WisTAF remains sole recipient of $50 fee

Listen to this article

A recent decision by the state Supreme Court will broaden the list of people required to help fund legal services to the poor, but those fees will continue to be collected by just one organization.

On Feb. 22, the court unanimously voted to include members of the judiciary in the assessment of the $50 fee paid annually to the Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation (WisTAF).

The court also voted to keep WisTAF as the only organization authorized to collect and disseminate the fees. That decision reversed an earlier indication by the court that bar members might have the option of directing the $50 to a law-related civil legal service entity other than WisTAF.

Bar Recommendation Rejected

“The court’s rejection of the bar’s petition to allow some freedom of choice to lawyers on this issue is disappointing to those of us who thought that this was a worthwhile compromise,” said State Bar President Thomas J. Basting Sr., Midwest Mediation LLC.

Last March, the State Bar’s Board of Governors endorsed the proposal by a 29-11 vote.

An additional 450 bar members will be subject to the $50 assessment, according to Supreme Court spokesman Tom Sheehan. That equates to approximately $20,000 in additional money for WisTAF.

Sheehan also noted that the assessment is expected to begin with this year’s billing cycle, though Supreme Court justices have voluntarily paid the annual dues since 2005.

Balanced Distribution

DeEtte Tomlinson, executive director of WisTAF, said one of the main stumbling blocks in allowing attorneys more discretion with their assessment was a perception that funds would be unequally dispersed throughout the state.

Organizations in Madison and Milwaukee would likely have numerous donations, whereas more rural areas of the state would compete for contributions.

“One of the primary concerns was that attorneys interested in designating funds would be very supportive of agencies in their part of the state,” said Tomlinson. “But there are parts of the state that don’t have many attorneys and not as many voices asking for money.”

The court previously suggested a list of credible agencies could be created, but noted the complications involved when determining which organizations would qualify and why.

Additional costs associated with implementing a new system were also a consideration in the court’s ruling.

“Obviously, there would have been a little more cost involved, but I’m disappointed the court didn’t think it was important enough to give lawyers the right to decide where their money goes,” said Past-president Steven A. Levine, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.