Board takes action on WisTAF

Listen to this article

"I think members should be able to decide where their money goes, but people have wondered whether that will lessen the pool of money for WisTAF." Steven A. Levine

Proposed revisions to the Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation (WisTAF) assessment rules took another step toward inclusion into a petition to the Supreme Court.

Four of six proposed changes to aspects of Supreme Court Rule 13.045 were voted down by the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors (BOG) at the March 9 meeting. The revisions regarding alternatives and modifications to the mandatory $50 annual WisTAF assessment were initially discussed at the December 2006 meeting.

Although opposition was strong for the majority of the proposed changes, two regarding donation of funds to a group other than WisTAF and inclusion of judges in the $50 assessment were supported by the board.

“We’re getting down to those precious few, just two little items,” said Past-President D. Michael Guerin, who appointed the task force to research changes to in May 2006.

Two Points Supported

After significant discussion and a re-vote, the BOG supported a proposal, which will allow attorneys in Wisconsin to donate money to a specific law-related civil legal service entity other than WisTAF.

The proposed change initially lacked the necessary 60 percent approval as several members questioned how the State Bar would enforce the alternative donations and which legal organizations would qualify.

President-elect Thomas J. Basting Sr. who presented the recommendations to the board in the absence of task force Chairman James C. Boll, believed that the process would largely rely on the honor system.
“There may be random checks, but if a lawyer checks a box, I think it would be believed that it’s an honest response,” said Basting, who voted in opposition of the proposal. “I don’t think anybody wants to run the risk of getting caught lying.”

Executive Director George C. Brown noted that the State Bar does not have the financial resources to consistently monitor outside donations.

Language was also eliminated in the proposal which cited a specific organization — The Wisconsin Equal Justice Fund.

Board members said mentioning the organization created confusion as to whether that was the only alternative legal services outlet that could be donated to other than WisTAF.

A motion to reconsider led to a re-vote and 29 of the 40 board members, including President Steven A. Levine, supported the proposal.

“I think members should be able to decide where their money goes, but people have wondered whether that will lessen the pool of money for WisTAF,” said Levine. “I’ve always thought that you get a better feeling knowing exactly where your money is donated.”

Also passing with significantly less resistance was the proposal to include judges in the WisTAF assessment, a measure which Levine expects will be welcomed by the Supreme Court.

“I think the court will be very receptive of that proposal, but it might be close on the other one,” said Levine. “On one hand, the court may support the fact that $50 is still being donated to support civil legal services for the poor, but on the other hand, the court may feel the proposal dilutes where the money is going, and support a universal outlet.”

Four Points Opposed

A quartet of other proposals failed to receive the needed 60 percent approval, including a provision which would have allowed another entity other than WisTAF to control and disseminate donated funds.

Members referred to the proposal as a “potential nightmare” and Basting joked that it had “a snowball’s chance” for approval because of its complicated nature combined with reluctance by any other organization to assume accounting responsibilities.

Opposition was so strong that no motion to vote was even presented and Brown reiterated that the State Bar did not want to assume the role of accountant in this capacity because of likely additional costs to members.

Proposals regarding credit for non-resident members of the State Bar and fee modification depending on years of service were also defeated.

One revision would have allowed non-resident lawyers who paid similar fees in their home state to be exempt in Wisconsin.

Brown suggested that resident lawyers could be at a disadvantage under the non-resident credit proposal if other states do not have similar provisions.

Levine, who supported the proposal, believed the revision was meant to benefit out-of-state members of the bar.

“I think this is an opportunity for Wis-consin to serve as an example and it would b
e up to other states to do the same,” said Levine.

Another revision, which allowed for bar members with less than three years of membership to pay half the $50 annual assessment, was also opposed because of potential non-resident attorney advantages.

“While I know this proposal was made with young lawyers in mind, my concern is that an attorney who practiced 30 years somewhere else could become a member in Wisconsin and pay reduced fees for three years,” said Basting.

The final opposed revision would have allowed bar members to substitute pro bono work in place of the monetary assessment.

Again, questions arose on how monitoring would be conducted with the answer being additional cost and personnel needed from the bar.

Several members also wondered what level of pro bono work would constitute exemption from the $50 fee and whether it should be a case of either/or.

“Personally, I don’t think the fee should be in lieu of these pro bono services we provide,” said Gov. Kevin J. Palmersheim. “I think we all have a professional responsibility to do that kind of work.”

With only two approved revisions, Past President Guerin hoped the petition would be drafted soon, but admitted that specifics of the proposals still needed to be addressed.

“We haven’t done the mechanics yet, but there are only be two positions the organized bar would take before the Supreme Court and ask it to please modify the rule in these two respects,” said Past President Guerin.