Editorial: Overdue notice

Listen to this article

Fifty-two counts of alleged misconduct are pending against attorney Bridget Boyle-Saxton.

The state Office of Lawyer Regulation, in complaints awaiting a ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, alleges Boyle-Saxton mishandled client money, failed to communicate with clients, failed to provide competent representation and charged unreasonable fees, among other rules violations, in a number of client matters.

Yet, as of Wednesday, the State Bar of Wisconsin’s website lists her law license as being in good standing.

There’s no red flag, not even a tiny asterisk, by her name noting the pending investigations. She continues to represent clients.

Boyle-Saxton says the misconduct charges stem from a period in which she battled health problems, but some of the most serious acts of alleged misconduct, including accusations that she failed to file an incarcerated client’s bail request, predate the onset of the health problems she is blaming.

But even if health problems caused her alleged negligence, the fact is she continued to take on clients who had no knowledge that she was practicing at less than her best.

And that is all because Wisconsin does not reveal ongoing investigations into attorney conduct. Information on alleged attorney misdeeds is not public record until the OLR files a formal complaint.

A state Supreme Court rule change, proposed Aug. 28, would grant the justices authority to notify the public of investigations involving possible criminal conduct or “if the attorney’s practicing law represents substantial risk of physical, financial or legal harm to the attorney’s clients or other persons.”

A study supporting the move acknowledged that such disclosures “could subject an attorney to … adverse consequences.” But it’s the public’s right to know that information.

And this proposal would concern only the most serious allegations of attorney misconduct, with the built-in safeguard of state Supreme Court review prior to release.

Granting the justices the authority to, first, make public the charges, then to rule on those charges can be dicey.

By making the charges public, the justices are saying there is a good chance the attorney will be found guilty. To then rule on those charges puts the justices in an uncomfortable position.

Still, concentrating so much power in the state Supreme Court makes sense only because the alternative so clearly withholds vital information from potential clients.

It’s a move that should have been made years ago and it is a solid step in improving transparency in the state’s prosecution of attorney misconduct.