High court to give final blessing on mandatory e-filing

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is poised to give the official green light for mandatory e-filing to begin rolling out this summer.

The justices had given the plan preliminary approval Feb. 23, provided that the rule be drafted to make various changes requested by civil legal-aid organizations. The justices had also asked for protections meant to ensure no party would be losing his or her substantive rights.

Legal Action of Wisconsin and other groups had asked that the justices include language stating that people representing indigent clients or indigent pro se filers could apply for a fee waiver, just as they can now. The older version of the rule left that to the discretion of the Director of State Courts.

Other groups also asked that the rule make clear that there would be a grace period for parties if a court rejects their fee waiver and courts won’t immediately reject documents without giving parties a chance to make arrangements for payment.

The court on Thursday will discuss the final draft of the plan incorporating those changes. The draft was released Feb. 10.

The justices will then spend the rest of the day discussing a rule that lets circuit courts transfer cases to tribal courts. The rule is up for review and the justices are considering a petition that would have the rule repealed.

The rule, 801.54, was passed six years ago and has since been modified to let tribes hear child support cases sent to them from state courts. The idea behind the rule was to let tribes handle matters involving their own members.

The high court held a public meeting on the rule in November. More than a dozen people testified both for and against the rule. Those in favor of the rule have said it works well because it sets out for circuit court judges a neutral procedure for transferring the cases to tribal court and has provided efficiency and consistency in transferring child support cases.

However, the petitioners calling for the repeal of the rule have argued that it is too broad and results in too much deference to tribal courts, particularly the Oneida Nation. Follow @erikastrebel