Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

High court to review private bar rate increase, bar dues proposal

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//June 20, 2017//

High court to review private bar rate increase, bar dues proposal

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//June 20, 2017//

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will be deciding whether to take up a slew of proposed rule changes in its next term.

The justices will meet in open conference at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday at the Supreme Court Hearing Room in the state Capitol.

The justices will be voting on whether to take up two controversial petitions, one that involves changes to the rules relating to mandatory State Bar dues. Madison attorney Steve Levine, a frequent critic of the bar, is proposing restricting the types of lobbying activities that the state bar can pay for using the yearly dues attorneys in the state must pay. He is also proposing that the court require the bar to prepare one budget for proposed expenditures of mandatory bar dues and a separate one for voluntary bar dues. Levine filed the petition in April.

The justices will also be discussing a petition involving increasing the compensation private attorneys receive for representing indigent criminal defendants. The current rate is $40 per hour, which is the lowest in the nation and hasn’t been raised in 25 years. A group of lawyers is proposing increasing the rate to $100 per hour. The petition was filed in May.

The justices will also discuss two petitions filed by the Judicial Council, an independent body charged with recommending to the Supreme Court and state Legislature ways to improve the state’s rules of procedure.

The council filed both petitions in May. One involves changing parts of Wis. Stat. 809.19, which allows co-appellants to file either separate or joint briefs. The rules fall short, according to the council, because they do not lay out how parties must respond to each other’s briefs, set length limits or state how many copies should be submitted.

The council’s proposal also recommends changes for briefs filed in cases involving guardians ad litem.

The Judicial Council’s petition results from years of studying how the rules might be improved. The need for an overhaul was first pointed out in a state Court of Appeals decision handed down in 2012.

The council is also proposing changes to the appellate record rules.

The proposed changes involved the procedures used to supplement the record on appeal, as well as those concerning sealed documents, transcripts of certain recordings and pre-sentence investigation reports.

The proposal calls for allowing appellate courts to provide access to pre-sentence investigation reports that are in the record and requiring parties to submit transcripts of deposition recordings 10 days before a proceeding.

The council’s appellate-procedure committee has been studying the matter since 2014.

Should the court decide to take up any of these petitions at Wednesday’s meeting, the next step will be for it to hold a public hearing and solicit written comments from the public. The hearings will likely be scheduled in the fall, which is the beginning of the court’s next term.

The justices may also be deciding whether to give its approval to a tweak to municipal judges’ education requirements. The current rules require newly elected municipal judges must attend the earliest orientation institute following their election and earn at least four education credits at an orientation, review or graduate institute in each 365-day period after their term begins unless they hold office for less than five months during a calendar year.

The changes proposed by the Office of Judicial Education would add that the rule applies to appointed municipal judges, require those judges to start judicial education in their first year in offices and to make the judicial education calendar for municipal judges consistent with the calendar year.

The Office of Judicial Education contends the changes will clear up confusion for municipal judges and ensure that they start their judicial education as soon as possible.

The changes are minor ones, so the court could choose to forgo a public hearing and vote on the matter Wednesday.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests