State Bar discusses $50 fee

Listen to this article

An issue of considerable cloudiness potentially gained some level of clarity after discussion at the State Bar of Wis-consin Board of Governors meeting on Friday in Madison.

A task force, appointed in 2005 to in-vestigate possible revisions to the Su-preme Court Rule authorizing a $50 assessment for legal services, presented recommendations to the State Bar board. Specifically, the proposed modifications to SCR 13.045 would allow attorneys the option of contributing to law-related civil legal services other than the Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation (WisTAF).

Chair of the task force, Gov. James C. Boll Jr., submitted six possible revisions to the rule. While the majority met minimal resistance, a few sparked debate.

“The proposed modifications to the charging methods were based on a cross-section of members, and while these changes are recommended by the task force, they are not necessarily endorsed,” stated Boll.

One point of contention in the revisions was which entity other than the WisTAF board would provide an alternative for dissemination of funds generated for legal services. Two possible organizations were suggested, the Wisconsin Law Found-ation and the State Bar.

State Bar Executive Director George Brown, who also serves as secretary for the WLF, read a statement in which the WLF “declined” the responsibility of fund dissemination, leaving the State Bar as the other option.

Should the burden fall on the bar, several wondered what impact that might have financially. Boll admitted that the task force had not developed specific language on financial ramifications for the State Bar.

“If there are administrative costs associated with adopting any one of these exceptions to levying the tax, I would assume those administrative costs would be borne by the State Bar, not charged back against the monies that are raised,” said Gov. Gwendolyn G. Connolly. “I know the task force said they didn’t really determine that yet, but I can’t believe those exceptions to levying that tax are going to be accepted if it’s understood that any administrative costs will also reduce those monies collected. It seems counterintuitive to me.”

Connolly, who opposed the revisions, added that to compensate, the bar would need to cut spending or raise dues.

Gov. John P. Macy also questioned whether attorneys who viewed the revisions as a “tax” would be willing to work with the Supreme Court on clarifications.

Task force member Andrew Chevrez added that although administrative cost estimates were unknown, he expected they would be “competitive to or even less” than those of WisTAF.

A second contested revision was whether non-resident members of the State Bar who pay similar assessments in their native states should be allowed a credit.

Board members noted that several other states do not offer such an accommodation and in some cases it’s a “one-way street” according to Gov. Kenneth A. Knudson.

Bar President Steven A. Levine, a proponent of the revisions, said that it shouldn’t be an issue of resident versus non-resident and the burden to pay twice or even more in some cases should not be asked.

“If an attorney from Illinois or Minnesota is exempt in our state, the same should hold true of Wisconsin lawyers there,” said Gov. Daniel L. Shneidman who supported a comity clause.

With discussion appearing to be largely progressive, Boll hoped the item would presented for action during the board’s next meeting on March 9, 2007.