Review of OLR finds several areas for improvement

Listen to this article

Consultants tapped to examine the Office of Lawyer Regulation’s investigatory and disciplinary process recommend that the office reorganize its staff and change the way it investigates cases in order to move them through the system more quickly.

But according to a memo attributed to OLR Director Keith Sellen, some of the changes, at least as proposed, would not work and certain parts of the system should stay as is.

The report was compiled by John Gleason, counsel for Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, and Jerome Larkin, administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. It was sent to Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and the Board of Administrative Oversight on Wednesday.

According to the report, which is posted on the OLR’s website, the current docket of pending cases is “unsustainable, particularly in the trust account, investigation, and litigation division.” It recommends reorganization, such as merging the investigation and litigation divisions.

It also says the director and staff members should express more discretion in cases, even if they are concerned that they have to cover all their bases in case a complaint’s dismissal is challenged.

But according to Sellen’s memo, certain recommendations may be difficult to implement. For example, one recommendation was to  require that the Preliminary Review Committee hear cases as a whole before approving them for litigation, and not every individual charge an attorney faces. But Sellen wrote that the current process “is a better protection against the filing of unwarranted charges, and involves little cost or delay.”

Other recommendations, such as encouraging consensual discipline, are good goals, Sellen wrote.

Gleason and Larkin went to Madison in July and also interviewed employees on other days. The report was sent Sept. 8. According to the memo, the OLR paid less than $1,300 to feed and lodge Gleason and Larkin, and their consulting services were done for free.

The consultants were brought in after several months of concerned comments from Wisconsin Supreme Court justices about the OLR and its caseload.

On June 6, when four OLR decisions were issued, Abrahamson and Justice David Prosser filed separate opinions, stating they felt the OLR needed a comprehensive review like the one done in 1999 for the OLR’s predecessor, the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility. And Prosser, Abrahamson and Justice Michael Gableman have highlighted problems they see with the OLR’s cases.

Sellen’s memo echoed the court’s concerns as well.

“It was an appropriate time for a consultation,” Sellen wrote. “It has been 14 years since the current lawyer regulation system was established; changes have occurred in lawyer regulation throughout the country; and the Supreme Court has expressed concerns about the system in recent disciplinary decisions.” Follow @eheisigWLJ