLR in 2011. It released a report in February 2012 that found few problems with the system but included a number of recommendations to make the disciplinary process more fair and expeditious.

Consideration of a full review arose while discussing a proposal, suggested by the 2011 study group, to greatly reduce the number of referees who handle attorney discipline cases.

There are 32 referees who handle cases brought by the OLR. Sellen in May introduced a proposal to reduce that number, with the idea that a shallower, dedicated pool of referees could lead to more uniform and informed decisions on a timelier basis. The proposal was supported by the State Bar and Board of Administrative Oversight.

The justices unanimously denied the measure Friday. Gableman said he was unconvinced that the referees were doing “low quality work” and that the cost-savings Sellen said would be a benefit were not clear.

[polldaddy poll=”7517725″]

Justice Pat Roggensack also expressed concern, during a public hearing earlier in the day, that the proposal would require the court to provide benefits to referees if their workload increased.

In denying the proposal, the justices talked about instead offering more education for referees, as well as updating the book referees use as a reference.

But it was clear from the beginning of Friday’s conference that the justices were interested in pinpointing problems at the OLR.

Gableman, in particular, focused on a letter submitted by Hartford attorney James Mohr Jr., a former referee who wrote that lengthy case delays usually were because of the OLR and its long investigation process.

Sellen said he did not agree with Mohr’s assertions and that he believed the former referee’s comments stemmed from a “disagreement we had in a certain case.”

Gableman said it’s possible that the complaints were “symptomatic of something bigger,” however.

“I think there’s a bigger picture … that I’m trying to draw out for you,” Gableman said.

Several proposals were put in front of the state Supreme Court this year to tweak how attorney-discipline cases are handled.

The justices also heard arguments Friday about a proposal that would give them a procedure to enforce sanctions brought against an attorneys disciplined through OLR proceedings. The justices voted 5-2 to have Sellen, state Supreme Court commissioners and at least one justice discuss the rule further before it comes up for another vote.

Another proposal, introduced in August, would give the court a mechanism to notify the public about certain attorneys who are being investigated. That proposal was not discussed Friday.

— Follow Eric on Twitter