State Supreme Court ends discussions of audit, voluntary bar

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin State Bar dodged a budgetary bullet this week when the Wisconsin Supreme Court voted, 4-3, Monday against a potential performance audit of the organization.

Bar leaders estimate the total cost of a new audit would be $82,080, an expense the organization could not afford, said State Bar President Jim Brennan, when already faced with a potential six-figure deficit.

“It would be nice if people had ton of money to do these things,” he said. “But this year the bar is pinching every penny.”

Rules governing the State Bar allow the justices to order periodic reviews of the organization at the expense of members.

Justice N. Patrick Crooks said it would have been worth the cost. He voted in the minority with Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley to form an audit committee.

“The cost figure was a little misleading,” Crooks said. “The actual cash figure was relatively low and the rest would have been bar staff time to get up to (a total of) about $80,000.”

According to the bar’s breakdown of costs, $50,250 would have been spent compensating State Bar staff designated to perform the audit and $20,500 would have gone toward overhead, costs for which the bar already has money available.

Only $11,330 of the audit would have been an expense unaccounted for by the bar. Crooks said that would have been a small price to pay for the first review of the bar in 30 years.

California does an annual financial review of its bar, he said, and a performance audit every other year.
“That stands in rather stark contract to Wisconsin,” he said, “which hasn’t done one since 1981-83.”

Cost aside, Crooks said he favored the audit as a way to dig deeper into the divisive mandatory versus voluntary bar debate.

“I really thought we could learn something useful,” he said, “about why there is such a strong feeling for a voluntary bar.”

After the court voted down the audit committee the justices, by the same 4-3 vote, opposed Crooks’ recommendation to hold a public hearing for a pending petition to abolish the mandatory bar, ending discussions of the issue.

“I was a little frustrated,” Crooks said. “I would hope that the court will at least revisit the possibility of an audit sometime in the future.”

Brennan said an audit could be worthwhile in the future, but he didn’t see either a financial or practical reason for doing one now.

At its Feb. 10 meeting, the State Bar’s Board of Governors unanimously opposed formation of a performance audit committee.

“Although we had a robust discussion of the nature of the bar as a voluntary or integrated organization,” Brennan said. “I think the reality is nobody really questioned ever if the bar is fulfilling the reason for which it was organized.”