Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Plan gives lawyers flexibility

By: dmc-admin//November 12, 2007//

Plan gives lawyers flexibility

By: dmc-admin//November 12, 2007//

Listen to this article

The state Supreme Court has tentatively approved a plan that would give lawyers some flexibility in deciding how to allocate the annual $50 assessment to support civil legal services to the poor.

Responding to a request from the State Bar, the Supreme Court took up a proposal that would have let attorneys donate the assessment to a non-profit civil legal service agency of their choosing other than WisTAF, then report that contribution on their annual dues statement. In the end, the justices opposed such an open-ended proposal, but embraced an alternate plan giving lawyers the ability to choose from a list of eligible agencies determined by the Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation.

During an administrative meeting Nov. 7, Chief Justice Shirley S. Abraham-son said she had no problem with the current system, approved in 2005, which automatically allocates the assessment to WisTAF. However, she was willing to consider a change.

“To the extent that we can provide some choice without destroying this system, I would vote for it,” Abrahamson said.

Justice Patience Drake Roggensack offered a motion based on a revised recommendation presented by State Bar Presi-dent Thomas Basting Sr. during a public hearing earlier that day. Recognizing opposition to the State Bar’s initial proposal, Basting suggested that the annual dues statement could include a checklist of WisTAF-approved agencies for lawyers to choose from.

Members of several legal service agencies raised concerns about compliance and distribution of funds under the proposal. Those opposed to the plan raised the specter of budgeting problems and the potential for inequitable distribution of funds favoring agencies in areas with larger concentrations of lawyers.

The justices also raised concerns about how the State Bar would monitor compliance under the original proposal, which relied on self reporting of donations. The majority, including Roggensack, favored a system that offered some choices, but included a specific list of available agencies.

Under the approved plan, the $50 would still come in through dues statements and go directly to WisTAF, but it could be earmarked for specific groups. Lawyers would have to designate their entire assessment to one group rather than dividing the $50 among different agencies. They would also retain the ability to simply designate the money to WisTAF to allocate as it does now.

Six justices agreed to modify the rules to allow some flexibility; only Justice David T. Prosser Jr. voted to keep the current system in place. Prosser wanted to keep the system unchanged and criticized the State Bar proposal as not being well thought out. He also questioned how the line would be drawn to include one agency over another on the final check list. The other justices expressed confidence in WisTAF’s ability to identify eligible agencies.

After the administrative conference, Basting said the final plan would satisfy most of what the State Bar was seeking. As with any compromise, he acknowledged, not everyone would get exactly what they wanted.

During a public hearing earlier in the day, Past President Steven Levine spoke about the importance of treating lawyers with dignity and respect and allowing them to choose where their money would go. He advocated for a more open-ended approach.

The State Bar’s proposal also included a measure that would have extended the assessment to judicial members. Right now, only active lawyers and the justices are assessed the $50. The proposal sought to include judges, court commissioners and appellate staff attorneys among those responsible for the assessment.

However, the justices tabled that issue until they are able to get feedback from members of the judiciary. Supreme Court staff will solicit input from them in the next couple months.

Supreme Court Commissioner Julie A. Rich will draft the proposed changes necessary to modify the assessment. The draft changes are expected to come back to the justices in early January, so that they can give final approval in time for a check list to be included in the State Bar’s 2008 dues statements.

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