Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Hardship waiver process leaves State Bar open to potential abuse

By: Jack Zemlicka, [email protected]//December 2, 2011//

Hardship waiver process leaves State Bar open to potential abuse

By: Jack Zemlicka, [email protected]//December 2, 2011//

Listen to this article

The number of lawyers seeking waiver of State Bar dues because of hardship spiked this year, calling greater attention to the subjective nature of the wavier approval process.

“It is highly discretionary,” State Bar President Jim Brennan said. “It’s not a matter of right and a waiver is something that is considered on a case-by-case basis.”

The bar’s bylaws provide minimal guidance or oversight of the process, which is conducted by the president and executive director of the bar each August.

Waiver applicants have to disclose employment information, income for the prior year, estimated income for the current year, household size and employment status of residents, savings balance, net worth and monthly household expenses, said Tom Solberg, the bar’s public information officer.

Applicants then have to certify the accuracy of the information, but, Solberg said, there is no validation of the information by the bar.

“We do not have the means to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of information provided to us by applicants,” he said.

That leaves open the possibility, Solberg said, of lawyers falsifying applications in order to avoid paying dues.

Outside of a bylaw that grants the authority of the president to “waive or refund dues or penalties in any case where to do otherwise would work an injustice or an undue hardship,” there are not any written criteria or rules determining standards for who receives a break on dues.

“It totally depends upon who is president,” Jim Boll, immediate past-president of the bar, said. “It’s a completely subjective process.”

Brennan said the vast majority of the approximately 120 applications received this year, according to Executive Director George Brown, were granted some type of deferral or full waiver.

While the bar does not keep track of applications each year, Brown reported at the bar’s Board of Governors meeting Sept. 23 that hardship waiver requests “went through the roof this year,” largely as a result of the down economy.

Any dues waived or deferred through the review process are not collected by the bar and remain unpaid for the year.

Failure to pay annual bar dues, currently set at $224, by July 1 can result in an administrative suspension of an attorney’s law license, unless an application for waiver is made by Aug. 1.

Boll said during his review of applications, he didn’t suspect any were made in bad faith.

Both he and Brennan said the vast majority of the applications they received sought waiver or deferral of dues based on extreme medical conditions or loss of employment by multiple family members.

Madison attorney Kristine Anderson, a paralegal with the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services, said the process’ lack of oversight is shocking.

Anderson spent the first decade of her legal career working as circuit court clerk in Dane County, earning approximately $14 per hour. It was often difficult to afford dues when she still had law school debt and typical family expenses, Anderson said, though she never applied for a dues waiver.

“If I knew someone was abusing the option, I’d be angered by it,” she said, “and probably make a complaint.”

Boll acknowledged it would be hard to determine, in the current process, if anyone was trying to take scam the bar.

“I took them for their word,” he said of his experience processing such requests, “and believed that they were suffering from economic conditions different from the remainder of our members.”

Brennan questioned how many lawyers would try to exploit the bar for a few hundred dollars. He said he took the process seriously and has no serious concerns about the current system.

“I am personally comfortable with the decisions I made,” Brennan said, “and it was done without a list of factors or criteria.”

Boll said a more thorough look at how the bar reviews and grants hardship waivers is something that might be worth looking into, however.

“It’s certainly an issue that should be considered,” he said.

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